Border Fence

The following are rebuttals to Pro’s case and more arguments for mine. Quotes from my opponent are in quotation marks and italicized. 1) Cost “It's no secret that the Border fence is fairly expensive, but it is in fact effective…We have already built it, it's not like we can just tear it down…Since we have already built it, it only makes sense to keep building onto it since it actually works. If we didn't have the fence, we would have a much higher crime rate, more illegal immigration occurring, transporting of unsafe deadly drugs and of course, Human trafficking.” Pro concedes that the border fence is extremely costly. Furthermore, the statistics she used do not show that the border fence itself is the cause behind the drop in apprehensions. Even Pro’s own source 7 from R2 admits that the fence did not stop immigrants from crossing. As shown in my previous round, migrants will do anything they possibly can in order to cross the border as long as incentives exist for them to do so. They will tunnel under the fence, go around it, though it, or above it, ‘“in some cases in less than a minute”’. [1] Several other explanations for this trend of fewer apprehensions include increases in border patrol agents and improved technology such as “Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft”. [2] Pro also states that expanding the border fence will reduce a number of crimes, but no proof is given of how or why doing so will ameliorate those harms. 2) Effectiveness Pro cites data showing that crime rates, apprehensions, and the sale of narcotics has declined in border counties, but once again fails to show how the border fence itself is responsible for these reductions. As stated above, improved technology and increased border patrols could also account for the decreases. Migrants have been proven able to overcome much more than a 6-mile pedestrian fence, so it is highly unlikely that this deterred them in any significant way. A far more plausible reason for these statistics is simply that the people in question—migrants, criminals, drug dealers, be what it may—shifted their patterns to avoid areas where the fence had been built. [1] Pro has yet to show that the border fence is effective in achieving its intended purpose, or how an extension of the fence will bring more benefits than harms. 3) Price in human lives “Yes, I agree many have died in attempt to cross the border. But many of these people crossing are not just crossing to try to have "better lives" for their self's and their families…We're just trying to protect OUR citizens from their dangerous act's. It's not our fault that they are dying by trying to commit dangerous crimes. They know their actions, they know the effects and consequences.” Pro concedes that the border fence brings with it a high cost in human lives. She tries to argue that migrants do not only cross to gain a better life, but this claim is unsourced. Interviews with immigrants revealed this as the prevailing sentiment: ‘“We don't care if we have to walk eight days, fifteen days—it doesn't matter the danger we put ourselves in. If and when we cross alive, we will have a job to give our families the best.’” [3] These are people who will risk their own lives if it means they can support their families. They know the dangers all too well, and yet they still cross. Trying to shift the blame does nothing to erase the fact that people do in fact die by the thousands while crossing the border. Pro proposes extending the fence, which will only contribute to the amount of deaths by increasing the risks of crossing. On the other hand, more legal immigration along the lines of the HR-15 plan explained in R2 can counter this harm by providing safe routes for immigrants. 4) Environmental impact “The problem here with the "Enviormental issues, is that there really is no threat to the enviorment…You state the problem, but yet there has not been any major issues with this.” “It seems as if you are insinuating that the species live's are more important then humans. I mean what's more important, keeping species safe, or protecting our country and citizens?” Pro again doesn’t dispute that the border fence extensively changes the environment for the worse and endangers rare plants and animals. She says that there have not been major issues, but, as I stated clearly, “the still bare slopes of the earthen dam…wash tremendous amounts of dirt into the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, which is only 600 feet away.” [4] Also, “grates built into the base of the wall to allow for the passage of water…acted as a dam, with floodwaters…causing millions of dollars of damage to private businesses and government buildings.” [4] The massive impact that the border fence has on ecosystems is not to be underestimated. Expanding the fence will mean expanding the environmental destruction as well, which will result in the extinction of many species in much of the Southwest United States. While this may not seem as important as human life, one need only look at the roots of any civilization to understand that the wellbeing of any community or nation greatly depends on the wellbeing of its natural resources. NOTE: Due to time constraints, which I have explained to my opponent, I was not able to complete the last bit of this before submitting. Voters are welcome to award conduc to my opponent, but I ask that this incident not have any bearing in deciding the actual arugments. I will include what I missed here in the next round. I apologize to readers and to my opponent for this inconvenience. Sources: [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... [2] http://www.usnews.com... [3] http://commdocs.house.gov... [4] http://www.no-border-wall.com...