The United States should build and maintain a border fence

"...Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” --Plaque on the Statue of Liberty “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers” –Princess Leia UI = Undocumented Immigration UIs = Undocumented Immigrants Summary The topic of this debate is on whether or not the USFG should build and maintain a border fence. Pro offered a plan to build a fence, whereas I offered a counterplan. As agreed, the winner of this debate will be whoever’s advocacy has the most net benefits overall. My opponent’s plan would demolish the US economy, decrease border security, perpetuate criminal activity, incentivize drug cartels, put the US at a higher risk of a terrorist attack, kill tens of thousands of immigrants, break a treaty with Mexico, drive 3 species to extinction, devastate 3 Indian nations, steal from the poor, and take $16 B away from Homeland Security (and doesn’t stop UI). In contrast, my plan eliminates nearly 100% of UI, rockets the US economy, boosts native-born and non-native-born workers’ incomes, provides more jobs, bolsters the GDP, stops 100% human trafficking, protects against terrorism, cuts prison costs in half in the short term and far more in the long run, reduces crime, eliminates border-crossing deaths, gives $12 B to border patrol, reduces pollution, reduces criminal activity on the US Mexico border, and reduces poverty in American Indians and veterans. Undocumented immigration (UI) prevention My opponent says my plan advocates open borders and accepts UIs. This is false; crossing the border illegal will still be against the US law under my counterplan. My counterplan replaces UI with legal immigration by making citizenship easy (one only needs to pass a background check). My counterplan: My counterplan stops nearly 100% of undocumented immigration (UI). Currently, crossing the border illegally is dangerous and difficult; nevertheless, nearly 750,000 UIs enter the US each year. My counterplan makes immigrating as a citizen far easier than immigrating illegally; thus, my counterplan would cause most of these 750,000 people to be citizens instead of UIs. Because the only people who would be crossing without documents are looking to avoid the law generally, my counterplan would reduce the attempted UIs to a few hundred. Pro does not contest these numbers. It would be far easier for border patrol to catch a few hundred than a few hundred thousand—Pro does not dispute this claim. Therefore, there would be a nearly 100% end of successful undocumented immigration, a huge wave of legal immigration, AND a near 100% end of crime due to border crossing. Pro’s Plan: Pro states that his fence will stop UI. Unfortunately, this claim is bogus. It only covers 1/3 of the US-Mexico land border. Pro says that the other parts of the border are impossible to cross. I have shown that UIs do cross these dangerous paths, sometimes even to their deaths. Pro states in R4 that if border crossing seems hard, immigrants will stop trying. Not only is this claim false, but it is also contradictory. Pro says in R3: “So long as the US has a better economy [than Mexico], people will seek to migrate. Poor countries support illegal immigration into the U.S.” According to Pro’s earlier claim, persons from less wealthy nations will try to migrate no matter what—fence or no fence. Even if Pro’s fence is 100% effective, these 750,000 persons will try to immigrate around the fence, and will subsequently die, be deported, or successfully immigrate illegally. Immigration & the economy Undocumented immigration (UI) is good for the economy, but documented immigration is best. Pro’s plan takes away UI but doesn’t make documented immigration easier (good-->bad), I replace UI with legal immigration (good-->best). I therefore make two claims using my evidence: (1) UI is good, (2) documented immigration is best. Pro does not dispute 2, which means that I already win the economic debate: My counterplan is “best,” providing an influx of legal immigration to replace UI, whereas Pro’s plan is either only “good” (if UIs are bad) or “bad” (if UIs are good). Just to be sure, I will also review my evidence that Pro’s plan is economically disastrous. First, Pro’s criticism of C3, C5, and C7 are all inappropriate new points. I give eight reliable sources [3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 23, 24, 25] that UI is great for the economy, although legal immigration is best. Pro’s plan slows both UI and legal immigration, destroying jobs, lowering income, and losing over $1 T. Pro’s new argument that the US suddenly acquired a surplus of cheap labor within a 3-year timespan is uncited and outrageous. Pro’s only “source” is a hate group (FAIR) [1] that only selects the evidence it prefers, ignoring, for example, the economic benefits of education [2]. Pro doesn't contest either point. Thus, all my sources are entirely unchallenged. Guest programs don’t increase the GDP, and thus wouldn’t help the US economy. Terrorism No undocumented immigrant has ever been found to be a terrorist or carrying a terrorist weapon, ever. There are 100,000+ miles of border not protected by the fence. Pro’s plan only covers 1/3 of the US-Mexico border. Terrorists could obviously go anywhere else. Pro takes $16 B away from the Department of Homeland Security. The fence would cause Mexican hatred toward the US for halting immigration and breaking a treaty, creating a population of terrorists who neighbor the US. Additionally, breaking the treaty may mean a loss in $10 T in trade. Drug cartels’/weapons dealers’ incentives Drugs and weapons go across the checkpoints, not through the unpaved borders, rendering the fence pointless. Pro drops this point. The border fence if successful incentivizes drug cartels and eliminates their small-time competition. The same goes for weapons dealers. Thus, the border fence would make the border more insecure due to drug/weapon trade violence. Crime Forcing undocumented immigrants outside the law increases crime. Pro says my plan would only reduce the immediate jail expenses by about half; in contrast, Pro’s plan doesn’t give any immediate expense relief. In the long run, my plan lowers crime in general and saves money. The fence will kill thousands of humans Under Pro’s plan, undocumented immigrants will be forced to cross dangerous territories where thousands have already died, leading to tens of thousands of deaths. Life should be valued over economic concerns. Human trafficking (uncontested) Unlike a border fence, Easy Citizenship stops sex trafficking entirely by eliminating recruitment. Pro doesn’t contest this point. The fence will kill 3 species. I’ve already mentioned by bypasses won’t work. The fence contributes to bright light and noises which prevent breeding, and also prevent approaching the fence/overpass. Both mating and meeting across the border is necessary for their survival. These points were unrefuted. Three Indian reservations My R3 arguments was nearly entirely devoted to the problems of constructing a fence around the reservations. Pro makes a bogus new argument that there is no business in reservations. In fact, most of these three nations’ reservation income comes from tourism and casinos. The fence would kill these businesses, throwing the impoverished tribespersons into deeper poverty. Pro’ plan steals land from the poor without appropriate compensation (uncontested). My alternative increases security ($12 B to the Border Patrol) reduces poverty in veterans ($2 B or interest-free loans), as well as improves public education for Indian nations ($2 B). Ableism Pro equates the “mentally-ill” (R3) to the “criminally-insane” (R4), and demands that they be rejected from the United States. Criminal insanity refers exclusively to using the insanity plea during a trial; it is not a diagnosis. Having two “mental illnesses,” I am surprised to learn that I am not fit to be an American. For shame.