Posted on 02/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
And it's fun.
Where does the money for fences, additional border guards and equipment come from?Next,your assignment is to define the following word:
Appropriations
And of course there always has to be an essay question : )
Define the Constitutional basis for the word above and name the person or persons responsible.I await your answers.
Yet even Clinton was able to do a far better job of interior enforcement then Bush with less money. And Congress authorized 2000 new Border Patrol Agents last year and Bush only requested 210 in his budget. So don't tell me he is trying to do something. The expansion of the Border Patrol we got this year was shoved down his unwilling throat.
1,700 Border Patrol Agents Assigned. Dec. 7, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff announced the fiscal year 2006 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol agent deployment schedule. An additional 1,700 CBP Border Patrol agents will be assigned to the southwest border as follows: Arizona, 643 agents, Texas, 452 agents, California, 352 agents, and New Mexico, 253 agents.
Let me review it for you. In December of 2004, the Congress passed the 911 Security Bill which, against the objections of the President who also opposed the RealID Act provisions, included authorization for 10,000 new Border Patrol Agents to be added in increments of 2000 per year starting in 2006. After initially fighting these provisions Bush eventually saw that they could not be defeated and eventually praised them after he got the RealID Act stripped out. That also had to be shoved down his unwilling throat a couple of months later.
But, less than 2 months later he submitted a proposed budget requesting only 210.
This really pissed off the Congress and they passed a budget which restored the number back to 2000.
In about May of 2005, as part of the Iraq War Supplemental Funding Bill, again against the objections of the President, Robert Byrd got funding for about 700 of the 1700 Border Patrol Agents you are citing as a Bush accomplishment. Byrd's Amendment passed with unanimous support from every single Democrat Senator and a few Republican conservatives.
In October of 2005, funding for the remaining 1000 of the 1700 Border Patrol Agents was passed. This was 300 short of the 2000 authorized and budgeted by Congress a few months earlier but 1500 greater than the number requested by the Whitehouse which spent much of the summer whining about how it did not have the capacity to train that many agents.
I believe I have a reasonable understanding of the appropriations process in theory and an excellent understanding of how it worked with respect to expanding the Border Patrol last year. You on the other hand are trying to give the President credit for an accomplishment that he obstructed every step of the way. It is as ridiculous as giving President Clinton credit for welfare reform after he vetoed it three times.
Thank you for posting that accurate outline. Yes, any legislation to correct the problem has been fought by the WH. That's probably why no one is hearing about this bill.
There is ONE repub in the Senate who has introduced a very good bill and NO ONE is paying attention. It's worth the read and worth getting some news out about it. Go here and type in the bill # S. 2117.http://thomas.loc.gov
And ask your senators why they haven't co sponsored this bill.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S . 2117 . A bill to clarify the circumstances under which a person born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to provide for criminal penalties for forging Federal documents, to establish a National Border Neighborhood Watch Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
[snip]--- Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S . 2117 , which is a bill engaging our Nation to fight concerning our right to control entry. It is legislation that covers many aspects of the problem we are having on our very porous borders. One part of this is utilizing retired law enforcement officers. As many people know, national law enforcement officers have to retire at age 57. We learned of their availability after 9/11 when the Transportation Safety Administration and our office was inundated with calls from these brave law enforcement officers who are retired, saying that they wanted to participate in this activity, and they are willing to do it for costs. The legislation I have introduced does include the very sophisticated type of a fence that goes along the border between Mexico and the United States and also with an army of people who can join those who have already demonstrated very clearly that if we have enough people down there, we will be able to secure our borders.
There were plenty of complaints, go back and take a look. But then, like now, too many repubs didn't want to hear it.
It's hard to believe, but Clinton did more to fix it than Bush. He hired border patrol and started the fence in San Diego and actually punished illegal employers.
Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers: 1997: 17,554
1998: 13,914
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2002: 485
2003: 445
2004: 159
2005: 81 (First 7 months) Sources: GAO, "Immigration Enforcement: Weaknesses Hinder Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts," August 2005. http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd_table.htm#t1
HR 418 -- A National ID Bill Masquerading As Immigration Reform by Rep. Ron Paul
Maybe this is why he wants the line item veto?
And it looks like the Senate was waffling as well:
July 15, 2005 - The Senate backed away from its 2004 pledge to hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and fund 8,000 new detention beds for illegal aliens in fiscal 2006. The intelligence overhaul bill passed by Congress and signed into law in last December called for 2,000 new agents and 8,000 new detention beds each year for the next five years in order to meet the threat posed by illegal aliens. But in mid-July, the Senate voted on amendments to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, providing funds for only 1,000 more agents and 2,240 more detention beds in fiscal 2006.
And you must also remember that the President's budget is a proposal, not a mandate, and Congress has the ultimate authority for funding. IOW, you may not have liked what he proposed to fund or not fund, but that does not absolve Congress of their ultimate responsibility on the issue of funding new border agents.
Very true. And Congress has done their job over the President's objections.
But your Post 42 was in response to my Post 16 to your Post 11 and if you trace this conversation backwards you will see that we have now come full circle and you are now making my original point for me.
It is not the President's job to propose legislation to fix the immigration problem. The only role in the legislative process that the Constitution gives the President is either signing it or vetoing it. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the President from making legislative proposals but it is not one of his primary or even defined Constitutional duties.
But the Constitution does give the President a mandated duty to secure the borders and to enforce laws enacted by Congress. And to paraphrase (and twist) your words above: the President may not have liked the laws passed by Congress, but that does not absolve him of the ultimate responsibility to enforce them.
The President has recently argued that the Constitution gives him the inherent authority to do the NSA wiretaps and that he did not need legislative authorization from Congress to take those steps to protect the American people. I agree with him on that point. The Constitution also gives the President responsibility for securing the borders and he has the inherent authority (and indeed a duty) under the Constitution to accomplish that task with or without authorizations from Congress. He could deploy the National Guard to the Border for that purpose tomorrow on his own Constitutional authority.
Actually, as can be seen here (PDF file), he did very much support the REAL ID Act.
This incidentally blows out of the water the whole theory that Bush is soft on illegal entry because he wants to attract Hispanic votes. He's soft on illegal entry because he's committed to turning the Americas into an EU-style superstate. And as that Ron Paul column you linked to indicates, the REAL ID Act is a step in that direction because it provides for, among other things, the sharing of U.S. driver's license data with Canada and Mexico.
That document is dated February 2005. President Bush did kind of a John Kerry number: he supported it after he opposed it. He worked very hard to get it stripped out of the 9/11 Security Bill in 2004. He wasn't given much choice but to support it in February because Sensenbrenner and the House Leadership made it clear that it was going to be attached to the first "must pass" bill in 2005 and that it would be nonnegotiable. His choices were to support it or get handed a defeat by his own party and have it pass anyway
As far as attracting Hispanic votes goes, I've always believed that the Republicans new found enthusiasm for the Hispanic vote and all of the hispandering was just a smokescreen for the real objective which is to secure an unlimited supply of cheap labor.
You are right about the NG, that is his only option outside of Congress. However, any NG deployment would first have to be requested by the state (we ran into that problem with Katrina). Then there is also concern by some about the military performing what are normally civilian law enforcement duties. It is my understanding that the NG does not have arrest authority and could only assist in building fences and such. A private contractor could probably do a better job for less money and the liability would fall on the contractor for making sure the fence is installed correctly and completed on time, something you would lack with the NG. Personally, as our NG forces are stretched due to Iraq, I think a private contractor to install fences would probably be the best alternative.
I think his real objective with regard to that bill was to get the border-security provisions stripped out, so he waged a general campaign against all illegal-alien-related provisions, on the pretext that these things were extraneous to the goals of the bill. I'm sure that even he knew he would look kind of silly arguing against increased funding for the BP while supporting the "REAL ID" provisions in the same bill.
I think that at heart Bush has no problem with any bill that increases federal control over traditionally state matters like drivers' licensing, especially when it provides opportunities for further surveillance and tracking of people.
There were complaints then. I remember them. I recall Clinton coming to LA and people holding protest signs saying, "LA is a third world cesspool." Illegal immigration was mainly a California problem then, and the rest of the country didn't care. Their attitude was, "Ha ha, serves those fruits and nuts in California right." Now the problem has spread to many other states, greatly assisted by Bush talking about his "guest worker program," which only encourages many more illegals to flood in every time he says it, hoping to be part of the amnesty.
Clinton was busy merging all our government agencies with NGOs to continue promoting his one world government in his absence from office.
Our governmental departments are under contract with the NGOs now due to grant monies and signed CFRs
I started trying to explain this on this post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
It encompasses immigration also.
International Federation for Housing and Planning (IFHP)
Web: www.ifhp.org. Founded 1913 by Ebenezer Howard (author of the influential book Garden Cities of To-morrow) under the name “International Garden Cities and Town Planning Association.” Objectives are to “improve general knowledge in housing, planning, and related fields, and thereby to improve housing and planning practice throughout the world.” Activities include organizing study tours, seminars, conferences, and an annual congress. Working parties include Climatology, Urban Preservation, Underground Planning and Housing, and Urban Land Policy. Members are organizations and individuals in some 75 countries and territories.
Immigrants
Center for Immigration Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies is a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded in 1985. It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.
http://www.cis.org/
National Immigration Forum
The purpose of the National Immigration Forum is to embrace and uphold America's tradition as a nation of immigrants. The Forum advocates and builds public support for public policies that welcome immigrants and refugees and that are fair and supportive to newcomers in our country.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
NNIRR member organizations and activists utilize the network as a tool to enhance collaboration, build and develop strategy, and push thinking and analysis "outside the box" of service provision or "quick-fix" legislation. The program aims to involve, support, and empower immigrant communities to address the critical issues in their neighborhoods and workplaces.
http://www.nnirr.org/
About NGOs:
Non-governmental organization - A non-governmental organization (NGO) is an organization that is not part of a government and was not founded by states. NGOs are therefore typically independent of governments. Although the definition can technically include for-profit corporations, the term is generally restricted to social, cultural, legal, and environmental advocacy groups having goals that are primarily noncommercial. NGOs are usually non-profit organizations that gain at least a portion of their funding from private sources. Current usage of the term is generally associated with the United Nations and authentic NGOs are those that are so designated by the UN.
Whether we believe he is right or wrong in his proposal, we have to give him credit for at least trying to do something, that is better than Congress has done.
And now you are saying:
Bush can't enforce the border mandates made by Congress without the required Congressional funding for more manpower, equipment and fencing. Therefore,it is up to Congress to provide this funding irregardless of what Bush proposes.
Can't you see the inconsistency? First you claim that he is trying but that it is Congress's fault because they aren't giving him what he needs. And when I point out that Congress has been giving him more resources then he requested or wanted (1700 vs 210) you claim that it is still Congress's fault because they have not shoved even more resources down his unwilling throat.
What can a person do with that kind of nonsensical logic? I'll go back to my original assertion: Baloney!
My "at least trying to do something" statement, if it had been taken in context, was referring to the fact that he has submitted proposals to Congress for immigration reform, which is a whole separate issue than border enforcement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.