Sorry if I came off as a bit angry beforehand in my R1. There
is no issue. I really should have directly challenged him.
Framework
When making policy decisions, lawmakers utilize a cost-benefit
analysis to determine whether a bill should pass or fail. A cost-benefit
analysis should be self-explanatory: we weigh the benefits of a plan and weigh
them against the costs to decide the fate of the policy proposal. The reason
that we do this is due to our belief that:
a) The government’s primary job is to promote the
general welfare (per the preamble of the Constitution (12)),
b) We need to account for as many external effects
as possible when analyzing a law so that people have their needs promoted should we choose to pass.
If Con's arguments outweigh those of Pro's in promoting the
general welfare under a cost-benefit analysis, then the judges should feel
comfortable with voting Con, and vice versa.
C1: Insolvency
Draconian border security policies do not typically mitigate
illegal immigration. This is due to the multitudes of incentives and costs of
crossing the border that prospective illegal immigrants are forced to weigh. The
American Journal of Sociology in 2016 recounts how the US previously enacted a
5-fold increase in Border Patrol officers and a 20-fold increase in nominal
funding toward border patrol agencies between the years 1986 and 2008. Much of
this occurred because of fears of crime or terrorism slipping through lax
border security. Despite the agencies receiving more resources; illegal
immigration surged from 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986 to 12 million illegal
immigrants in 2008 (1). The explanation behind this perplexing scenario is
referred to as circular flow.
Circular flow describes the model of immigration that used
to exist between Mexico and the US, in which illegal Mexican migrants would go
into the US illegally to work, and then leave the US. The Population and
Development Review in 2012 found that it was not until the late 60s when the
Bracero program, which allowed temporary laborers to come in from Mexico, was
abolished that we saw illegal immigration spike due to a lack of available
visas for Mexicans who desired to work in the US (2). We only had 20,000
available visas by 1968 after the program was phased out, which meant that
Mexicans who wanted to work in the US had to do so illegally since there was no
legal pathway for work. From 1965, when the Bracero program started to phase
out, to 1970, illegal immigration quadrupled (2).
This circular path that illegal immigrants took was cut off
by a buildup of border security by multiple administrations who were worried
about the permeability of the Southern border. Illegal immigrants already
earning money in the US did not dare leave because the increased physical and
monetary risks to get to the US by circumventing border security meant that
they had to make their trip last to recoup the resources spent (i.e. paid
smugglers called “coyotes” which aided illegal immigrants seeking to enter the
US, the physical cost of exhaustion from passing through less traditional, more
dangerous routes to the US, and exhaustion experienced by illegal immigrants.)
However, newer illegal immigrants were not deterred by the
increase in physical and monetary costs that accumulated when there were methods
to overcome them. For instance, the use of paid guides to circumvent border
security to get into the US, or “coyotes,” increased from 70% usage in the
early 70s, to virtually 100% in 2010 according to the same American Journal of
Sociology study (1). Also, illegal immigrants took hazardous routes through
places such as the Sonoran Desert, increasing the death rate of illegal
immigrants substantially as the years passed.
A key component of any argument is solvency, or the degree
to which a plan will work to fix a problem. If the borders are to be secure, then
simply creating a giant wall will not stop illegal immigration no matter how
inordinate the price is to cross. Mexican people vying to cross the border see
the economic progress in the US compared to the destitution that their family
lives in. The Borgen Project estimates that in 2014, 55 million Mexican people
lived below the poverty line, or over 20% of the population (9). Annual wage
and job growth cannot serve the entire population. This is the reason that
illegal immigrants want into the US. If they cannot cross the border, many opt
to simply legally enter via airplane, and simply overstay their visa so they can
make enough money to send back to their families. The Associated Press reports
that visa overstays reached 700,000 in 2017 alone (10). Even with surges in
border crossings, in 2018, only about 400,000 occurred according to the Pew
Research Center (11).
C2: Mexican Cartels
Reap More Profit
As I have already mentioned, illegal immigrants are
circumventing border security policies to venture into the US using coyotes and
hazardous routes. Moreover, illegal immigrants already in the US when border
security was implemented stayed within the country as opposed to returning home
to Mexico. These issues are exacerbated because of the wall. Remember, coyotes
profit off border security as they charge money to pass said border security
unnoticed. Because it has become such a needed service for illegal immigrants
seeking refuge in the US, the prices they charge have increased over time. The
American Journal of Sociology noted that coyotes are virtually always
successful and have been swelling their prices. In a span of 10 years (from
2000 to 2010) the price of one trip increased from $1,900 for a border crossing
from a coyote, $2,700 in constant 2013 dollars (1). Because we add another
layer of border security, this price will rise, allowing for more profit for
coyotes. These coyotes are frequently people in Mexican drug cartels that seek
a cut of their profits, leaving the coyotes with a lucrative deal, while also
supplying the needed cash to fund operations. For instance, the Gulf Cartel
generated $50 million in 6 months according to Dallas News in 2014, keeping the
group alive during an internal split (4). Battles for control over areas within
Mexico between these cartels has led to increasing bloodshed. BBC Mundo (you
might need to translate this page if you are using Chrome,) shows that in 2010,
the Mexican government’s recognized that the war between the Los Zetas and the
Gulf Cartel exceeded 1,200 causalities (5). Forbes furthers this, explaining
that 15% of companies, including over 30 of our own, shut down operations in
Mexico because of the ensuing chaos stemming from cartel wars (6).
Furthermore, when cartels earn more money, they can use
their profits to fund the creation of more synthetic drugs and opioids which
are killing US citizens en masse. The Annenberg Public Policy Center reports
that in 2016, over 8,000 pounds of meth, and over 8,000 pounds of heroin, was
caught being smuggled into the US (7). Not only can we expect more synthesized
drugs to be illegally smuggled over the border, we can also expect that better-funded
cartels will be able to better cover up their illegal operations through bribes.
Over the past decade, according to the New York Times in 2016, over $15 million
worth of bribes ended up in the pockets of over 200 border patrol employees to our knowledge (13).
By making border security harsher, we present a lucrative
deal for coyotes who can circumvent the wall by directing people through
harsher routes. All the while, we see no substantial decrease in illegal
immigration due to the reliance on coyotes that guarantee passage into the US.
This connection is drawn by Quartz in 2017. Not only did the price that coyotes
charge increase, (reaching highs of $10,000 per 1 crossing,) but they used the
Trump wall policy to justify their price gouging.
Adam Isacson, immigration
expert at the Washington Office on Latin America, explained that coyotes were presenting the message:
“Get here before he builds his wall (8).”
This is not to suggest that bolstering border security has
no impact on prices, and that only the perception of heightened security
matters. As the Quartz article mentions:
“Data from the Mexican Migration Project managed by Princeton
University and the University of Guadalajara, which has been surveying Mexican
immigrants for decades, show prices have generally tracked Border Patrol
spending (8).”
By building the wall, people are put in danger in both the
US and Mexico though increased violence, drug addiction, and economic harm.
Sources
Does the wall reduce illegal immigration significantly?
You can choose the position you want to debate when you start the debate.
Look at the color of the profiles. Red means con, green means pro.
blamonkey instigates with "build the wall" therefore I expected the contender to argue against the wall but as it happens instigator is arguing against his own resolution....On DDO the instigator could choose PRO/CON but I don't see that option on DArt. Am I missing something? How did AIRhino know to take the affirmative?
Has Virt's tournament even started? I said I wanted to be a debater in the tournament and he hasn't updated the list.
this is why you challenge them directly.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/new?contender=WisdomofAges
"This debate is only for Wisdom of Ages. Do not accept unless you are him. It is also for Virtuoso's Tournament."
This was in the description for the debate.
Oh.
He chose the side of the argument he wanted to be on. This is for the tournament, so we both had to decide in a resolution. This is the one he picked and I have no complaints.
Is WOA Wisdom of Ages? He might agree with you. He is kindof left leaning.
This debate is specifically for WOA. I hope he does, but it possible that he won't.
Do you think anyone will accept the debate?
I asked Debateart.com that in his suggestions for improvement forum.
Either an edit button (haven't launched a debate here to know for sure), or ask one of the admins to change it.
How can he change the name of the title?
I advise correcting the S&G, but as Alec pointed out, it does not jeopardize readability in order to cost the point...
I think the mistake is small and people still understand the basic message of what your saying.
Ah crap, that's what I get for writing it on my phone.
@Wisdom - this debate is for you. Please accept if you want to.
@Wisdom - this debate is for you. Please accept
You've spelled it as 'Southerrn'