CreateDebate


Debate Info

66
66
Yes, because... No, because...
Debate Score:132
Arguments:126
Total Votes:143
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because... (52)
 
 No, because... (59)

Debate Creator

IAmSparticus(1516) pic



The Practicality of "The Wall"

Since Trump became the Republican front runner, we have seen renewed talk of building (or continuing to build) a massive wall along our Southern border.  Rather than talking about the possible foreign policy ramifications, any perceptions of racism, xenophobia or anything else, I think we  are overdue for a legitimate debate on the practicality of this wall.

So, using actual figures (rather than opinion and supposition), argue whether you believe the border wall would be practical solution (or a solution at all) for the problem at hand.

Yes, because...

Side Score: 66
VS.

No, because...

Side Score: 66

The wall, coupled with armed guards and a mine field will send a potent message to all would be law breakers: Keep out, or we'll shoot your ass and then blow you up.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Considering the fact that approximately half of all illegal immigrants entered the United States legally and stayed past the expiration point of their visa, how do you believe the wall would serve as a deterrent for them?

If it doesn't, do you really believe spending tens of billions of dollars in order to stop less than half (in all likelyhood far less than that) of illegal immigrants is fiscally sound?

Side: No, because...
4 points

The wall is a start; at least it will address half the problem. The visa violators, that can be addressed by simply enforcing the laws on the books. As a matter of fact, all the illegal alien problem can be addressed by enforcing existing laws that have been on the books for years.

Side: Yes, because...
KNHav(1957) Clarified
3 points

Provide numbers please. 1/2 of 10 is 5. 1/ of 60 million is 30 million.

1/2 could be a huge number. 1/2 of a ficticious number or an inferred number is spin. Its ONLY half, well um, 1/2 of what exactly.

Then multiply it by years it has happened, plus the years you are willing to have more of it.

Then lets discuss that number.

And then, calculate the cost of economic impact. Unemployment, Government payouts and benefitss, and all the other costs that we incurr. And multiply that by years , past and future years of continuance.

And you sound as bad as Trump with throwing the number of cost since you are at tens-sss of billions.

He said 5 billion to 12 billion.

And it hasn't been calculated yet.

And then you have the risk of terrorism, and that cost in lives and damages. And the increase in crime, since criminals do not come legally, they come illegally!

And the weight of that is also huge.

Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue.

And one that absolutely should be a priority of our Government and of Our People!!

Illegal immigration cost us Billions every year!

Taxpayers (2013)

The full report is available in pdf format in the attached link

Here is a snippet from the report:

"Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality

Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury."

Supporting Evidence: Cost of Illegal Immigration (www.fairus.org)
Side: Yes, because...
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

"Overall, the federal government spent $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

That means the $11.9 billion the government spent on securing the entire U.S. border equaled 0.3 percent of federal spending and the $3.6 billion the federal government spent on securing the border between the ports of entry equaled about 0.1 percent.

Strayhorn found that undocumented immigrants paid $424.7 million more to the state in taxes and fees than the state spent on them in education (by far the biggest expense), health care, and incarceration.

That’s a net gain for Texas.

But on the local level, the report found a very different story:

Local governments and hospitals were nearly $1 billion in the hole.

- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf.

Here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data

Perhaps the (above) comptroller’s most problematic decision was to exclude the expense of educating the U.S.A. born children of undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that these children are American citizens.

That’s a dodge, and a pretty significnt one.

And below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data

(this skews all the numbers, since they are born as citizen at a rate of 2 out of 3, legal and illegals, are born from illegal aliens - not just education, but all other benefits, from health care to free lunch etc...)

According to a 2009 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are nearly three times as many U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as undocumented children.

Incarceration rate of native-born men is higher than that of immigrants. But there are problems with these reports.

And again below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data

Few of them differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants; the former are often well-educated people who have been vetted by immigration officials and their prospective employers.

Lumping them in with illegal immigrants might sharply skew the statistics.

- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf.

Side: Yes, because...
Pantagruel(984) Disputed
1 point

You really think we can legally create a mine field in America?!?

Or even in Mexico, a country with which America is not at war?

Think of the children....

Side: No, because...
2 points

Sure we can legally create minefields; America has the right to defend itself by any means.

I am thinking about the children, American children.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Yeah, I agree. A minefield would be at the top of the list of really bad ideas!

Side: No, because...
1 point

I only just now realized you are advocating a war crime as per the treaty we signed in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (catchy name).

Were you aware of that?

Side: No, because...
2 points

The wall supports the countries current stance against illegal immigrants so in that case it is an excellent idea.

Side: Yes, because...
2 points

The illegal aliens entering this country are a burden on our society. They get "free" healthcare paid for by whom ? They get "free" food stamps paid for by whom ? So do tell me how Oblunder's vetting process is working and if it is where do they hold the illegal aliens while this vetting process takes place. Now Josh Disearnest has stated on the record there is a 2 year vetting process.

Side: Yes, because...
2 points

Im not proposing Trump for president, actually Im going with Cruz.

I like the idea of some of what he brings, but he has too much adversity. And, he is not informed enough on issues.

I want to see the wall built anyway. I know Cruz has concerns about the Southern Border, and will work to limit access to thevUS from there.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

The wall has already decreased illegal immigration in the areas where it stands.

In some places as much as 70%.

Ergo....more wall of an enhanced Trumpian tweaking of it would certainly conmtinue to impede the criminal trespassing into my country by thousands of wetbacks.

Of course it would not stop these bastards totally. But it, along with severe legal penalties, including the amputation of feet for serial violators, is a good start.

I support all efforts to stop the illegal invasion of my country.

Whatever it takes, amigos!

Que no?

Side: Yes, because...
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
2 points

Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?

You take numbers seriously.

This doesn't mean that you hate racism.

Side: No, because...
SlapShot(2608) Disputed
0 points

I am no racist.

Casual or otherwise.

If I dislike a race it is because I have good and objective reasons for doing so.

Racism is a dislike or intolerance that is groundless in nature.

Just so you know.

Now then................

As far as those wetbacks coming in from Mexico. I don't care what nationality or color they are. They could be blonde/blue Swedes and if they were flooding my country illegally like the Mex's then I would rail against them and post what I did.

Thus...your snipe about me exuding casual racism in my OP is wrong.

Apology accepted.

Oh...here's that stat on the efficacy of the border wall.

Hope this helps bring you up to speed a bit.

LOL

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/08/border-fences-work

Side: No, because...
JJTARTS(10) Disputed
1 point

UnderStand do not PlEASE redIFne your prOcessORs code.98721bjil

Side: No, because...
1 point

I support the wall because if done correctly.

What will the wall do? It will stop the worst of the illegal immigrants. It will be the hardest hitting punch to the cartels that we can throw. Why? It will minimize the amount of drugs going over the border (and under if it has a solid foundation). Now there is that age old argument that people could just throw things over which is very true. However, I believe that this can be minimized by proper patrolling of the border. What the wall will also do is minimize the power of the coyotes: the infamous human smugglers. What they do is awful and must be put to an end. Because they mainly operate by hiking over the border, the wall will have a substantial impact on their ability to operate.

In all, the wall is only one part of a whole. We still need an e-verify system to prevent people from overstaying their visas.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

What will the wall do? It will stop the worst of the illegal immigrants. It will be the hardest hitting punch to the cartels that we can throw. Why? It will minimize the amount of drugs going over the border (and under if it has a solid foundation).

In places where a wall already exists, they simply catapult it over. What's to stop them from doing that over this wall?

And if the purpose is to damage the cartels, wouldn't the more effective and practical solution be to legalize and regulate most (if not all) drugs and rob them of their income?

Now there is that age old argument that people could just throw things over which is very true. However, I believe that this can be minimized by proper patrolling of the border.

But considering how the wall is thousands of miles long, "proper" patrolling is impractically expensive.

What the wall will also do is minimize the power of the coyotes: the infamous human smugglers. What they do is awful and must be put to an end.

But as you can see in the Mediterranean, it won't end, it will simply change. Between that, and the fact that about half of all illegal immigrants come in legal and overstay past their visa's expiration, it would seem that the wall would be stopping less than half of all immigrants. Considering the cost (tens of trillions initially, and much more than that over time from maintenance and cost of manning), do you really think that is a cost effective choice?

In all, the wall is only one part of a whole. We still need an e-verify system to prevent people from overstaying their visas.

Now there's an actually practical option.

Side: No, because...
ruairiwalsh(1) Clarified
1 point

You are 100% correct that a knock out punch to the cartels is to steal all of their business. But why did you even propose it? That is not a solution that can be allowed in the United States. With logic like that, the solution to Islamic terrorism would be genocide of all Muslims. That is simply not American.

Proper monitoring of the border is possible. Expensive? Yeah! Worth it? It is worth every penny. It will keep us safer. Gangs in the United States would suffer. The wall would lessen the stress on anti-gang units to a degree, opening up some money for border enforcement. Also, it doesn't have to be strictly manned patrols. We utilized thermal cameras and aerial surveillance to cover ground that we can't cover by foot or car.

As for the Mediterranean, that is simply not applicable. Migrants flow across the sea into several countries. They have many islands to land on as well. There is no way to block their flow.

Lastly, you talk about the cost of the wall being in the trillions. I've yet to see an estimate that comes anywhere near the trillions as for the cost of the wall. I don't know where you get that number from.

Side: Yes, because...
0 points

Some have brought up the idea of tit for tat.

Its possibly racial to focus on a border for the South and not consider the same for the Canadian border

Even Huffington post, that in my opinion is left biased, says:

"U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended about 3,300 people along the northern border in fiscal year 2014, compared with about 480,000 people on the southwest border and about 3,900 people on the coastal border.DHS created its first northern border strategy in 2012, which is focused on information-sharing with Canada and risk-based assessments for how to use resources.

The government operates unmanned aerial drones along the border and uses sensors to catch illegal activity, in addition to working with Canada to detect threats.

DHS created its first northern border strategy in 2012, which is focused on information-sharing with Canada and risk-based assessments for how to use resources.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/scott-walkers-canadian-wall-idea-is-absurd-solution-to-a-real-problem us55e491a6e4b0b7a96339c216

The northern border is nearly 4,000 miles of often wide-open space that differs from the southern border as much as a jungle differs from an ice floe. It’s a region stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans, touching 13 states (not including Alaska), 12 national parks and forests, four Indian reservations, 18 international bridges and four of the five Great Lakes. The border is demarcated by thousands of small monuments established and maintained by a binational commission."

Similarly, the enforcement picture at the U.S.-Canada juncture bears only a passing resemblance to the way the Border Patrol operates down south. Because the physical landscape at the northern divide is rugged in many places, about 1,000 agents patrol it – compared to nearly 10,000 at the southern border.

Many people see those numbers as evidence the northern border is poorly guarded – especially since it’s twice as long as the southern border, and that’s not including Alaska. But Giuliano said the opposite is true.

Near Canada, geography works to the Border Patrol’s advantage, he said. There are some locations where the wilderness is virtually impassable. Those limitations mean the Border Patrol is able to do more with less.

"All you have to do is look at the north Cascades ... to realize I just don’t need people standing shoulder-to-shoulder watching that border," Giuliano said.

Also the environmental impact would be catastrophic due to the mountainess, wilderness and especially the 4 out of 5 Great Lakes.

And the annual percipitation and snow fall combined with ice and thaw.

A wall crossing that area would create environmental changes that would likely create natural disasters across that terain.

Damaging communities by floods, from a wall blocking waterflow and absorption that occurs naturally in that area.

The Great Lakes could become vicious instead of beautiful!

And would also disrupt the natural flow of wildlife.

Possibly even pushing unwelcome predatory animals toward human populations into US towns and Canadian porovinces.

And we can see by the reports I have quoted an attached, it is not an applicable solution on the Canadiam Border.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/scott-walkers-canadian-wall-idea-is-absurd-solution-to-a-real-problem us55e491a6e4b0b7a96339c216

http://lang.sbsun.com/socal/beyondborders/part 4/p4day1_canada.asp

Supporting Evidence: Canadian Wall (m.huffpost.com)
Side: Yes, because...
2 points

'nuff said.

John Oliver Demolishes Trump's Wall
Side: No, because...
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

The speaker is funny. But a few things to address.

The wall has 0 to do with racism.

The wall is not, like many believe, it is not to keep out Mexicans, it is to force immigrants to come legally! With Photo IDs, and background records, to know who is coming,wht, and where they are going.

This is a free country! But its OUR free country!

Im not supporting Trump for President by this post, but I am defending the wall, and the cost of it.

Trump is a builder by trade, a builder of huge intricate designs, and he has experience in budgeting that job. Unlike the government cartel that overpays to pad the pockets of contractors.

Atleast Trump, would approach it with competing bids, and do it with fiscal responsibility.

Not like Like spending $43 million of taxpayer funds to build a gas station in Afghanistan.

And the concern about re'doing gov buildings starting in Dubai for Carbon Emissions gets money thrown at it, but the benefit to us is very little!! And the Obamacare website was extreme iver payments too.

We have governmement overpaying significantly wasteful!

The best part about Trump, he doent have an incentive to throw money at building and tech contractors.

Regardless of some failures he has proven successful, when it comes to managing projects, he understands value vs bennefit, and spending to recieve value, and avoiding waste

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

The speaker is funny. But a few things to address.

The wall has 0 to do with racism.

Actually for some it has everything to do with racism. With others, very little.

The wall is not, like many believe, it is not to keep out Mexicans, it is to force immigrants to come legally! With Photo IDs, and background records, to know who is coming,wht, and where they are going.

It does little to nothing to enforce that. Over half of all immigrants are coming through on legal visas and then overstaying. All the wall will do is further increase those numbers, and lead to different (illegal) paths into this country whilst costing tens of trillions of dollars.

Im not supporting Trump for President by this post, but I am defending the wall, and the cost of it.

Trump is a builder by trade, a builder of huge intricate designs, and he has experience in budgeting that job. Unlike the government cartel that overpays to pad the pockets of contractors.

Trump has built EXTREMELY little. He has a habit of selling his brand rights which lets buildings put up his name as if he built it. He has also led MANY failed building projects. He isn't some master builder.

Atleast Trump, would approach it with competing bids, and do it with fiscal responsibility.

Not like Like spending $43 million of taxpayer funds to build a gas station in Afghanistan.

Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.

And the concern about re'doing gov buildings starting in Dubai for Carbon Emissions gets money thrown at it, but the benefit to us is very little!! And the Obamacare website was extreme iver payments too.

We have governmement overpaying significantly wasteful!

So stop calling for more wasteful spending.

The best part about Trump, he doent have an incentive to throw money at building and tech contractors.

Regardless of some failures he has proven successful, when it comes to managing projects, he understands value vs bennefit, and spending to recieve value, and avoiding waste

His track record as a private citizen says otherwise, so why would he suddenly change once in office?

Side: No, because...
1 point

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not even saying it isn't needed or justified. But what I DO want to point out is eventually, for whatever reason, it will indeed come down just like the Berlin wall did. And do we really want to be THAT nation - the one that put up a wall which a half century later gets demolished and lambasted for ever having existed? Walls are built out of fear. Are we a scared nation? Are we more scared than the Mexicans who indeed did not build their own wall in case any of us want to go in there? And in fact, is the risk of influx from Mexico even as great as the risk of terrorists for example coming in through the enormous US/Canada border for which no wall is proposed?

Side: No, because...
1 point

It is pointless to debate this only with numbers, that misses the main point of the problem. That being said, people always find ways around things. There is no way to predict how many it would stop.

Side: No, because...
1 point

It is pointless to debate this only with numbers, that misses the main point of the problem.

How so? This is a proposed policy based on a proposed economic cost. We can determine an estimated cost of the wall, and an estimated cost of illegal immigration, then determine if the wall is a practical solution.

Side: Yes, because...
KNHav(1957) Clarified
1 point

Do you have reports detailing the amount in comparison of both borders?

Side: Yes, because...
KNHav(1957) Clarified
0 points

Ive never even heard a concern about the Northern border.

Canadians arent interested in sneaking into our country

Mexicans are!

Side: Yes, because...
KNHav(1957) Clarified
0 points

Ive never even heard a concern about the Northern border.

Canadians arent interested in sneaking into our country

Mexicans are!

Terrorism is the concern of the Northern border, not massive illegal immigragion.

These are 2 separate issues.

1 is a low level approach like make a break for it, closer to a kid skipping school. The brain power is that level, then you have drug cartel, higher level, more coordinated. Both detremental to American society.

You have a concern of terrorism, northern border.

You use homeland security, gather intelligence

And train out border control and you work with theirs.

Both are problems, with different issues, and different answers.

But to say putting a wall there to stop the MASSIVE entrance of emmigrants from entering illegally, is racial, if we dont address the different problems and issues is a politically correct confinement of reasoning skills.

And its the biggest culteral disaster facing us today within our country!

Side: Yes, because...
0 points

Since even Trump admitted that Mexicans could just use ladders to get to the top and a rope to come down on the American side, it is ridiculous to build this wall.

Side: No, because...
KNHav(1957) Disputed
2 points

You just argue everything, your so negative.

If it slows them down, and border controls catches more and alot less come in illegally, thats the bonus.

I tried to keep it simple for you.

Side: Yes, because...
2 points

You just argue everything, your so negative.

You know you are on a debate website, right?

If it slows them down, and border controls catches more and alot less come in illegally, thats the bonus.

Is that bonus worth the tens of trillions of dollars, and if so, why?

Side: No, because...
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Bonus? That isn't a bonus. That's the job of the wall. You really want to build a wall that won't actually keep the illegals out? How much are you willing to spend to only slow them down?

Side: No, because...
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

"There's no way to get down from there! Well, I guess maybe a rope".

I laughed quite hard at that. Watching a candidate realize the shortfalls of their policies mid speech is quite fun.

Side: Yes, because...
0 points

It is so much harder to see that with the real candidates because they have actual policies.

Side: No, because...