Border wall

Hello Because my 2nd round was so rushed, and my 3rd round was so filled to the brim, with literally 0 characters remaining, with new information I would like to go back and talk about some of the points that I was unable to talk about before now. I would like to first start with round 3, and will be discrediting your source the Center for Immigration Studies, now just to let you know, I don't just discredit sources because they are on the liberals side, or the conservative side. They must show that they are willing to intentionally falsify their information, have proven their incompetence, and or have a clear conflict of interest contributing to bias reporting, such as fanatical, racial, and the like. I am afraid that CIS, is not a very reliable source, according to www.splcenter.org, (Sothern Poverty Law Center) "But the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked, and it has frequently manipulated data to achieve the results it seeks. Its executive director last fall posted an item on the conservative National Review Online (which brings that source of yours into question) website about Washington Mutual, a bank that had earlier issued a press release about its inclusion on a list of "Business Diversity Elites" compiled by Hispanic Business magazine. Over a copy of the bank's press release, the CIS leader posted a headline " "Cause and Effect?" " that suggested a link between the bank's opening its ranks to Latinos and its subsequent collapse." The founder of the Center has even been linked to nearly all major white supremacist groups as well as being a major advocate for the forced sterilization of "undesirables" So I wouldn't trust their statistic that say the wall will save us anything, Much less as you called it, "an investment that would pay for itself very quickly." And if the National Review is willing to publish from such an unreliable source, than maybe they aren't so reliable themselves. Especially when the author of your NR story admitted "I"m a journalism major, so my math is always suspect " and there was some outright guesswork involved." You said, "As I previously stated, we would institute a merit based system that would allow in someone who would fit well in the United States." Who would decide who would fit well into a country as diverse, in every meaning of the word, as ours? Trump? Well that would be great news for Norwegians that want to move in. Which leads us to wonder, who would we allow in, in this "merit" based system that Trump has suggested, because before you give him this power, you should really take a good look at his record, even before his presidency. It doesn't matter what you want or support, what matters is whether you support the person who is making the decisions and what he wants. And he has made it clear that he want's them all out. (except for dreamers, in which he has been using them as political hostages against the Dems) Let's move on to this round. You started by talking about the Special force, attempting to get over the prototypes of the wall, and you had a pretty good source this time. honestly I can't fully prove it's accuracy or inaccuracy, however, I will point out, that because the wall's level of testing and structural is at this point, not available for the public, we can only go by what the 2 sources that the AP used, and they not only are employees of the "your fired", and "Democrats are treasonous because they didn't clap for me" guy, but they also leave us in the dark, about what the testing really entailed. (because, why would you scale the wall, which is the only way they, mentioned) when you could climb it with a latter?) And what did Mr. Judd mean when he said, not many people are going to attempt to go over 30 feet? I would want to attempt it for fun, much less if I needed to go somewhere so importantly that I would be willing to dangerously attempt to cross one of the most militarized borders between 2 non at war nations in the world. Who have armed guards who have proven that some of them are willing to shoot with little provocation. To your point about how to build the wall, Trump might build the wall the way you have said, but he hasn't given us any information supporting your idea, and even if he did, those would be the places that the drug mules. and those attempting to sneak into the country would avoid at all cost. "fight the enemy where they aren't" Sun Tzu. You must remember, those who are trying to get in, aren't attacking, which is what the middle age walls where for, large armies. They are on a stealth mission, which means taking time to go through the tough locations. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last round, (my apologies) when I said, that we would be effectively, seceding the Rio Grand, what I was saying is that a giant barrier would get in the way of the US's ability to get at the water, and if Trump follows precedent (which is what most people in politics do) with George Bush's fence, than no one would be permitted to cross the wall, effectively loosing that land for the public. I wasn't saying that we would be moving the official border, I was saying that it would be much more difficult to use the river, and it would leave the border towns without running water for a while, while they live in the desert. It would be worse than Flint, Unless if their are enough access gates to let every pipe that leads to the river through, which is thousands. On top of that the US, couldn't risk letting the building of the wall pollute the river as construction of one of the world's biggest infrastructure projects would most likely would, as well as mess with the fish. Plus we don't wish to provoke Mexico, all would mean that they would need to build the wall inland, away from the river, and border, which would cut into the towns, protected environmental areas, and Native American lands. In which if you look at the demographics of the districts on the border, they overwhelmingly where opposed to Trump, with only 7 border districts voting for him. I agree with you by the way, they aren't stupid. You failed to explain what you think Trump would do to those who refuse to give up their privet lands. Many won't give up their homes. (some in which the wall would have to go right through, especially when taking towns into consideration) Your quote by John Kelly basically said, that they knew about the damage but if you remember what Ned Norrice Jr. said, you would see that they didn't care that much, about the damage they where doing. And with Trump assigning Mr. Pruitt as EPA director, (if your not aware, he has basically spent his professional life trying to fight the EPA and hates what it stands for) we can be pretty certain that they won't get involved in trying to limit, what I mentioned before, is a massive project, that would destroy Native American artifacts (including religious) (just like with what happened with DAPL) and prevent many animals, including the 111 endangered ones from being able to get to the river, and possibly going into human settlements out of desperation. You mentioned Access gates, for the reservations, but you failed to account for the fact that we would be building something that they don't want, and that the gates would be guarded by Americans. For the natives who have sovereignty over the land, this could easily be considered invasion, Especially if the Guardian's reports are true, and they already deal with harassment from the BP. And being hunted by armed Americans, might be something that they can empathies with. I believe that I already refuted your sources earlier in this round, and would like to bring up how you said "When you lump in all immigrants ranging those from the legal immigrant from the UK to the illegal immigrant you are going to water down the statistic" The source as I stated with my official percentages, was from the non partisan American Immigration Council. And they (as their name suggest) use American statistics on both Illegal and legal immigrants. Not the UK Unforchantly We come again to the fact that Trump has been committing mass deportations, and is unlikely to care about what you specially would support for those who are here, following the laws, and working. He deports them ether way. Which is a shame, because as I sighted before, they help our economy by nearly 100 Billion a year. Or how many businesses we would loose. (like another recession) Which I note you didn't try to refute. And I didn't even mention the increased price of many goods, and services. This doesn't even include the taxes they pay, or how much they contribute to Social Security funds. Which would increase if Trump would let them become legal, rather than decreasing the amount of people who can be accepted. We would be increasing enforcers, while illegal immigration is decreasing, (CBP) and the majority of people trying to come in now, are refugees, running for their and their families life's, and would be more than happy to contribute to the country that saved them. We turn down a lot of refuges, and they become illegal to survive. Some of them, who we have turned down even would help against the cartels. Trumps plan on how to man the Wall is a bad Idea to, with the massive increase of border agents, even after what happened last time. And I haven't even mentioned how a wall won't stop cartels from sending drugs over the border by means of sling shot, tunnels, or even passing it through the steel poles that makes the wall see through, effectively making it a relay race. You also didn't mention how trump is going to deal with the attempts to stop him by way of DAPL stile resistance. (with good legal positioning) And yes I did just shoe horn a bunch of arguments in because I am out of space again. (what can I say, their is a lot of problems with this wall) I would also like to say, when I called out Trumps racism, I called only him out, not the entire party.-DIT