Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 6 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 95% |
Arguments: | 6 |
Debates: | 0 |
I'm totally for securing our borders, but like I said in my original post, drugs get smuggled into the US in a plethora of ways. Building a wall won't stop that. A few solution to border security requires a combination of technology, infrastructure and agents.
The fact that you have a house, would that stop a burglar from coming in?
What evidence can you provide that the wall actually will keep Mexican immigrants out of the US? Since 2006 we have seen a rise in border patrol agents yet a decline in apprehensions, while the amount of illegal immigrants in the us has yet to go decline.
http://immigration.procon.org/
http://immigration.procon.org/
llegal border crossings are now actually at their lowest levels. This is in part due to improved job opportunities in Mexico. The biggest problem between the US and Mexico is drug trade. Drug cartels in Mexico utilize drug mules, tunnels, boats, vehicles, trains, aircrafts, donkeys, and couriers to get illegal drugs into America. Mexican drug cartels make an estimated $19-$29 billion a year on drug sales in the United States. Mexico is the number one foreign supplier of marijuana to the United States, and marijuana is thought to be the top revenue generator for Mexican drug cartels. The biggest problem between the US and Mexico, is the drug trade fueled by US drug demand.
Mexico is our third largest trading partner with nearly $300 billion worth of Mexican imports coming into the US in 2015. The wall tariff would increase the cost of American manufactured goods. Vehicle parts, computers, electronics, vegetables, and oil are a few imports that could cost 20% more. American taxpayers would be paying the price for a 20% tax on all Mexican imports, not Mexico. The cost of the tariff would be passed on to US consumers, manufacturers, exporters and importers.
You are treating the TPP as a zero-sum game. We have already established that Adam Smith, the godfather of economics, was wrong and that in competition, individual ambition serves the common good. It is in fact that when you do what is in the best interest for the group that you do the best for yourself.
Both sides argue valid points, but confusion tends to arise when one were to assume the Worker as the consumer. Say a farmer gets fired from his job and now earns nothing and some wealthy investors stock goes up because the product is being produced in a market with lower labor costs. Most people against the TPP would tend to say that ever since NAFTA our Midwest had been hallowed out of its jobs, and the wealthy stock investors have never had it better. The fear that the TPP will have the same affect on the economy is what fuels those against it. Their confusion stems from assuming the worker is the consumer. A worker is he who works, not buys. Profit isn't based on how much product the workers make but on how much the consumer buys. One cannot accosiate a decline in job loss to a change in workers, without first looking at the consumer.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |