Border Fence

C1) The Border Fence is environmentally destructive Border fence proponents have claimed that the border fence would not negatively affect the environment. These claims have not been verified by academic researchers. University of Texas scholars have investigated these claims; the research concluded that border fencing would adversely impact the ecosystem in Texas. The scholars argued that any data claiming that the border fence would have no impact is “nonR08;existent.” [1] Border fences restrict movement and cause habitat fragmentation. Animals which migrate or need to move to survive are negatively impacted by border fences. Other organisms need to be in a single, un-fragmented, habitat in order for breeding to occur. This is especially threatening to endangered species which could theoretically be separated by a fence and lead to inadequate breeding populations. The border fence would actually go through the Wildlife Refuge which is home to many endangered and migratory species which would be harmed by a fence. The government has already spent $80 million in order to make sure the aforementioned habitats could effectively house the animals present. This also took negotiations with the Mexican government in order to allow the same to occur on their end. According to the University of Texas study, erecting a border wall in Texas would “fragment over 500 acres of land, of which over 400 serve as wildlife habitat. Destruction and/or alteration of this habitat will impose additional stress on wildlife in a region that has already been cleared of 95% of its native vegetation.” The fence would also cause “increased road mortality along access and patrol roads, loss of habitat cover and connectivity, altered wildlife behavior and range due to high intensity lightning/construction/operational noise, and the interruption of mating activities necessary to sustain wildlife populations over time. These effects are significant and irreversible.” [1] The study also suggest that the Mexican grey wolf, one of most endangered species in America, would be negatively affected by a border fence. Another study published by the American Institute of Biological Science looked at how the border fence would affect wildlife in Arizona. The study found that the wall would harm javelinas, ocelots, and the Sonoran pronghorn. The fence could also prevent Jaguars from repopulating Southern Arizona [2]. Fences also disrupt local black bear populations. Most black bears on the border are closely related to those on the other side, and are thought to migrate indiscriminately to breed with Mexican bears [3]. Border fencing, according to new research, would separate these groups and prevent them from thriving. Not only are fences fragmenting their habitat; new highways and urbanization pose a threat, too. Reducing the impacts from fencing would mitigate some of the harms caused by urbanization and infrastructure. C2) Fiscal cost Any benefits from fencing must be weighed against the fiscal cost of building a fence along the border. The length of the US-Mexico border is 1,933 miles long [4]. The USFG has completed 652 miles of fencing [5]. Bloomberg has estimated the cost of completing the fence would be $28 billion per year [6]. Anti-immigration groups find the cost of illegal immigration at the federal level to be $29 billion dollars, or about the same as construction of the fence [7]. Of course, state costs are more, but as Varrack has already argued fiscal costs, and I will respond to these flawed calculations later. Forbes has calculated that a border fence would cost $40,000 per illegal immigrant apprehension [8]. We must also take into account deportation. The border fence would have no effect on the immigrants currently here. As Varrack argues immigration is a bad thing, it seems logical that we would deport illegal aliens as well as seal the border. Deportation could cost up to $600 billion [9]. Coupled with the cost of completing the fence, border enforcement is actually much higher than allowing immigrants to stay here using the flawed calculations by anti-immigration groups. C3) Many immigrants do not even cross the border Assume that the fiscal cost of immigration is negative. Assume it is larger than the costs of a fence. Even under that scenario, it still does not justify a border fence. The reason is simple: a large percentage, maybe even a majority, of immigrants no longer cross the border. Those immigrants would not be stopped, slowed, or in any way hindered by the construction of a border fence. Even assuming immigration is a bad thing, if enough immigrants will not be deterred or apprehended due to border fencing, the fiscal cost of increased enforcement and fencing would not outweigh the effects of reduced immigration. I will first cite the anti-immigration think tank, the Center for Immigration studies (CIS). The CIS offers convincing evidence that it is possible that a majority of immigrants in this country came here legally but overstayed their Visas (which, in turn, makes them illegal). The CIS cited a DHS report which found that 27-57% of illegal immigrants were here due to Visa overstays. They then cite a GAO report which says the DHS report has underestimated the problem, suggesting that the Visa overstay problem could be more significant than 57% [10]. The border fence would be unable to stop more than half of the immigrants who enter this country illegally. The “benefits” from reducing immigration would be outweighed by the fiscal cost of construction and border patrol utilizing the fencing for apprehension. Not only that, Mexico is no longer the largest source of immigrants. According to the Wall Street Journal, the immigration debate is caught in a time warp. Conservatives assume that most immigrants come from Mexico and cross the border (the second assumption already refuted), so a fence would significantly impact immigration. This is incorrect. China and India have now surpassed Latin American countries as the largest source of immigration. The WSJ notes, “China [has] replaced Mexico as the top country sending immigrants to the U.S. … immigration from both China and India has been increasing for a decade, and inflows from other Asian countries are climbing as well, while immigration from Mexico has been declining.” [11] A Pew Research study found that, in 2010, 36% of new immigrants were Asian; only 31% of newcomers were from Latin America [12]. Asian immigrants do not cross the Southwestern border; any fencing would be ineffective at preventing Asian immigrants. If we couple that with the 57% of immigrants who overstay their Visas, that means 93% of immigrants do not physically cross the border where fencing would be stationed. So only 7% of immigration could be deterred or prevented. I highly doubt that a 7% reduction of the “cost” of illegal immigration would outweigh the fiscal impacts a border fence would have. To actually crunch the numbers, the Fence would cost $28 billion. According to the extremist anti-immigration study [7], immigration costs $113 billion. A 7% reduction would mean we would reduce costs of immigration by $8 billion—or, in other words, the fence would leave us $20 billion worse off. C4) Immigration is a good thing There needs to be one thing Varrack is required to do if he is to win this debate: prove that illegal immigration is a net negative. Economists don’t agree. Only 16.7% of economists think that the current rate of immigration is too high [13]. Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, argues that “illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy.” [14] Greenspan discusses supposed wage depression and the fiscal costs which Varrack has already alluded to, but suggests that “wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs.” Illegal immigration is just the trade of labor. Like the trade of goods and services, free trade benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration—both legal and illegal—have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. Although this number may seem small compared to the entire economy, economists agree that if the US was not so strict about restricting the number of immigrants, the economic benefits would be much higher [15]. Immigrants affect prices. A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city’s population reduces prices by 0.5% [16]. This has a few effects. First, it reduces inflation. So an influx of immigrants during a time of high inflation could benefit the US economy. Second, it means demand increases. Not only is there more demand because there are more people, but lower prices spur more consumption. This increases economic growth. And third, the larger economy due to economic growth leads to a larger tax base and more revenue. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration [17]. The fiscal and job aspects of immigration will be refuted next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...; 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com...; 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com... 16. http://tinyurl.com... 17. http://tinyurl.com...;