The United States should build and maintain a border fence

The ResolutionCon claims I did not define "border fence." I defined "border fence" in paragraph 3, and in more detail in 2.1. There is no need to define terms if they are used with the standard meanings in the dictionary, as all other terms in the debate are used. "Maintain" means to either prevent failures or to repair damage.The plan was stated in paragraph 2. The plan specifically includes the 700 mile stretch on the Mexican border. Negating the resolution requires that we should not build or maintain a fence anywhere, so Con must address that specifically. There are already patrolling of the border, so there is no need to propose to do that. Since the fencing is extremely effective, the requirement for personnel is likely to be reduced.1. Need for border security1.1 Con asserts that "the resolution only requires a a barrier that can be jumped over." The need for border security is established in 1 and the effectiveness of a fence in 2. Con did not contest the need for border security for the economic reasons cited. The characteristics of the fence are in 2.1.1.2 Con does not contest that border security is needed to prevent the smuggling of unsafe products.1.3 Con is indeed getting repetitive. He is consistently granting the need for border security. He grants the need for border security to prevent terrorism.1.4 Con requests evidence that fake products are smuggled in. Fake products include cigarettes having high cadmium contamination, unsafe automobile parts, unreliable condoms, and many other categories. [12] http://www.authenticsfoundation.org... Con does not contest that border security is needed to protect again smuggling drugs and the other classes of products cited.1.5 Con wants evidence of gun running. For example, a huge cache of weapons and ammo headed to Mexico was seized near the border in Texas. [12] http://www.aolnews.com...1.6 The argument is that border security is needed to collect taxes on imports. Without border security, goods would not be declared and the taxes lost. The are large sums involved. "import tariffs are the second largest source of revenue next to the IRS." [15] http://www.itintl.com...The previous arguments establish the need for border security. Con did not contest most of the reasons.2. Effectiveness of the border fence2.1 Con proposes that abolishing birthright citizenship and putting land mines on the border would be cheaper than a border fence. Abolishing birthright citizenship would deter few people from entering the United States. The costs would not be effected because the Constitution requires that all benefits be given to residents, whether they are legal or not. For example, children are given schooling whether or not they are citizens. All emergency room health care and most other care must be provided. [16] http://www.ucilmsa.org...(Kaman).ppt It would have no effect at all on reasons 2-6 for border security given in 1 above, and largely uncontested by Con.Land mines should not be used on the borders because entering the United States illegally is not a capital crime. Using land mines is therefore excessive and inhumane. It would make enemies of Mexico and the countries in Central America. It would harm international relations in general. The US has not signed a treaty to ban landmines, but clearly it is an important issue that would produce a very negative international reaction. [13] http://articles.cnn.com...I would not necessarily be cheaper. At minimum, there would have to be fencing to keep citizens out of the area. The mines would have to be cleared and replaced over time, which is an expensive proposition. [13] says that the US has spent $1.5 billion clearing landmines in other countries. A border minefield would be huge and very expensive to clear and restore as the mines failed due to age.2.2 Con states he does not believe illegals drive across the border. It's both illegal entrants and contraband. I provided [11] as the source. Last month, "Half a million dollars worth of marijuana was seized from smugglers who used a portable truck ramp to illegally enter the U.S. from Mexico early Thursday morning." [14] http://borderwallinthenews.blogspot.com... Obviously, the short fence was not the high-security type of the resolution.2.3 If in fact Con could not figure out that the Israeli fence is 500 miles of high-security fence, he could have simply looked at the reference that describes it in detail. Con said I provided false sources, when the sources are properly referenced and valid. Con's unsupported accusation is a conduct violation in this debate.The money to build the fence would come from taxes, but the effectiveness is such that more taxes would be saved than spent. Republicans already authorized the money to build the fence, so there is no question of them making the appropriation. [14] http://borderwallinthenews.blogspot.com... I challenge Con to provide evidence that Congressional authorization could be obtained to put land mines on the border as he suggests as an alternative.SummaryThe US needs border security. Con has contested very little of the need. His minor objections were calls for more sources, which I provided. The border fence of the type proposed by the resolution is proven effective in multiple cases. Con did not properly contest any of my sources, he simply declared them false without any evidence to support his accusation. The economics are clearly favorable, since even a few percent reduction in illegal activity saves more than the cost. Con's alternative of using landmines is unjust and inhumane, unacceptable for its foreign policy impact, and not even clearly less expensive. The resolution is affirmed.