BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Past fences succeeded in deterring crossings over the particular sections of the border they covered.

Opponents of building the 700-mile wall often cite the fact that previous fences and policing operations in the 1990s that aimed to secure heavily crossed urban stretches of the border in El Paso, Texas, and San Diego, California did not substantially reduce the in-flow of illegal immigrants overall. Instead, these determined illegals pushed out into remote desert areas to cross. While this is true, it does not necessarily provide a good historical example against the new wall. The fact that these walls and security efforts caused illegal immigrants to cross elsewhere at much greater risk to themselves (around 400 die annually crossing) seems to be a sign that these measures had a substantial deterrent impact. By extension, it may be reasonable to believe that the 700-mile wall and its accompanying border security measures will have a similar deterrent effect along the portions of the border it will cover.
A border fence could help stem pollution from Illegal immigrants.

WorldNetDaily.com 9/29/06 - "WND columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin points to an Arizona Daily Star report revealing the massive migration of illegal aliens across the wilderness has created its own environmental problem, with millions of pounds of trash left behind. Authorities estimate the 3.2 million-plus entrants caught by the Border Patrol from July 1999 through June 2005 dropped 25 million pounds of trash. That doesn't include the unknown amounts of garbage left by border-crossers who don't get caught."
San Diego is symbol of efficacy of fence

Washington Post - "...In the mid-1990s, the city was awash in illegal immigrants. Hundreds would gather by a soccer field near Otay Mesa, east of San Diego, and rush into the United States on what the Border Patrol termed "banzai runs." During those years, Border Patrol agents routinely apprehended 200,000 illegal entrants a year in the sector. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) got funding to build a fence and thousands more Border Patrol officers were dispatched to the area. The number of crossers plummeted." (see counter in costs subquestion below ->)
Profiling makes far less sense in America than Israel

Mark Thompson. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. November 29th, 2010: "None of this is to pretend that the Israeli system is race, ethnicity, or religion-neutral. However, it must be emphasized that the Israeli constitution is different from our constitution, and that the threats Israel faces from terrorism are both greater and different in nature than the threats we face." [read full quote in argument page.]
Broad security screening wastes scarce security resources

Sheldon H. Jacobson, professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The Right Kind of Profiling." New York Times Room for Debate. January 4th, 2010: "More screening can actually result in less security by directing security attention and resources (which by definition, are finite) onto people who are not a threat, which in turn moves such attention and resources away from people who are a threat."
Profile from one group and terrorists will recruit from another

Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent. "Wrong and Unworkable." New York Times Room for Debate. January 4, 2010: "Racial profiling is also unworkable. Once aware of national profiling, terrorists will simply use people from “non-profiled” countries or origins, like FBI most-wanted Qaeda suspect Adam Gadahn, an American. What will we do? Keep adding more countries to the list of 14 until we’ve covered the whole globe?"
Political correctness should not prevent profiling/safety.

Michael Reagan, son of President Ronald Reagan. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. November 27, 2010: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers."
Profiling rightly shifts focus from cargo to people.

Rafi Sela. "Multilayered Security." New York Times, Room for Debate. January 4th, 2010: "The security focus should to shift to people and not cargo (luggage). My point is that if you know who is flying, you don’t really need to check for water bottles and nail files, but can direct more resources to looking for explosives and drugs." - Rafi Sela is president of AR Challenges, is an international transportation security consultant based in Israel.
Terrorists can easily beat profiling systems.

Bruce Schneier. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe." New York Times, Room for Debate. January 4th, 2010: "And, even worse, profiling creates two paths through security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. And once you do that, you invite the terrorists to take the path with less scrutiny. That is, a terrorist group can safely probe any profiling system and figure out how to beat the profile. And once they do, they’re going to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time."
Broad screening creates lines that become terrorist targets.

Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International. "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. January 4th, 2010: "Body scanners should have been deployed years ago as the threat of a passenger carrying explosives on their body is not a recent discovery. Yet, we should not use them to screen all passengers or even all those flying on a given route. They need to be used intelligently or we will simply create even longer lines at our security checkpoints which may be the next target for a suicidal bomber."
Most people accept profiling as necessary for security.

Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims."[5]
Terrorists are most often Muslims; worth profiling them

Asra Q. Nomani. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims." The Daily Beast. November 29th, 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have."
Airport profiling would make minority groups second-class citizens.

Mark Thompson. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. November 29th, 2010: "So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment) that is standing in the way of replacing full-body scans with a strong and effective profiling system: it’s reality. All that 'political correctness' is preventing is the implementation of an equally (and likely even more) ineffective piece of security theater in which we single out one minority group for intensive screening while giving a pass to everyone else. This would certainly annoy fewer people, but it wouldn’t make us safer and its sole benefits would be accomplished by treating an entire minority group as second-class citizens."
Profiling is about using a range of information, not race

Sheldon H. Jacobson is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The Right Kind of Profiling." New York Times Room for Debate. January 4th, 2010: "One solution is to use information about passengers (voluntarily provided and readily assessable) to eliminate those who have negligible risk factors, which should be the case for 60 to 70 percent of passengers. Then apply state-of-the art technologies for the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known, and subject them to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, not allow them to fly. We can call this behavioral profiling, information profiling, or whatever we wish. However, until we use security resources appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air system."
Profiling alienates groups needed in terrorism fight

Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. "Will profiling make a difference?" New York Times Room for Debate. January 4th, 2010: "Treating all Muslims as suspects also undermines our efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. We shouldn’t be profiling the very communities we need information from to catch the bad guys. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot."
Profiling will use such information as nervousness at airport.

Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]."
Profiling works well for Israel, can work well elsewhere

Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. "Profiling at airports works for Israel." The Columbus Dispatch. November 24th, 2010: "No country has better airport security than Israel -- and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works. Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned 'profiling' into a bugaboo. They would rather have scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for questioning."
Profiling gives terrorists a justification for their acts.

Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent. "Wrong and Unworkable." New York Times Room for Debate. January 4, 2010: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism."
Profiling would have caught Christmas day bomber

Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009 that profiling would have picked-up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: "He paid for his ticket in cash. He did not have any luggage. He has a one-way ticket to the United States. And he is coming to a religious ceremony. It doesn't take more than two brain cells for anybody who is trained in this area to identify this guy as a bomber."[1]
Israeli style profiling system not scalable in America.

Mark Thompson. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. November 29th, 2010: "I think it’s pretty clear that the reason a “profiling” system would not work and indeed has not been attempted in the US is that it’s not scaleable. Israel has one major airport, which by US standards would only be “mid-sized.” Yet look at the security line at that airport, which is more befitting of Newark or Atlanta than it is of Pittsburgh or St. Louis. A good profiling system is labor-intensive in a way that 0ur system simply does not have the capacity to implement, and would unacceptably undermine the numerous sectors of our economy that rely heavily on air transportation. And this says nothing of the direct economic costs of appropriately training and paying security officers charged with conducting the profiling. Nor, as the article above suggests, does it say anything about eliminating the bureaucratic infighting and secrecy amongst American intelligence agencies in a manner that would allow tens of thousands of airport security personnel access to the intelligence necessary to adequately do their jobs."
The EU has welcomed poorer entrants before without disaster:

Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania among current prospective entrants all have lower GDP per capita. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth.[17]
EU membership would help strengthen democracy in Turkey

Its recent election of a party with islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). Turkey’s human rights record is also improving rapidly, with the recent abolition of the death penalty and the removal of some restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. These advances have been prompted by the improved prospect of EU entry if Turkey conforms to "democratic norms", and this process is sure to continue to the benefit of both Turkish citizens and the EU if accession is offered in good faith.[9]
The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically:

Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). It has huge debts following a banking crisis and crash in 2001 and only survives due to massive aid from the IMF (which many see as its reward for providing support to the USA over Iraq, Israel, etc.). It will already be very difficult for the EU to integrate the much wealthier Central European states, and to provide the money for reconstruction in the Balkans. Coping with a much poorer, much less stable, much more indebted Turkey is simply not possible.[18]
Turkey has made significant reforms to gain EU membership

. David L. Phillips. "Turkey's Dreams of Accession". Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct. 2004- "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts."
Turkey is too poor and underdeveloped to join the EU

"Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU". Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. Vol. 5 No. 26. August 2005 - "Level of economic development. Turkey is a significantly poorer country than any of the ten states which joined the EU in May 2004 and is also poorer than Bulgaria and Romania which are scheduled to join in 2007. Despite its current population accounting for 15 per cent of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2 per cent of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5 per cent of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004c: 13)."
Turkey has improved its treatment of Kurds to gain EU membership

. David L. Phillips. "Turkey's Dreams of Accession". Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct. 2004 - "The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed. In several southeastern provinces, the long-standing state of emergency, which led to abuses by the military, has been lifted. New regulations have been adopted to facilitate Kurdish-language education. The rights of the Kurdish media and other broadcasters have been extended. And a provisional amnesty has been adopted for individuals involved in the Kurdish separatist movement. In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned."
Majority of Turkish people want EU membership

Philippa Runner. "Most Turks keen to join EU". June 6th, 2008 - "The majority of Turkish people today favour joining the EU despite worsening Franco-Turkish relations and a partial freeze on EU-Turkey accession talks. Sixty two percent said they would vote 'yes' to EU membership if there was a referendum, while 27 percent would vote 'no,' a May survey by Ankara's MetroPOLL research centre said."
Turkey does not have a stable democracy and has a poor human rights record:

The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997. Police use of torture is widespread and peaceful protestors, including but not only those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press. It is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession.[10]
Turkey has worked hard to befriend the EU

David L. Phillips. "Turkey's Dreams of Accession". Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct. 2004 - "Erdogan may indeed be torn between his Islamic beliefs and his politics. But he has worked consistently to strengthen Turkey's ties to the West, even when his foreign-policy initiatives-regarding the war in Iraq, peace in Cyprus, and Turkey's accession to the EU-have complicated his relations with both Islamists and ardent secularists in the military at home."
Turkish labor market would benefit EU

"Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU". Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. Vol. 5 No. 26. August 2005 - "The nature of Turkey’s labor market. Turkey has a much younger workforce than the EU-25 and a much faster growing workforce given its high birth rates. According to Commission projections, the EU-25’s total population will increase by just 2% (458 million to 449 million) between 2005 and 2025, with its working age population falling by 21 million. From 2005 to 2030, the number of people over 65 will rise by 52.3 % while the 15-64 age group will decrease by 6.8%, resulting in the ratio of dependent young and old people to people of working age increasing from 49% in 2005 to 66% in 2030 (European Commission, 2005). Movement of labor from Turkey to other EU states could thus be vital both to provide working personnel and to help maintain welfare systems which could be under severe pressures."
EU admission undermines Turkey's democratic example to Middle East

Tom Spencer. "GOOD REASONS FOR SAYING NO TO TURKEY". http://www.publicaffairs.ac. August 19th, 2004 - "It would also be bad for the Islamic world, which desperately needs examples of successfully functioning democracies. It would send entirely the wrong message if Turkey’s recent relative success with democracy was ‘rewarded’ by its being defined as ‘European’. In fact non-Arab Muslim countries have a reasonable history of establishing and preserving democratic regimes. The problem for the Arab world lies in the lack of legitimacy of the regimes which succeeded the destruction of the Ottoman Empire by the British and the French after the First World War. Europe can and should play a key role in bringing security and prosperity to the Greater Middle East. It will not however do so successfully on the basis of sloppy history and poorly defined foreign policy goals. It would be much better to end a generation of diplomatic dishonesty by giving the Turks a simple ‘No’ now and starting work on the creative task of how Turkey and Europe together can bring security to the regions which they jointly abut."
EU should not admit Turkey to gain young immigrant workers

Tom Spencer. "GOOD REASONS FOR SAYING NO TO TURKEY". http://www.publicaffairs.ac. August 19th, 2004 - "A new variant of the case for admitting Turkey stresses the supposed need to balance Europe’s ageing population with a vast import of predominantly Islamic young labour. Barnett argues that the USA will meet its own ageing problem in its traditional way by admitting millions of migrants from Mexico and Latin America. He calculates that to achieve the same ‘success’, the European Union would need to admit 1.5 million immigrants a year and that by 2050 a quarter of its population would be foreign born. However the world is moving towards population balance or indeed reduction by 2050, so such vast upheavals would only ‘solve’ the ageing problem for one generation. One is surely entitled to wonder by what right Muslim immigration is privileged over non-Muslim? Similarly, one might wonder why Turkish Muslims are privileged over Egyptian or Indian Muslim immigrants?"
Turkey's proximity to conflict zones would not endanger the EU.

Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO, the defence club to which the large majority of current and prospective EU states belongs. This means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders already involves its European neighbours. Furthermore, as the EU has begun to develop its own defence identity outside NATO, it has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access to NATO assets. Finally, engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship.[13]
EU membership for Turkey would help liberalize the Middle East

David L. Phillips. "Turkey's Dreams of Accession". Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct. 2004 - Summary: The hope of joining the EU has driven major reforms in Turkey, including economic liberalization, human rights protection, and greater civilian oversight of the military. But these reforms have fueled suspicions among Islamists and hard-line army officers. EU membership would help Turkey become a successful Muslim democracy, strengthen it as an ally in the fight against terrorism, and foster liberalization in the Islamic world.