Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border fence.

Hegemony? I have very few disagreements with Lannan’s arguments here. This argument is simply an argument in favor of border fences, which works under my first argument. The only place he really differs from my position is in his second argument, which we will come to in a little bit. What I will say, however, is forcing Mexico to pay for the border wall will weaken the position of the U.S. even further and would be against our security interests. First, let’s start out by saying: how would the USFG ensure that Mexico builds the wall? The wall runs contrary to Mexican interests, and this is why Mexico lobbies—and lobbies hard—against immigration controls. Mexicans receive $25 billion in the form of remittances from American immigrants, and this number actually now exceeds the amount the country receives from oil revenues.[1] Building an effective fence would reduce the amount of money the Mexican government would receive in tax revenue (not to mention harm families who sent their breadwinner to the United States). The Mexican government should not be expected to simply lay on its back and surrender when a border fence threatens a revenue source larger than oil and gas. So, how would we force them to build the wall? Or would we threaten military force, threaten harsh tariffs if they refuse to comply? Simply asking them to pay for the wall because immigration harms us would not work—they care about their interests, not ours. And both of these—military force and/or enacting tariffs—would weaken U.S. hegemony. 1) Threatening force in this situation would look like an unprovoked (or, at least, a very weakly justified) use of force. This would make us look untrustworthy and immoral to our European and Middle Eastern allies whom we rely upon to counter our enemies. It would also have repercussions in the Asian theatre, too—and that’s the only theatre our position has consistently improved since Nixon was in office. 2) In order to enforce tariffs in order to encourage the Mexicans to build the wall, we would have to renege the promises made in NAFTA. Whatever your views on the legislation, breaking NAFTA would make us look untrustworthy in the eyes of our allies: we broke a longstanding treaty, on weak grounds, in order to get a fence built. Our allies would worry—arguably correctly—that we may renege trade deals we have made with them, too, if we ever need them to do something for us. It would tatter our image and would validate the caricatures our enemies have painted of us. Not only would that, but Mexico— even if they build it— have no incentives to make it work. And even if they did make it perfectly, they would be incentivized to do it slowly and inefficiently. Of course, we could threaten (1) and (2), but that would, as noted, weaken our position as the leader of the free world. Debt crisis? This is the real difference my opponent and I have for this debate. This argument is extremely weak for a few reasons. First, the amount of the budget that would be consumed by the border fence would be infinitesimally small. My opponent cites $260 million a year in maintenance costs, which may sound large, but the phrase “a drop in the bucket” exaggerates how large that is. The 2015 budget is $3.8 trillion dollars.[2] $260 million a year in maintenance costs would only be 0.0068% of the 2015 budget. Using Lannan’s $25 billion in initial construction costs—I will simply accept the number—is only 0.6% of the 2015 budget. To say 0.6% of the 2015 budget—and 0.0068% in the following years—will cause a budget crisis is laughable. Even assuming we would have a budget crisis (we wouldn’t), making the Mexicans—or anyone else, for that matter—pay for the border fence would do nothing to prevent a budget crisis. Nothing. Second, Lannan—in order to prevent a spending counterplan from myself—says this debate is “ceteris paribus.” That doesn’t even make sense. The current border wall is not complete, and where it has been built it was done so insufficiently. The resolution itself—“the U.S. should”—implies that the fence will be built in the future. The future will be different than it is today, so saying the world in which we build the border fence will be the same as it is today is absurd. Not only that, but my opponent’s counterplan is anything but ceteris paribus! Building a fence, getting Mexico to pay for it (likely by reneging a trade deal or threatening force) is entirely hypothetical! If this debate was “ceteris paribus,” neither one of us would have much to talk about, and surely Lannan’s counterplan would be thrown out. Thus, there is nothing prohibiting me from posting a counter plan in regards to government spending. Third, the U.S. won’t, and probably never will, have a debt crisis. We are not Greece, we are not Spain, we are not Ireland, and we are not Italy. -- Debt will cause inflation? Well, first, my response to that is simple: good. U.S. inflation is terrifyingly low right now, and a few percentage points in higher inflation would be a positive development for our economy. But my opponent is correct that expansionary policy leads to more inflation—but he does not explain why, which is important. High inflation due to more demand and a vibrant economy is not a bad thing—something extremists and fear mongering politicians always forget. Here’s why spending increases inflation: “If expansionary fiscal policy achieves its intended purpose of boosting output and employment, the increased money supply will match increased demand for money needed for a higher level of transactions. Expansionary fiscal policy would only fuel inflationary pressures in the economy and place upward pressure on interest rates if the accompanying increases in demand pushed the economy close to, or beyond, full capacity output.”[3] In other words, the type of inflation being caused is the good kind, the kind caused by increased demand and growth—not over printing! -- U.S. debt default? All of my opponent’s arguments here are what ifs. The U.S. will never default on its debt. Ever. You can’t compare us to the other countries that have: we have a much larger economy than they do and are much more important. Japan is the closest example we have, as they are a large and influential economy. Japan’s debt to GDP ratio hit 200% in 2013. We’re over 100% below them, at 97%.[4] Japan hasn’t defaulted on their debt. When we get to that point (more accurately, if we get to that point) we likely won’t either. It should also be noted Japan has problems we don’t have—like a shrinking population and deflation (there goes that debt inflation argument…)—which exacerbate the problem. In the U.S., with neither of those problems, we have even less to fear. So, to summarize: (1) Making Mexico pay for the wall will do NOTHING to prevent any of the harms my opponent complains about; (2) Many of his worries are flat our wrong; (3) We don’t have to look at this debate “ceteris paribus.” I am allowed to present a counterplan to deal with the debt while, at the same, time, maintaining border security—a superior option. How to really deal with debt My opponent’s plan would do nothing to deal with mounting debt. In fact, it would likely make it worse: it distracts us from more viable options. The solution is to adopt AEI’s spending cut plan.[5] The plan would “hold the national debt to 62.7 percent of annual gross domestic product (GDP) in 2040,” lower than it is today and far below the threshold of default. In the limited space I have I won’t be able to provide the entire plan, but here are the highlights. Those who are interested can look at [5]. Replace the current tax code with an X tax. The X tax is much more conducive to economic growth and prosperity than the current tax code is—the current tax code punishes savings and investment income—and the pro-growth tax code would lead to “additional revenue.” Reform Social Security. A flat benefit of $850 a month will be given to any person above age 65 (earliest eligibility age is 62 right now). This would increase benefits for about one third of people but reduce benefits for high- and middle- income workers, substantially reducing costs and more effectively transferring wealth to those who truly need it. Providing private options to people (option, not full privatization), etc. Reform Healthcare. Medicare eligibility would gradually be increased to 67 years of age to accommodate longer lifespans. Premiums would also increase, but it would be based on income—only the wealthy would be affected. Medicaid would also be reformed with federal payments being capped, though states who found more efficient ways to offer the service would have the ability to increase local payments in order to make up for the fewer benefits. All of these policies would save trillions in the long term—not the puny millions and billions saved by forcing Mexico to build the wall. If you are really worried about debt, a border fence is not an issue—in fact, as immigrants cost the state huge amounts in welfare costs, the U.S. constructing it would likely save in the long-term. Instead of focusing on non-issues, we need to focus on the big picture: how do we reduce debt? We do it by reforming the tax code and reforming entitlements, not forcing our allies to build a wall. 1. http://www.wsj.com...;2. https://www.nationalpriorities.org...3. http://voxeu.org...4. http://data.worldbank.org...5. https://www.aei.org...