Who should be the next POTUS???Donald Trump(PRO).......Hillary Clinton(CON)

R1: If our border is so secure, with only fencing, how are illegals crossing the border in the first place? A Border Patrol Union consisting of 16,500 members endorsed Trump.[1] They believe that Trump's Immigration Plan will work, and who k owns immigration better than them? First of all, a Mexican official said that it doesn't encourage them. That is obviously a biased person, and as the source states, if the Mexican government really wanted to prevent people from dying in the desert, why doesn't it use its army and police to prevent it? They are encouraging illegal immigration, and if you are going to believe a biased person, that's your problem. If my opponent wants evidence, then that is what I will give. Mexico receives about 20 billion dollars in from illegal wages every year from the U.S.[2] Who's does it benefit? Mexico. If we were to stop that 20 billion, we have enough money to build the wall already. But let's also do some simple math as well. About 14 million Mexicans visited the US in 2012.[3] The current price for a visitor's visa to the US is $160. Doing the math, there is another 2.3 billion right there, but Trump proposes to increase the visa cost, so it will value more. The diplomats and Mexican CEOs would account for about a billion dollars, but Mr. Trump plans to increase the cost the of these as well. My argument is this: If we simply enforced our immigration laws, all of those lives you see that were lost, would be alive today. I'm not saying illegals commit more crime, I'm saying they commit crime, and that leads to American lives lost. It could have been prevented if our laws were enforced. First, let's talk about ICE. Here is a way of how it wouldn't take long for training, and wouldn't cost extra: "As a force multiplier, a single officer position for immigration agents within ERO should be established providing all officers with full immigration arrest authorities. This will require no additional training. All immigration officers with full arrest authority should be removed from non-law enforcement functions that they currently serve in, such as those who now serve as detention facility guards. We would suggest that the old INS Detention Enforcement Officer position be reinstated with approximately 2,500 officers to replace detention guard positions that would be vacated."[4] This is coming from Chris Crane an ICE Union leader. Funding is not a problem, as the officers are remains in ICE. Only the positions are changing. Those 2500 officers are going to come from other branches of ICE. There are reasons as to why Mr. Trump said ICE should work with local task forces to root out illegals, as well as crime. As for finding them, lets mathematically think about this. There are 3143 counties in the U.S.[5] That equates to about 4 ICE officers per county working alongside 900,000 police officers throughout the country. The number can change depending on the number of illegals. More will be needed in California as it has the most. If each ICE officer along with police help, caught 1 illegal per day for the next 2 years, there would only be approximately 50,000 left. In many cases, illegals have families, and more will be caught, offsetting future difficulties. The FBI doesn't need to help train the additional ICE officers as I stated. They DONT help deport illegals as Con claims. As for criminal records, they can be first, but it doesn't take one day to find the most serious criminals. If there is information, by all means apprehend them. As for criminals records, same thing applies to them. Once the one a day goal is achieved, Intel can be gathered. My opponent uses a source by comedien John Oliver to support his case. Out of all the sources, a comedian? Nevertheless, I will still rebute the claims: -Endangered: A lot of species are endangered, but they can always be moved or replaced. And does the life of your child matter more or the life of an animal? -Water: The water is provided by reservoirs, which are government operated making it impossible to cross illegally.[6] Mr. Trump has said that some places don't need a wall due to natural borders like mountains. -NA and Repatriation Act: How does this even apply to the wall? All it states is that Native American artifact that are found and are lineage related should be returned What about the other half that jumped the border? R2: It was under the Obama Administration, which Hillary was a part of in which resulted in the current condition of the VA. She was responsible for it, and if she couldn't do anything then, what's she going to do now? And it was under her watch that 4 Americans died in Benghazi. If you're talking about John McCain, maybe he shouldn't have insulted Trump supporters, calling them "crazies."[7] Trump also later called McCain a hero, and also said that his rise in polls meant that people agreed with him.[8] If Mr. Trump hated Vets, then why did a Vet give him his Purple Heart?[9] Because Mr. Trump is pro-Veteran. R3: My opponents 10th source comes from Obama before it was revealed by James Comey that the server did contain classified information. Does my opponent know what the defenition of "Top Secret." If not, here it is from Merriam- Webster: containing or being information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation Out of the 52 email chains, 8 contained Top Secret information[10] Remember that the people are higher than any form of government. The government is made by and for the people. People didn't call Mr. Trump a liar in polls, and this claim isnt in the source. As for lying. Hillary lied under oath about something that could have harmed our nation. Mr. Trump expressed concerns that were twisted by the media to benefit their agenda. Not accepting Syrian Refugees would be more beneficial than allowing them. In short, my opponent concedes that it is harmful, instead pointing that it's inevitable, which is not backed up by evidence. R4: My opponent thinks Hillary can change the law in Saudi Arabia with their own money. Which is impossible. Why would Saudi Arabia give her money if they knew she advocates against their practices. My opponent thinks accepting money from bad people is good, which is ridiculous. R5: My opponent concedes that her track record is bad and offers no rebuttals against those. Instead Con attacks Mr. Trumps record but doesn't provide any evidence. 1. Opponent concedes that political experience isn't required. Eisenhower wasn't a governor 2. I'm asking for specific names of countries from speeches 3. Again how is he ignorant? What has he specifically said? 4. He wont have a hard time adapting, he already has the skills needed to negotiate/work with Congress and SCOTUS. Con's sources are from Quora, which has no specific statements from Trump supporting evidence. Specialized Skills is a general term. Everyone has different skills, but Hillary's have failed our country, unlike Trump's. R6: If my opponent thinks attack is inevitable, then what law will stop people from harming LGBT? Again my opponent circum-navigates my argument. States can benefit both sides. LGBT can go to pro-LGBT states. Its more transparent compared to federal policy. My opponent offers no rebuttals for my argument saying LGBT care about safety from terrorism rather than being rejected from a bakery if Con read the source. Hillary Clinton will appoint judges that can harm our 2nd Amendment which takes away our guns. Which issue of greater importance, 2nd Amendment or LGBT? R7: My opponent doesn't know the definition of groveling. It is "to give oneself over to what is base or unworthy" Mr. Trump was imitating a reporter who backed away from his own story that he wrote. That reporter happened to be Kovaleski. Mr. Trump couldn't have known that it was him. Kovaleski was victimized by the media's lies, not Mr. Trump. The impacts were applied by the media. R8: China steals our jobs, and holds 1/20 of our debt. They militarized the South China Sea. China is a threat to our jobs R9: I argued why Trump wouldn't cause a recession, never ceded R10: I refuted the implications, and didn't cede. R11: I never said Russia wasn't powerful. Putin called Trump "Bright and Talented" look it up. Which policies would he diverge from? No specific examples are provided R12: My opponent doesn't refute my claims of how its GW is false. Where is Hillary going to put the miners? On a wind farm? Con forgot 18th source, so claim is invalid Points to be noted: -Con thinks China isn't a threat to our jobs -Con avoids my arguments about LGBT -My opponent says Pro has CEDED almost every contention when I haven't -Opponent concedes Hillary's track record -Hillary has failed with Russia -Opponent doesn't refute any of my claims, all he says is "Pro has ceded this and that," which is false -Opponent doesn't talk about enforcing existing laws -Opponent doesn't know what groveling and top secret mean -Opponent claims that the FBI is greater than the people which is false -Opponent thinks money is greater than lives of people -Opponent thinks refugee and illegal lives are greater than American lives Thank You!!! VOTE PRO!! Sources: [1]http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://www.cairco.org... [3]http://www.ibtimes.com... [4]https://www.judiciary.senate.gov... [5]http://www.mapsofworld.com... [6]http://www.ibwc.state.gov... [7]http://www.politico.com... [8]http://www.cnn.com... [9]http://www.washingtontimes.com... [10]http://www.nytimes.com...