Border Fence

Con objects to my analogy about how Con would not just allow anyone to come into the place where they live. Con says "This is a faulty analogy because, unlike a personal home, the United States is an open country where ideally everyone should have a chance to achieve their dreams" Con equates the right of Americans of free movement in America to the free movement of Mexicans who want to come into America. How is this equivalent ? Con goes on to talk about the immigration and desire for a better life (who doesn't want a better life ?) of past immigrants. This history lesson does not refute the reasons I gave for having the border fence. Which brings me to addressing Cons objections to my reasons for a border fence. Con says "The United States is in no danger of "starving to death" as we have the highest GDP in the world by far and certainly the financial issues we do have are hardly due to illegal immigrants" I think Con here is taking food supply for granted. Humanity the USA included, has struggled to produce enough food, even today people starve to death in other regions of the world. If Con feels secure in the USA ability to produce or attain food, this is only cause alot of work is done to create this situation, its not the natural state of affairs in nature. Part of creating this situation where food is plentiful, is creating a society and economy that is stable. Allowing anyone or any mexican to come into the USA at their own choosing hurts not helps this stability. Con argues that the USA will need Mexicans for labour. This is false, cause it treats all Mexicans the same. For instance the Mexican that is a Doctor is alot different to the Mexican that can only do manual labour. For instance if the USA had a shortage of Doctors, allowing any Mexican at their own choosing to come into the USA such as the one who can only do manual labour does help meet this labour need. Con says "Women are giving birth to fewer and fewer children as almost every country moves closer to industrialization or post-industrialization" Although I agree that women are giving birth to fewer and fewer children, this does NOT equate too a lets let in any Mexican that wants to come in. As a nation such as the USA advances economically and technologically, this means that more and more is able to be produced per unit of labour, meaning you can get more and more with less and less people. This refutes Con argument that some how the USA will need Mexicans, such as where Con says "So if we're going to need more workers and immigrants, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on this government boondoggle to keep them out" Con says "All of the world's systems, from job systems to health systems, are based on the fallacy that the world's population is going to continue growing indefinitely" Con regards continuing population growth as fallacious, but is arguing that Mexicans should be allowed into the USA en mass, thus increasing population growth. This is an outright contradiction. Con says "The fence irreparably damages the environment." Pretty much all human activity does environmental damage. Even if we went back to the stone age, the cutting down of trees for fire wood and killing animals for food damages the environment. Is Con arguing that something should not be done if it damages the environment ? I don't think so, I think Con is being selective with their environment damage reasoning. Con says "The immigrants are going to come whether we have a barrier or not" Using this type of reasoning, the USA should not try to stop murder, cause it is going to happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop rape, cause it will happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop death, cause everyone will die. Con would reject such reasoning on these issues, thus Con should reject such reasoning in their argument. Con says "the problem of the barrier to the already daunting task immigrants have crossing the Arizonan desert is cruel" Then I suggest Con advocate policy that takes away the incentives for Mexicans to try to come into the USA by crossing the desert in the first place. My reasons for the fence still stand. I look forward to Cons reply.