I'm not 100% sure what I'm going to do for my 3.1 yet, but I do have some ideas. I am pro border fence in high population areas, but against fencing the entire southern U.S. border. For the sections of the border that do not get fenced, the government should take advantage of new technology. There are plenty of new technologies that will aid the border patrol in stopping illegal immigration. Fencing in the border in high populated areas will help prevent illegals from quickly crossing the border and fitting in and slipping by border patrol. I will be making a proposal argument to prove to my audience that my proposal is the solution. My audience is going to be Texans who don't want the fence to be built at all. But the fact is some of the fence has already been built, and it has been proven to work in the high populated area of San Diego.
Again I am not sure if I am going to use this as my 3.1, its just an idea.
1 comment:
This is an interesting stance for this class given that we have been more liberal over all in the majority of our arguments. This seems to be one of those proposals that we were blaming for the nasty conditions of modern day border crossing realities, i.e. build the fences where it's easy to cross= Mexicans dying in the sun. Now, I am not attacking your position in any way, I even happen to think that the above argument is a bit exaggerated and only serves as a heart-string puller. Maybe you could explore the disconnect between the two stances and find an original and specific reason to be for building fences in high-population areas. I could see a lot of opposition discrediting... fish in a barrel, right?
Post a Comment