The US Federal Government Should Not Construct a Border Fence Between the US and Mexico

I. The Cost of a WallI will cover everything from my opponent’s round 2 and round 3 arguments here. The problem with my opponent’s comparison to the Israeli-Palestinian border fence is that only one tenth of the wall is 25 foot concrete wall. The other nine tenths is only a 6 foot electronic wall, which is much cheaper and is easily surmountable. The concrete part of the Israeli fence cost $1.4 billion and was only 33 miles long. If we extend this to 1,000 miles, the length that most of the wall proposals suggest, an analogy to the Israeli-Palestinian border fence actually predicts a value of $42 billion. [1]But the wall my opponent proposes is more complicated. He’s proposing two walls, each 15 feet in height, with barbed wire in the middle. Assume that the wall extends 5 feet into the ground for stability. Then we’d get that a 25 foot wall would require 30 feet of concrete, and that two 15 foot walls would require 40 feet of concrete. Further, assume that the barbed wire fence is similar to the one along the rest of the Israeli-Palestinian border, which cost $1 billion for 300 miles of fence. Finally, assume the wall extends for 1,000 miles along the border (with the rest being guarded by natural features). With all of these assumptions we get that the wall my opponent proposes would cost $58 billion, which is over three times the $16 billion number my opponent is proposing. Now imagine if the government was really that inefficient as my opponent thinks it is. Then this already large number would increase by a factor of five. [1]And this still doesn’t include the cost of cameras, sensors, and other technology that would be needed to police the wall. Even if we reduce the wall to 700 miles in length, even if the barbed wire fence is ditched, the wall would still cost in excess of $50 billion. And while maintenance would “only” cost somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion, this is still a lot of money in the long term. [2]So, in conclusion, if my opponent’s analogy is correct, we get a wall that costs $58 billion and requires $1.5 billion in manning and maintenance every year. This is an awfully large investment to make, especially considering that, as I’ve shown and will continue to show, a wall is ineffective and most immigrants, including Mexican immigrants, are beneficial. That’s a tax increase of $182 per person, by the way. As for the costs of deportation, remember what I said in the last round that a border wall doesn’t so much prevent immigrants from crossing the border so much as it does make it easier for them to be found. Thus, deportation would still be an issue. I could also argue that we should reform the immigration policies to be friendlier to Mexican immigrants, which would negate the cost of deportation. Either way, current deportation costs are irrelevant. II. The Effectiveness of a WallThere is one major problem with a comparison to the Israeli-Palestinian border fence in terms of effectiveness. This is that the border is much smaller and more densely populated, meaning that a wall, which slows down migrants by a few minutes or so, would be very effective, as there’s bound to be an immigration officer near the part of the border they’re trying to cross. However, the U. S. -Mexico border is much longer and, except for a few small areas, much less populated. In this case, slowing down a migrant by a few minutes isn’t going to make that much difference. [2]As for the effectiveness of the border fence around Yuma, this is because Yuma is only one small part of the border. After the wall there was constructed, it became easier to go around the wall than through it. If this fence is extended to the entire border, immigrants, faced with no other option, would simply return to scaling the fence again. Also, note that the wall along the Saudi Arabia-Iraq border is currently being constructed, so any claims as to its effectiveness cannot be evaluated yet. [3]On the overstayed visa point, my opponent provides two rather nonsensical rebuttals. The first is only relevant to immigrants who are convicted of rape or murder. Mexico’s criminal system is very corrupt. In fact, one study found that 92% of crimes in Mexico aren’t reported. Given the fact that rape is, in general, reported less than other crimes, it is probable that the rate of rapes in Mexico that aren’t reported is even higher. Thus, stopping convicted criminals would only stop a small percentage of the criminals that are trying to enter the U. S. from Mexico. In addition, most Mexican immigrants aren’t criminals, and my opponent doesn’t consider how easy it is for them to obtain visas. [4]The second argument is completely irrelevant. Mexicans don’t apply for permanent visas, they apply for temporary visas. You can’t overstay a permanent visa anyway. And in 2015 alone, over 10 million temporary visas were issued, so there doesn’t seem to be a cap on the number of temporary visas. [5]III. The Benefits of Mexican ImmigrantsI actually have talked about whether or not people from other places besides Mexico and Central America cross the U. S. -Mexico border. See my paragraph beginning with, “The border between” in my round three argument. It is also worth noting that all of the terrorists that took part in the 9/11 attacks were issued visas and did not enter the country by crossing the U. S. -Mexico border. [6]While my opponent makes a potentially good point that it may only be the legal immigrants that are contributing to the U. S. economy, he fails to cite any sources that prove it. The only source he cites is simply an infographic on how businessmen can enter the U. S. through its system of visas. Even so, I’ll add a few things to my argument here. One, regardless, all immigrants contribute to the GDP. Once they reach the U. S. , they have to buy things, which immediately gets included in the GDP count. Consider Texas for instance. A report by Texas comptroller Susan Combs said that, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent”, and that the GDP of Texas would fall by 2.1%. This is similar to the GDP effect removing an equivalent number of low skilled U. S. citizens from Texas would do to the economy. [7]Two, Mexican immigrants do indeed start businesses. “The late USC professor and immigration expert Harry Pachon estimated that 8 to 10 percent of undocumented people in America are legal entrepreneurs. If that’s true, it would mean this subset of immigrants owns hundreds of thousands of U. S. businesses. ” While that percentage is slightly smaller than that of U. S. citizens (which is around 12%), it is still rather large, and means that many businesses are created because of Mexican immigrants. [8]And three, Mexican immigrants have plenty of other benefits. Studies have shown that they are responsible for the creation of 8.1 million jobs in the U. S. , that they increase the average household income of U. S. citizens, and that they pay more in taxes than they receive in government services. On the last point, “There is a fairly broad consensus that the present value of the long-run net fiscal impact of unauthorized immigration, at all levels of government combined, is small but positive—meaning that immigration reduces overall budget deficits. ” Mexican immigrants still pay taxes, such as sales taxes on the items they buy and property taxes on the property they own or rent, and they also pay into social security, as most of them have jobs. [9][10][11]If my opponent would rather have the immigrants be legal, then we should pursue a policy of immigration reform, as a wall is going to do nothing to reform immigration. I’ve explained how a wall is ineffective and how criminals could simply subvert the wall through various means. My opponent has dropped my multiculturalism point as well. It was important, given how I described multiculturalism as a positive trait and how an effective wall would prevent it. ConclusionThe wall, according to my opponent’s specifications, would cost at least $58 billion, plus an additional $2 billion every year in maintenance. It will not be effective, as Mexican immigrants will simply overstay their visas, attempt to scale the wall anyway through the use of ladders or tunnels, or go through the areas the wall isn’t located. Consequently, it will fail to keep out terrorists, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and other criminals and will also fail to keep out contraband and drugs. Thus, the costs simply aren’t worth it. But even if the wall worked well enough to offset the costs, it would still negatively impact the economy by taking away the positive effect Mexican immigrants have on GDP, business growth, jobs, and government income. A wall also discourages multiculturalism, which is a positive thing. Therefore, a border wall should not be built between the U. S. and Mexico. Sources[1]: . https://www.washingtonpost.com...[2]: . http://www.cnbc.com...[3]: . http://freedomdaily.com...[4]: . http://www.insightcrime.org...[5]: . https://travel.state.gov...[6]: . http://cis.org...[7]: . https://www.us-immigration.com...[8]: . http://america.aljazeera.com...[9]: . https://www.perrymangroup.com...[10]: . http://www.cfr.org...[11]: . http://www.epi.org...