Reformat this (don't remove or add anything, but you can cut down the cards with "..." and "/" and "[]") to be a bit more compelling to a lay judge in a public foum debate round, and a bit tighter if possible. Keep the overall arguments the same:

"We Negate the resolution: The United States federal government should substantially expand its surveillance infrastructure along its southern border. 

CON Case

To start, expansion is happening in a CON world. EFF found last year that “CBP [is] planning another massive expansion of surveillance towers at the U.S.-Mexico border. … CBP intends to begin upgrading 135 existing towers … while also installing 307 new towers along the Southern border”/“The … dataset has grown to 471 towers” since last year. That’s a compound increase of 153% annually.

Thus, in this debate, we define “Substantially” as meaning with effect to not just the quality and quantity of surveillance, which is already happening, but instead as a complete overhaul of current expansion efforts to radically change surveillance strategy on the southern border.

Sole Contention: Increased Surveillance harms ties with Mexico 

First, let’s look at the status quo.

The USMCA has created positive US-Mexico relations and economic benefits. According to Brookings ‘23, “In 2022, the total value of trade within North America exceeded $1.5 trillion… This growth in trade over the past two years has made Mexico [one of] the top trading partners of the United States, with trade volumes 44% higher than U.S. goods trade with China, and intra-regional goods trade alone supports 9.5 million jobs across North America.” This is the current CON world without significantly expanded security; and North American economic integration. The USMCA shows the value of cooperation and status quo borders on the US southern border. Without PRO, we have increased trade and the best jobs market ever.

According to The US State Department, “Mexico was the United States’ top goods trading partner in 2023 with total two-way goods trade at $807 billion, surpassing China / U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico increased from $42 billion … before NAFTA…, to $322 billion / Mexico remained the second-largest source of foreign crude oil to the United States, as well as the top destination for U.S. petroleum product exports and U.S. natural gas. / United States holds the largest stock of FDI in Mexico, with a total of $144.5 billion in 2023. Mexican FDI in the United States stood at $38.3 billion in 2023, according to the BEA”

Now, let’s look at the impacts of increased surveillance.

First, on diplomacy:

Increased border surveillance contradicts USMCA goals and hurts diplomatic ties. The Washington Post writes in 2017 that “Mexico has always been cautious about protecting its sovereignty and is sensitive about engaging with the United States on migration issues”. 

The Cato Institute adds that the damage of increased surveillance harms Mexican Relations.“Trump … presented a proposal to fund the wall's construction / and the back-and-forth [with Nieto] became so heated that he canceled meetings with Trump”. Wola ‘20 also adds that It “Sends a hostile message to allies in Latin America. [And] would carry a steep diplomatic cost, particularly in U.S. relations with Mexico. It would detract from international cooperation needed to fight against drug trafficking, terrorism, and other issues. / Tensions around [borer security] were a principal reason why Nieto paid no visits to Washington for bilateral meetings during his final two years in office.

The US-Cuba incident shows how reduced diplomacy leads to bad outcomes. According to CFR ‘22, “Economic and diplomatic isolation became the major prongs of U.S. policy toward Cuba” / “​​Barack Obama said isolating Cuba had failed to advance U.S. interests”. After the Cuban Revolution, diplomatic ties were severed for over 50 years. This led to economic isolation, and missed opportunities for trade and cultural exchange.

Expanded security measures signal distrust and contradict the spirit of partnership in USMCA.

Now, on Economics:

Trade frictions and delays from increased security and diplomatic misalignment cost millions. 

Temca ‘14 writes that trade delays on the southern border cost:
Nuevo Laredo: $3.6 million daily
Tijuana: $1.8 million daily
Juarez $1.5 million daily
Sani Sidro $254,900 daily
Nogales, Sonora $240,000 daily


According to a paper published by Regional Science ‘20, GVA per capita relies directly on one formula, given the open border status as a boolean:

log(GCA per capita)it = β(open border status)i + λt + μi + εit

where the dependent variable is the natural logarithm of regional GVA per capita in region i at time t; the coefficient β is the estimator for our indicator variable, which is … denoted as 1 / The coefficient λ captures overall time trends (year fixed effects); the coefficient µ represents regional fixed effects; and εit is the random error term. Theoretically, we expect a positive effect of the opening of borders on regional GVA per capita for the border regions after accounting for their inherent differences

This shows that the opening of borders has a significant positive effect on the economic growth of surrounding border regions, and more closed borders directly correlate with a worse economic climate on both sides of the border.

Now, what does a PRO world look like?

We now know that cooperation is crucial for efficient trade, supply chain integration, and economic stability. If we don’t cooperate, Mexico’s economy will go into freefall, destroying the lives of the poor in the country. Let’s look at what that world looks like.

FPH ‘22 writes that During the 2008 period, the poverty rate in Mexico increased to 43.9% / In the aftermath of the 95 peso crisis, extreme poverty in Mexico grew dramatically from 21% in 1994 to 37% in 96, undoing a decade of poverty reduction efforts.

Economic damage like this would also severely impact jobs and incomes for the poor:

They continue that during the peso crisis, unemployment … doubled from to 7.4% in 1995, wages fell by 35% in 1995 alone, and over one million people lost their jobs. Mexico's GDP declined by 6.2%, overall household incomes plummeted by 30%, and average household consumption declined by 15%, destroying the retail market.

High inflation during these times disproportionately harms the poor:

During this time, prices increased by 35%. More recently, inflation has been highly detrimental to the poor, as the inflation rate experienced by them has been higher than the national average since 2008, according to the LatAm Economic Review.

Economic decline leads to increased migration, causing a vicious cycle.

MIT ‘21 writes that “Economics is a key factor of immigration because people often migrate to countries with better economic opportunities, such as higher wages, lower unemployment rates, and greater potential for career advancement, which acts as a "pull factor" drawing them to a new location, especially when compared to the economic conditions in their home country; this is why many immigrants choose to move to countries with stronger economies.” Mexico’s economic state pushes people to come to the US.

The Wilson Center ‘13 says that “One of the main factors that could be presumed to have driven the increase in Mexican migration to the United States during the 1990s is related to the consequences of the Mexican recession and currency devaluation of 1995”. Mexican citizens migrate because of their country’s economic climate.

Intercept ‘23 writes that “the border’s high-tech surveillance infrastructure funnels people into ever-deadlier corridors. / The surveillance matrix along southern Arizona’s border — including towers and ground sensors — forced migrants to use more dangerous routes in the desert, exposing them to greater risk of dehydration and heat exposure”. More surveillance means more border crossings over deadlier routes to avoid said surveillance. 

It is for these reasons that we are proud to negate."