Border Fence

R1: High Crime from IllegalsPro starts out by saying that 40% of murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. There are a few issues I have with this. First of all, this argument is a red herring. Pro doesn't really explain why a border fence specifically would prevent these crimes. Like I had explained in my earlier argument, illegals are have still managed to enter the country. All these statistics that Pro provided take place after 2006, which was after the "Secure The Fence Act" was passed. The crime statistics presented are factual, and there are actually more statistics that show illegal immigration does have an increase in crime after 2006. Stated from "Civitas Institute" (1): " North Carolina has experienced a disturbing surge in gang activity. Between 1999 and 2004, Wake County saw a 5,743.3 percent increase in gang membership". This was before Sevure the Fence Act was implemented, and as it is seen it reduced the crime. One example of reducing crime takes place in arizone, where when a fence was secured "Violent crime dropped 33 percent in border counties in Arizona, more than in California, Texas and New Mexico, the report by the Government Accountability Office said. Among Arizona’s non-border counties, violent crime fell 22 percent. The 11 percentage-point gap was the widest of the four states the GAO examined" (2). As seen here, a border fence can work and crime did reduce after 2006.So, there isn't a whole lot of proof that immigrants are continuing to create crime, when the crime rate itself is on a steady decline. These stats are taken from primary sources such as the Immigration Policty Center, and feel free to check them out for any bias.First off, my opponents source is technically biased as well for being known to support illegal immigration. Their site can argue that many immigrants are not criminals, but we must consider the fact that a portion of them will be criminals. in fact, Mexico themselves admitted on dropping off their criminals to our own country, and making us tax payers paying for their problems. With a border fence, at least this will reduce the crime (3).R2: Illegal Immigrant Corruption by MediaThe reason why I brought this up is because of liking to point out the fact that no one wants to look at the down falls. I am on the position of pointing out the downfalls on third party sources, while my opponents sources can be said as "biased" for only pointing out the benefits, than doubts of illegal immigration. No world is necessarily "perfect" in any means.R3: Illegals Brings More Diseases to this NationPro is saying that illegals are bringing in more infections and diseases, and we shouldn't let them in because we should not risk our health for theirs. The source Pro provided has, said that those immigrants are "at risk" of being infected, and that most of those diseases can be cured by vaccines. Even if it isn't, I see not reason as to why we cannot just keep them from entering our country. Regardless, if they do get sick, immigrants will still have to pay for their health insurance, so It isn't like we are forced to pay to mend them back to health.My opponent argues we can vaccinate these illegals, but we must consider the fact on the amount of income an illegal immigrant makes. "The 2007 median household income of unauthorized immigrants was $36,000, well below the $50,000 median household income for U.S.-born residents" (4). That is truly not that much, and comparing that to the price for health insurance; welfare or health insurance support is necessary. Who pays that? The government, and with having to pay these illegals health insurance will be very costly as well as unjust. we must ask one question, "Where is the money coming from"?Sadly, that money is coming from the VA (Veterans Association) fund. "President Barack Obama announced Thursday evening that as a part of his newest executive order, which will grant amnesty to five million illegal aliens, he will also be cutting federal spending on military veterans by a staggering 65%, with those savings being handed out to those illegals who will be getting amnesty" (5). How is this fair to that group of people who served, and protected our country? They deserve much more rights, than granting this money to illegal immigrants. It would be costly, and put a risk to our country's population. With a border fence, this will lower that rate of diseases, and put it into a containment for our country to succeed (6).R4: They Recieve Unequal RightsIn an industry, there might be just a couple natives who are employed in that sector, and the rest are immigrants. That doesn't mean that American's want those jobs. It just means a few are working in that sector. Pro should have given us some survey or poll that states that americans want to work those jobs, because just sayinig a few guys work there, isn't a whole lot of information.My opponent ask for a source where American's do want these jobs. I did in the previous round mention that American's are becoming desperate for any labor, and with these illegals stealing those jobs create conflict in our society. "Illegal immigrants don’t do jobs that Americans 'don’t want' to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days" (7). The thing is, like stated previously, illegal immigrants are "supposedly" said to work on the farms but in reality are just trying to get more money leading to employers hiring less Americans and more illegals. In this current round, my opponent states: "Pro’s rebuttal on Americans wanting to work jobs in McDonalds isn’t even stating anything about Americans wanting to work in McDonalds. It only talks about how the government is trying to go after employers who hire illegals, rather than illegals themselves". The article states that, and I agree, but employers can still have the option to hire illegals or not. they have thier own power to do so, and with this power can screw many Americans for looking for a job (8).R5: Reduces CrimeThis argument is an example of whole correlation doesn't equal causation. The source you gave doesn't say that the border fence itself was responsible for these crimes. Infact, the study is showing 2004-2011, and there was no border fence back then. Only 2006 and after. Pro's graph on California is also misleading. Just because non-border counties have higher crime rates, doesn't mean that the border fence was responsible for that. Following the graph: It obviously states that crime is reduced by putting up a border fence, which has reduced this crime. "In some areas, erecting fences is the best way to tackle the illegal-entry problem" (9). R6: Economic BenefitsMy opponent argues that the Border Fence is to much money, and shouldn't be implemented because of this. In this current round, my opponent states: "Actually, if you look at the graph Pro provided, he misinterprets it, and says that it only cost 1.6 billion dollars. However, the cost doesn’t just include the building costs, but also the costs to maintain it". It does cost $1.4 billion for building it, and I agree that the maintainence is not included. After doing researce the maintenence for the Border Fence is "According to the U.S. Army Corps, maintenance of the border wall in some areas could cost $5 million to $8 million per mile per year" (10). Looking at my previous argument, our country spends more on welfare than these illegal immigrants and adding that price on is still less that the amount spent on welfare. So it is cheaper than other things so why not protect our country from these illegals?R7: Helps the EnvironmentWith a border fence is benefits on helping the environment. in this current round, my opponent states: Pro says that anything can be harmful to the environment. Comparing a house to a border fence is not really accurate. Regardless, Con doesn’t actually refute how the Border fence is not harmful for the environment. Pro’s graph about warmer climates is also wrong, because how would those plants be growing there in the first place, if the climate was already warm? This isn’t really a good correlation for us to assess.When i was comparing a Border Fence to a house, I am more talking about the construction aspect. When one builds a house, there is construction going on which is harmful to the environment, and the same thing is said about the construction of a border fence. If we are willing to live in a house, then doing some things is better than none.My opponent states I didn't refute anything, but I did. I provided evidence that even if a border fence is made, there is no huge environmental impacts. Then my opponent argues that the U.S. climate graph is wrong, and argues that plants still grow there. I will agree that they do, but the areas with the border shows really dry plant life. So there isn't really a lot of green, and here is proof of two images with a border fence in different climates. Different climates affect this, and the second image is an area with a mid-climate.In conclusion, my opponent argues consistently throughout the debate that my sources aren't "reliable". They are in fact more reliable than my opponent's who fails to provide many sources throughout the debate. My opponent looks more as the positive aspects of illegal immigration, but we must look at the negative impacts of allowing free immigrants to our country. it will cause chaos in this country, and the best and simple solution to this crisis is by having a border fence.My opponent also does the cheap tactic of "He didn't refute my points", but in reality I did; in which I will let the voters decide if I did or didn't. However, the debate went fluently but I feel that my argument is far superior by using more third party sources and bringing up the facts that Liberal Biased Media "forgot" to mention.I thank my opponent for this debate, and hope for any more future ones!Sources in the comments!