Build the Border Fence

Probably not the best place for this, but I just noticed that the debate module also got a coding bar. This is so exciting. :) Anyhow... The state enacts a lot of programs for the sake of national security interests. Such interests were, collectively, the progenitor of things like the PATRIOT Act, TSA's "enhanced security", and, on a more releveant note, legislation like the controversial AZ 1070 [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. The border fence suggested by Pro is, more or less, an addition to similar measures which already exist; however, all programs intended to protect "national security"--any government program, really--deserves a healthy amount of skepticism and scrutiny. It is this function I intend to fulfill. In fact, I intend to prove that a border fence is actually detrimental to what we might collectively refer to as "American interests", some of which, like a healthy-size population and personal safety, have already been fleshed out by Pro. 1. Hindering the Drug Trade If Pro's goal is to reduce drug crime, then a border fence seems to be counterproductive. The United States currently employs billions of dollars in resources and manpower in the ineffective "War on Drugs" in an attempt to respond punitively to the use, possession, and distribution of illicit substances; however, it's been proven time and time again that retributive justice is an ineffective means of reducing the negative effects associated with drug proliferation [http://online.wsj.com...]. Clearly, adding another measure like this, preventative though it may be, will only add to the failure of the War on Drugs while at the same time eating up valuable resources that could go to far more useful projects--building infrastructure or increasing education spending are a couple of examples that come to mind. In place of the fence, I offer the example of Portugal, which has seen amazing success in the decade after its decriminalization policy was put into place [http://www.officer.com...]. Though some say it is a bit soft, one cannot dispute the evidence in favor of such a policy--reduced drug crime and substance abuse, lower HIV infection rates (resultant from less sharing of dirty needles), and an attitude toward drugs that treats abuse and addiction as a health problem, referring users to health clinics and rehabilitation centers, rather than throwing them into prison. 2. Saving Money Earlier, I mentioned the War on Drugs. Though estimates do vary, we can clearly see a general range of spending targeted at curtailing drug activity, and it comes out to billions upon billions of dollars--upwards of $40-ish billion--per year [http://www.drugpolicy.org...]. A "Drug War Clock", which keeps a kind of ticker on money spent on the War on Drugs, estimates that, in the first few days of 2011, we've already spent over $867 million [http://www.drugsense.org...]. If Pro's goal is to save money, we could save a lot more by ending the war on drugs. And, where I've given you solid numbers to work with, Pro has yet to even offer a guesstimate of how much we might save by erecting a fence. It's also important to note that we already have border fencing, according to Homeland Security--about 370 miles of it in 2008. This is in addition to: 18,300 border patrol agents 300 miles of vehicle barriers 105 camera and radar towers Three additional UAVs [http://www.dhs.gov...] If measures like these are unable to keep out the massive number of illegal immigrants who successfully cross the border each year, how does putting up a fence and taking away active patrols increase the efficacy of border security? Pro has yet to offer any scientific analysis which even hints that this could be true. 3. Protecting Illegals Pro makes the assertion that many illegal immigrants die during the journey or after crossing the border; yet, he fails to offer up any evidence, particularly statistics, concerning the rough number of immigrants who are victims of these allegedly fatal conditions. 2006 estimates of the illegal immigrant population ranged from 7-20 million [http://www.csmonitor.com...]. Since Pro gives us no data indicating the total number of people who try to come to the United States, or the number of people who fail to make it, we cannot even do a basic statistical analysis of our own; therefore, we cannot accept Pro's argment at face value. Pro fails to account for the fact that, as dangerous as the trip to and across the border might be, Mexico is probably more dangerous. Mexico is a hub for drug violence and cartel warfare, some of which has migrated across the border into parts of the southern United States. Ignoring for a moment that such problems could be resolved with a solid decriminalization policy, consider also that the intensity of violence in Mexico hit record highs in 2010, and shows no signs of slowing up in the new year [http://www.dallasnews.com...]. If anything, we might try being more hospitable due to the horrific and dangerous conditions that potential immigrants south of the border are subjected to on a daily basis. Either way, a border fence isn't the answer. 4. Knowing Who Comes to the Country Honestly, this doesn't seem to be particularly relevant, primarily because the need to keep account of who enters the country in no way implies that we require a border fence. Basic non sequitur. If government action is really the way to keep track of immigration, then you can refer first to my point that reducing manpower as a trade-off for building a fence seems counterintuitive to establishing a tighter border. Second, we can perhaps work with programs like US-VISIT, started in 2004, which establish biometric/biographic security measures for immigrants and visitors like inkless finger scans, digital photographs, and cross-referencing with terror watch-lists [http://www.washingtonpost.com...]. Though I would be one of the first to question the efficacy of state-sponsored counterterrorism measures, programs like these seem to be more intricately-designed and better thought-out than "build a better fence". 5. Illegals and Public Goods If we want to complain about illegal immigrants having access to public goods and services, then it again seems counterintuitive to say that building a fence is going to help, not only because of the necessary skeptical response to claims of increased border security, but also because tightening borders doesn't solve the actual problem, which is that government agencies supplying public goods like welfare, food stamps, and other entitlements aren't doing a good enough job keeping track of who they give handouts to. Pro's objection to easy access to public services, then, seems to be better addressed by systemic reform and a tightening of the criteria which determine who is able to gain access to those services. Since Pro brought up that proof of citizenship isn't a prerequisite for access to entitlements and public goods, perhaps we could seek a policy requiring verification of citizenship prior to access being given to public services. With that, I'm more or less out of characters, so I'll hand it over to Pro.