Posted on 01/21/2015 3:43:04 PM PST by MarchonDC09122009
New GOP Border Security Bill Removes Border Fences The new border bills drafted by Republican leaders require the actual removal of at least 66 miles of weak border fencing between Mexico and the United States.
The border bills also only require for the construction of 27 miles of effective double-layer fencing along the 2,000-mile border.
“It is a remarkable that the direction of our progress is going backwards, from a goal of building 700 miles of double-layer border fencing [in 2006] to only 27 miles [in 2015],” said a Hill staffer who opposes the leaders’ bills.
“Where the double-layer fence has been put in, it has worked spectacularly. The public is with us 80, 90 percent on this issue,” he added.
Extra fencing would be a waste of money, according to Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
“The bill matches resources to needs, putting 27 more miles of fencing where fencing is needed, and technology where technology is needed,” said the statement.
“In our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border,” said the statement.
A House staffer said the McCaul’s bill doesn’t require a major fence because of advocacy by Heritage and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.
Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action for America, told The Daily Caller that Heritage did not recommend against fencing.
ATR has joined with wealthy advocates — such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — to call for increased use of foreign workers and residency for illegal immigrants.
Senate committee staffers declined to offer any reassurances that Senators would modify the bill to fund more fencing and to block Obama’s catch-and-release policy, prior to a Senate vote in a few weeks.
“We’re going to be looking at everything,” said a committee staffer. “We can’t give any detail beyond that.”
The Senate bill is co-sponsored by Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who co-sponsored the Senate’s 2013 immigration bill.
“We introduced the McCaul [House] bill [in the Senate] as is and plan to update and improve it as we study the issue through [House] briefings and hearings,” said the staffer, who works for the Senate’s homeland security committee. The committee is chaired by Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson.
The public strongly supports a border fence. An April 2013 poll by Rasmussen shows “that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should continue building a border fence, while 29% disagree.” Support for the fence is much higher among the GOP-leaning voters that provided the votes for the GOP victory in November.
A 2006 law required the construction of 700 miles of double-layer fencing along the 2,000 mile border. However, Congress quietly modified the bill in 2008 to allow the construction of simple, ineffective fences in place of the required double-layer fencing.
Officials claim that just over 600 miles of the border now have obstructions, including barriers. But those barriers include lines of bollards to stop vehicles, plus single-layer “landing mat fencing” and only 36.5 miles of double-layer fencing.
The leaders’ bills call for the replacement of anti-pedestrian mat fences by anti-vehicle bollards.
The bollards will allow migrants to be driven up to the border, and then walked over to a pick-up vehicle on the U.S. side.
“Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall replace, at a minimum, each of the following: (A) Thirty-one miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector. (B) Five miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s El Centro sector. (C) Three miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector. (D) Twenty-five miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector. (E) Two miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector,” says a section on page 12 of the House bill, HR 399.
No, you tried weasling your way out of it just as you are now. You can’t correct truth with more lie. That site and it’s management are on record as being affiliated with LaRaza. Your assertions at the time that the SD fence failed were/are a farce on their face.
Your post came from a LaRaza Linked site. It was pure propaganda based on complete bullshit that a 2 year old could see through, much less anyone paying attention. You are indeed anti fence.
If the truth bothers you, try not acting like a liberal. Then you’ll be on the conservative side of the debate instead of the Rick Perry side of the debate.
There is nothing they won’t cave on.
All of these damned country club Republicans stabbing us in the back like this. I am frankly willing to join with the occupy Commies raise their taxes on all of them and their lib gentry partners in crime. If the border is not secured we raise their taxes every year. Oh, I forgot we would have to have legislators to do that. That is something we only have in name only on our side.
Does one really need be a member of an anti-American group to be a supporter?
The SD fence works as close to perfection as any govt. project EVER has. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant, or an outright liar!
BT, it appears that you qualify for the latter.
Boredom mostly. It’s not like anyone cares enough to actually blast their asses back to DU where they belong. Might as well enjoy making them look stupid.
The No Border Wall organization was founded by McAllen, Texas resident Scott Nicol along with various other South Texas landowners whose properties are affected by the construction of border fencing. They are not formally associated with La Raza. No Border Wall is totally opposed to border fencing. I am not. I support fencing where it makes sense strategically and economically.
Your post came from a LaRaza Linked site. It was pure propaganda based on complete bullshit(...)
No, the data was not propaganda. The data was cited directly from the U.S. Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, the Congressional Research Service, and the Bush Administration.
Here's my original post.
Then you’ll be on the conservative side of the debate instead of the Rick Perry side of the debate.
I am on the most conservative side of the debate. I reject the idea of wasting tens of billions more dollars of taxpayer money on ineffective fencing for the sake of a political symbol at the expense of common sense, property rights, and agricultural, environmental, and economic considerations and support the idea of strategic fencing, large numbers of boots on the ground, and effective use of surveillance and technology. I want a secure border not an insecure barrier that merely slows down the disease-ridden bloodsuckers and terrorists.
Your use of Alinsky Rules 5 & 12 is telling. You ignore the data so you can focus on the target. Keep up the good work, comrade.
You can dance all you like. They are joined at the hip, you support a LaRaza backed position, work against an actual fence and posted propaganda that has multiply been shown to be a lie.
PS, you had more than 1 post. that debate went on for 3 days.
The U.S. Border Patrol and Congressional Research Service use the number of illegal alien apprehensions as their primary mechanism for measuring the flow of illegal aliens across the border and for establishing an effectiveness rating. 1
Let's examine the data.
All of the double pedestrian fencing and 75% of triple fencing in the San Diego sector was complete in 2005.2 So let's look directly at the Border Patrol apprehension data from 2005 to 20123, when the current surge of illegals began due to Obama's announcement of no deportation for minors and others.
| Year | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Bend | 10,536 | 7,520 | 5,536 | 5,391 | 6,360 | 5,288 | 4,036 | 3,964 |
| Del Rio | 68,506 | 42,636 | 22,920 | 20,761 | 17,082 | 14,694 | 16,144 | 21,720 |
| El Centro | 55,722 | 61,465 | 55,883 | 40,961 | 33,521 | 32,562 | 30,191 | 23,916 |
| El Paso | 122,679 | 122,256 | 75,464 | 30,312 | 14,999 | 12,251 | 10,345 | 9,678 |
| Laredo | 75,346 | 74,840 | 56,714 | 43,658 | 40,569 | 35,287 | 36,053 | 44,872 |
| Rio Grande Valley | 134,136 | 110,528 | 73,430 | 75,473 | 60,989 | 59,766 | 59,243 | 97,762 |
| San Diego | 126,904 | 142,104 | 152,460 | 162,390 | 118,721 | 68,565 | 42,447 | 28,461 |
| Tucson | 439,079 | 392,074 | 378,239 | 317,696 | 241,673 | 212,202 | 123,285 | 120,000 |
| Yuma | 138,438 | 118,549 | 37,992 | 8,363 | 6,951 | 7,116 | 5,833 | 6,500 |
As you can see, San Diego's apprehensions went up not down from 2005 to 2009. Nearly every other sector's apprehensions - the ones without double fencing, or any fencing at all - went down.
From 2009 to 2011, San Diego's apprehensions went down significantly. (BTW, the 90-95% effectiveness rate that many cite for the San Diego sector comes from USBP fiscal year 2011.) So did nearly every other sector's apprehensions. Remember, those sectors don't have double fencing. Some have no fencing. So the double and triple fence in San Diego had been there for four years. Did the fence suddenly become a substantial deterrent?
What happened in 2009 that caused such a drop in apprehensions, not just in San Diego, but all across the southern border? Well, from 2005 to 2009, we increased the number of Border Patrol agents from 11, 264 to 20,119, of whom 17,399 are deployed to the southern border and we increased technological detection and enforcement capabilities, such as cameras, radar, sensors, and towers.4 (i.e. smart fencing) In addition to significantly increased staff and technology, the economic recession began in 2008, which, according to the U.S. Border Patrol and Congressional Research Service, directly contributed to a decreased flow of illegals seeking work and opportunity in the U.S.
Then, in 2012 and continuing today, apprehensions jumped all across the southern border when Obama announced he wouldn't bother with deporting minors.
All that said, fencing makes good sense in a significant portion of the San Diego sector. It does not, however, make much sense in many other border sectors. Using the San Diego sector as a model for all of the 2000 mile border is illogical at best and disastrous at worst.
The only one dancing is you, comrade. Carry on.
My hart bleeds Lib. you got caught posting propaganda and multiply disproven figures straight from a LaRaza linked website.
Had I acted like an open leftist as you did, I’d try projecting too. If I tried telling people that the SD fence failed when the guy there and running it called it a great success, I’d try dancing around the issue to.
You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want to. You can lie and post all the propaganda you want to. It’s not like anyone ever stops you. But you can’t hide your own actions. And they, clearly, are of the left.
Yep. The Republicrat senate and congress have not done much so far that Pelosi, Reid and company would not have done pretty much the same.
I’m pretty sure an army of drones could spot them coming and flag them for pick up in time to be caught on US territory. That’s the breach detection aspect. Then another army of helicopters could provide the response and the agents inside could apprehend and arrest them until they could be carted away for processing, detention, and deportation as necessary. If that process is carried out successfully a few hundred or thousand times, word would get back to those trying to cross and provide the deterrent.
Air intrusion detection by drone or helicopter is only one small part of the border solution.
Double fencing on each side border patrol road is a very good place to start where ever physical border barrier is appropriate.
If we look at this as a pest problem, the most effective deterrent is to eliminate the reward from illegally immigrating to the USA.
Amnesty, All health, welfare, education, and privileges afforded citizens (driver license, voting rights) Must be eliminated in order to make immigration here, unattractive.
Just like with household pests like ants - keeping a kitchen very clean (devoid of any available food) greatly reduces the incentive for entry and habitation.
Dems & Rinos dilberately want continued border crisis in order to forever lower american standard of living / culture, and to gradually facilitate North-Central-South American super state. Absolute treason.
If a border fence isn’t effective, why is there a border fence around the White House?
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.