Who should be the next POTUS?? Trump(Pro)....Clinton(Con)

Rebuttals to Round 2:1. Border Wall:First of all, your link #2 just brings me to the NY Times website, so we should consider this claim unfounded until you back it up with a link. Your claim about many people being killed by illegal immigrants is invalid as well because many people have been killed by all sorts of groups. It's illogical to pinpoint specific crimes on any one group of people as a means of supporting preventing immigration of a group of people. All nationalities have murderers in them; you can't blame one group for all of America's problems. Furthermore, the idea that immigrants are more violent than other native-born groups of similar education and socioeconomic status are just not true, as this study reports: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...Now that we have the facts straight, I will separate this section into anti-wall and anti-mass deportation.When someone proposes a solution to a problem, we can't just assume that it will work. So the first thing we must do is ask ourselves if this wall will work if built or if it is even buildable. All claims, unless otherwise indicated, in this paragraph come from this article: http://www.newsweek.com... . The first obstruction to the building of this wall comes from geographical features. First of all, the Rio Grande. Obviously the wall would have to be built on our side of the river, effectively blocking access to it for millions of people who depend on it for water and their livelihood. Given that Trump is supposedly the candidate who will fix and grow our economy, this policy doesn't seem very consistent with his message. Secondly is a number of large reservoirs that straddle the border. The Falcon International Reservoir is about 155 square miles (https://en.wikipedia.org...) which would be a major obstruction for the wall. The United States would have to build the wall on our side of the border, which would mean sacrificing large amounts of territory. Same goes for a slightly smaller reservoir, the Amistad. Another problem is Big Bend National Park, a wild and pristine area in Texas. Do you really want to build a wall through that? So just to build the thing would be a massive logistical and legal challenge in itself. Also, the construction of a wall would require the United States to buy hundreds of miles of property from landowners and businesses, also crippling the area's economy. So, even though it will be extremely difficult or even impossible to build, let's assume for the sake of argument that the wall is built and Mexico has covered the costs. Will it even prevent immigration, though? Drug cartels and coyotajes could eventually bomb it or tunnel under it, and in desert areas, the wall would be nearly impossible to reinforce if damaged. Boats could easily sail from Mexico to Padre Island in Texas, crossing the wall by going around it. The second thing we must ask is, is it necessary? According to the Pew Research Center, less than half (49%) of undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. (http://www.pewresearch.org...) Mexico, as we've seen, is not the only country that undocumented immigrants come from. So why don't we work to make our immigration and naturalization process more streamlined and efficient to prevent illegal immigration from all parts of the world (Asia, Europe, etc.) It makes sense to say that we should do the most important things first; therefore we should focus on the largest source of illegal immigration (countries other than Mexico) and strengthening our immigration system. Then we focus on Mexico. Finally: should we do it? Contrary to popular belief, immigrants help the economy. As the Newsweek article points out, more people living in a certain place means more jobs. So a wall would also hurt border-state economies. For all these reasons, a border wall would be harmful rather than beneficial to the country.Now for my anti-mass deportation arguments. People have made their homes here. They have children here, and you want to get rid of all of them? After all, they're just looking for a better life. A mass deportation policy would tell them, "You don't deserve this opportunity to have a good life because of where you were born." Is that who we want to be as a country? Instead of building walls to keep people out, we should invite people in--but in a smart way. We do need to crack down on drug imports and the like, but if we go with an overly simplistic "solution" such as a wall we also keep out parents who want their kids to live a better life. We keep out people who are just looking for a way out of the cycle of poverty they are experiencing. And you want to tell them no? Why on earth would anybody want to keep those people out, people who want hope instead of violence and suffering? We should have a pathway to citizenship rather than mass deportation so that everybody, not just people who were born here, can experience the American dream.On a more practical note, immigrants also contribute to local economies as well. See above.Pro-Trump Contention 2 response:I agree completely with you on this one. The way we treat our veterans is a disgrace and must be fixed immediately. However, this is a moot point because Hillary also has the same policy: https://www.hillaryclinton.com... Anti-Clinton Contention 3 response:I concede to you this point. It's not that I can't think of a response, it's that I believe it was a completely stupid thing to do. It might also be potentially disqualifying if not for two reasons:1. Trump, just a few days ago, has invited Russia to carry out cyberattacks on us. So Hillary made it easier for foreign countries to spy on us, while Trump actually encouraged foreign countries to hack us. So what does this tell us about his future cybersecurity policies?2. With all the legal and political backlash that Clinton is facing, it would be pretty stupid of her to try it again. I believe that we can know with reasonable certainty that she will not make the same mistake in the future.I do not concede, however, your statement about refugees. The United States vetting system is one of the most thorough, sometimes taking up to two years. Here's how it works: https://www.whitehouse.gov...It's so effective that out of the 785,000 refugees admitted into the US since 9/11, only 3 have ever been convicted on terrorism-related charges (http://www.nytimes.com...) So we can be fairly sure that if any ISIS operatives tried to get in, they would not be able to.Anti-Clinton Contention 4 response:Taking money from a group doesn't necessarily mean anything. Giving money to a group is different. Given that she has been a strong champion of women's rights for decades, I don't think that these donations have caused her to change her views.Unfortunately, I've nearly run out of the time and characters necessary to make a satisfactory response to your Round 3 arguments. I will respond to those next round.Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!