The US should build a wall along its border with Mexico

Thanks to Pro for the debate.Burdens:In this debate, Pro has to prove that, on balance, building a wall would benefit the United States and have a net benefit in general. I'm going to prove the opposite; that building such a wall doesn't have benefits. Pro tries to shift the entirety of the burden of proof in this debate onto me by saying "many countries have border barriers and it's my burden to prove that we don't need one." First, Pro doesn't just have to defend the current existence of any "border barriers" which don't constitute "walls," given that walls have a solid foundation along their whole length. At the very least, Pro needs to defend the construction of barriers with solid foundations in the area of the U.S.-Mexico border not currently covered by barriers. Second, even if other countries implement these barriers, that isn't a reason to shift the burden on me given that the United States has not completed the construction of such a "wall"; Pro has to defend a deviation from the status quo. As a result, they have a burden in this debate as well.In this debate, my stance is simply that the United States should not build barriers (with solid foundation) along its entire border with Mexico. I don't need to, in this debate, need to go into any more specifics; this is simply a comparison between a world with a wall and a world without a border wall. In general, I support a more liberalized immigration policy, but that's not something I have to defend in this debate.Roadmap:I have three claims: (1) the United States government has an obligation to both its citizens and immigrants; (2) the costs of Pro's plan outweigh any costs prevented; (3) current rates of undocumented immigration to the United States are desirable. My refutation of Pro's case will be interwoven throughout my case. Note: In the next round, I'll also talk about the impacts of a wall on wildlife.I. Moral ObligationsThe role of the United States government is two-fold in this debate: advancing the interests of its own people, and advancing the interests of other people, including undocumented immigrants and other actors in this debate. The reason for that is that even if the government has a specific obligation to its people, that doesn't mean it has no obligation whatsoever to anyone else, for the simple reason that preventing human suffering is a good in and of itself. This debate, then, should be weighed according to who has a net benefit on all relevant stakeholders.Pro says that the role of government comes by a reciprocal obligation to its people, and that it owes no such obligation to immigrants. I have two responses to this. First, the role of government does not come out of some contractual obligation to its people. Instead, it comes from a simple framework of advancing benefit of all individuals; everyone has a basic interest in a good quality of life, and thus people have obligations to other individuals to uphold a net good quality of life. The government, as representative of a population which has such obligations, then, has an obligation to uphold this right to a decent quality of life for all individuals. Second, the U.S., in particular, has a direct obligation to undocumented immigrants coming from Mexico. Massive problems of poverty afflicting the Mexican people have been perpetuated by U.S. policy; for instance, as a result of NAFTA, two million Mexican jobs were lost and Mexican agriculture suffered. [1] Indeed, as Noam Chomsky explains, "The flight of Mexicans was anticipated: Clinton initiated the militarization of the border when NAFTA was passed. It was quite predictable that NAFTA would destroy much of the campesino class, unable to compete with highly subsidized US agribusiness, along with other effects by now well-documented. Immigration follows as night follows day." [2] Beyond just NAFTA, massive agricultural subsidies that the U.S. government gives large farmers causes massive harm to the ability of Mexican agriculture to compete. Susanna Baumann of the Huffington Post explains, "Agricultural dumping between the United States and Latin American countries have swept agricultural production and prices in nearby countries while increasing displaced rural workers' migration." [3] As a result, the U.S. has a direct obligation to these individuals, fleeing the lack of economic opportunities in Mexico often as a result of American foreign and economic policy. If Pro buys the principle of reciprocity, they should also agree that the U.S. has an obligation to immigrants. II. CostsThe border wall would cost a lot. According to a Department of Homeland Security internal report, Trumo's wall plan would cost $21.6 billion. [4] Bloomberg has estimated that the cost of completing the fence would be $28 billion per year. [5] The Washington Post issued an extensive criticism of Trump's cost estimates, arguing that it would cost around $25 billion. [6] None of those estimates takes into account the maintenance costs of the wall; the Congressional Budget Office "estimates that wall maintenance costs will exceed the initial construction costs within seven years." [7] Note that this is just Trump's plan, which is a combination of fences and walls; Pro has to defend a wall across the whole border which doesn't have barriers yet, so that would probably cost even more. Pro says the cost of immigrants within a country exceed that, costing upto $30 billion a year. However, that relies on the idea that a border wall has 100% solvency to immigration, which isn't even likely. The anti-immigration think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, suggests that somewhere between 30 and 57 percent of undocumented immigrants within the United States are there due to visa overstays. [8] Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office reported that the problem is probably greater than 57 percent. [8] I'll get into efficacy in more detail next round, but that at least means that the costs of a border wall substantially exceed the fiscal benefit. This is a huge opportunity cost that denies vulnerable Americans their rights to a basic quality of life – money that could otherwise be expended with massive utility.III. Benefits of ImmigrationI argue that current rates of undocumented immigration to the United States are desirable; and reducing those rates are harmful. For one, low-skilled immigrants are willing to quickly relocate to new markets when existing markets fail. This would fix labor shortages. In the Schengen zone, upto 25% of a labor shock could be absorbed by low-skilled immigrants. [9] Additionally, immigrants affect prices. A 1% increase in immigrants would reduce prices by 0.5%. [10] This has a positive effect, in controlling inflation, and increasing consumption, benefiting the economy. Finally, immigrants themselves are consumers, adding heavily to the economy. It's no wonder, then, that only 16.7% of economists think that the current rate of immigration is too high. [11] This is crucial because it takes down the crux of Pro's case: the notion that undocumented immigration is bad. If the slate is wiped clean, and I deal with Pro's best world, one where the wall reduces immigration, that actually has a negative impact on the economy. But beyond just that, the wall would hurt immigrants. It would force prospective immigrants to take dangerous desert routes, risking their lives. [12] And for those immigrants who don't come, it significantly hurts their economic opportunities. On average, immigrants can double their wages, improving their quality of life, and, crucially, sending remittances back home. These remittances can progress the economic opportunities in other nations as well. [13] In short, the border wall would deny immigrants basic opportunities, cut the flow of remittances, harm the U.S. economy, and put a massive strain on the budget. [1] http://cepr.net... [2] https://chomsky.info... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.reuters.com... [5] https://www.bloomberg.com... [6] https://www.bloomberg.com... [7] http://www.sierraclub.org... [8] https://cis.org... [9] http://www.nber.org... [10] http://www.uh.edu... [11] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr... [12] https://www.theguardian.com... [13] http://www.nber.org...