I'll debate anything

Owen_T's statement: The situation at the border is complex and very problematic for the U.S. We must be able to efficiently monitor and understand it if we are ever to create a comprehensive and effective plan to fix it. 

1. I will concede that the situation at the border is complex and problematic, however I would argue that this complexity adds more incentive to not expand border surveillance. The reason being is that border surveillance fundamentally perpetuates cycles of structural violence and the death of migrants. A meta study conducted by the University of Arizona (www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08865655.2019.1570861), found that the common strategy of implementing surveillance infrastructure is not to actually understand the crisis but rather to make it "so difficult and so costly to enter this country illegally that fewer individuals even try". This never solved anything, instead it just moved migration patterns from traditional urban crossing areas to rural deserts in places such as southern Arizona for less visibility. This created what is known as the "funnel effect". The funnel effect has perpetuated structural violence against migrants and led to a 20-fold increase in the death and disappearance of migrants.

2. Surveillance technology empirically fails and no matter what tech is used in expansion, further efforts will, once again, continue to increase migrant deaths. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars into surveillance towers, land interdiction, and tunnel detection programs. However, there is no true metric showing actual success. In fact, past surveillance towers have quite literally detected grazing cattle as humans, wasting governmental resources

3. In a world where surveillance increases, it will only push migrants to go through "third-party entities" to enter the border. This puts migrants at a huge risk of increased trafficking and exploitative situations. 

Ultimately, I would argue that the opposition has a severe lack of warranting.