Skip to comments.
2,000 new border agents aren't part of budget, [Bush] says
USA Today ^
| Jan. 25, 2005
| Mimi Hall
Posted on 01/25/2005 9:56:49 AM PST by citizen
2,000 new border agents aren't part of budget, Ridge says
President Bush (news - web sites) will not ask Congress for enough money to add 2,000 agents to patrol the nation's borders in his 2006 budget, even though he signed a bill last month authorizing the increase.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday that Bush's new budget, to be released in early February, will propose a "good incremental increase" in the number of agents. But he made it clear the number would not approach 2,000. The new agents were to be the first hires toward doubling the size of the force over five years.
As part of a sweeping intelligence bill passed in December, Congress called for nearly doubling the size of the Border Patrol by adding 10,000 agents over five years. The agency has about 11,000 agents; 90% work along the southern border with Mexico.
But in an interview with USA TODAY, Ridge scoffed at the notion of adding so many agents and said it would be an inefficient use of precious homeland security dollars.
"The notion that you're going to have 10,000 is sort of a fool's gold," Ridge said. "It's nice to say you're going to have 10,000 more Border Patrol agents in five years, but what other part of Homeland Security do you want to take the money from?"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aliens; border; borderinsecurity; bordersecurity; bush; bushamnesty; congress; dhs; homelabdsecurity; homelandsecurity; illegalaliens; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; jorgebushamecha; openborders; ridge; security; term2; unfundedmandate; uspresident4mexico; w2; w2bushplan; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-155 next last
To: bayourod
Where did I attack President Bush?
Play a new tune, rod, and buzz off.
121
posted on
01/25/2005 8:03:04 PM PST
by
JustAnotherSavage
(When conservatives break their principles they seem to become casual about breaking the law, too.)
To: JustAnotherSavage
"Where did I attack President Bush"
You want me to get the link to where you said you hated Bush more than you hated Mexicans?
To: servantboy777
"Even with the proper documents, you can normally tell whether their here legally by doing proper background checks not to mention certain interviewing techniques. "It shouldn't be up to employers to enforce federal immigration laws anymore than they should enforce alimony laws, probation laws, civil judgments, child support, etc...
Employers have more important things to do than play immigration detective.
123
posted on
01/25/2005 8:06:35 PM PST
by
bayourod
(America, the greatest nation in history is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are an asset.)
To: JustAnotherSavage
Your post #111 "More smoke and mirrors. "Who are you accusing of smoke and mirrors if not President Bush?
124
posted on
01/25/2005 8:09:32 PM PST
by
bayourod
(America, the greatest nation in history is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are an asset.)
To: drt1
OK, When does the Revolution start? These out-of-touch Elites in Washington "Scoff" at what the LARGE MAJORITY of Americans want. Same attitude as Marie Antoinette! And from an earlier post...
""The Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE) will reprint the "Mexican Migrant Guide," in spite of prompting from the U.S. government.""
Well, that just about wraps it up then. The mexican government will continue to dump their garbage into this country. They were told to stop. By continuing they have made it quite clear to myself and MANY others that they are a smiling snake. Nothing more.
Our own government is only slightly less responsible for this issue. Thinly vealed amnesty innuendo and flowery legislation that is and never will be funded. Zero efforts to prosecute criminal employers BLANTLY violating federal law. Turning a blind eye to massive non-enforcment via the "safety zones" of almost all major cities. Worthless, traitorous, lying two faced politicians that sell out this Republic parade around D.C. and smile for photo ops and the phantom illusion of the "hispanic vote."
AR2 is well on the way if this, repeat.. T - H - I - S administration does not absolutely get medieval on the mexican criminal border invaders.
http://www.minutemanproject.com/
125
posted on
01/25/2005 8:34:08 PM PST
by
TLI
( . . . ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA . . . . . .)
To: untrained skeptic
That several hundred million dollars would have to come from somewhere.Well --- there was a billion dollars tacked onto the recent Medicare bill for the free health care of illegals, there are billions of dollars for the free hospitals and free clinics along the border --- and billions of dollars for the free schools for the citizens of Mexico.
126
posted on
01/25/2005 8:38:01 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: Ben Ficklin
I'll believe it when I see it and I really hope I see it.
127
posted on
01/25/2005 8:46:30 PM PST
by
Marine Inspector
(Customs & Border Protection Officer)
To: Ben Ficklin
Have you stopped beating your wife?
128
posted on
01/25/2005 8:55:49 PM PST
by
JustAnotherSavage
(When conservatives break their principles they seem to become casual about breaking the law, too.)
To: bayourod
Because it can't possibly clean up this mess.
There is no money for additional enforcement. Theres no WILL for additional enforcement. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Even if it remains the status quo - that's still a disaster. let's start vigorous enforcement NOW and THEN once we get that figured out, look at what to do next.
129
posted on
01/25/2005 9:00:14 PM PST
by
adam_az
(UN out of the US! - http://www.moveamericaforward.org/?Page=Petition)
To: Ben Ficklin
130
posted on
01/25/2005 9:10:17 PM PST
by
JustAnotherSavage
(When conservatives break their principles they seem to become casual about breaking the law, too.)
To: adam_az
"There is no money for additional enforcement. Theres no WILL for additional enforcement. It's a disaster waiting to happen. " How do you know how much money Congress will appropriate for it? Has a bill even been introduced?
.
"let's start vigorous enforcement NOW and THEN once we get that figured out, look at what to do next. "
That's awfully petty isn't it? Why can't we do both? Congress hasn't appropriated any additional monies for "vigorous" enforcement yet. What about doing it all in one bill?
Or were you thinking about not upholding your end of the bargain?
131
posted on
01/25/2005 9:28:16 PM PST
by
bayourod
(America, the greatest nation in history is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are an asset.)
To: pooh fan
132
posted on
01/25/2005 9:46:06 PM PST
by
ApesForEvolution
(Pray for the Lord's hand in the Iraqi elections (& I ain't talkin bout the dead terrorist pedophile))
To: bayourod
"How do you know how much money Congress will appropriate for it? Has a bill even been introduced?"
EXACTLY. Look at the subject of this topic! "2,000 new border agents aren't part of budget, [Bush] says," that says it all.
The homeland security bill was emasculated late last year - the border security aspects were stripped out.
It's clear from the administrations press releases that the "visa" program is far more important than protecting our borders.
What makes you think that will change anytime soon?
"That's awfully petty isn't it? Why can't we do both? Congress hasn't appropriated any additional monies for "vigorous" enforcement yet. What about doing it all in one bill?"
There isn't the will to do both. Look at the topic. Why haven't we had vigorous border enforcement for YEARS? If we did, we wouldnt be in the sad shape we are in NOW.
" Or were you thinking about not upholding your end of the bargain?"
What pray tell is "my end of the bargain?"
What kind of backward-ass bargain do "I" need to make in order to see our Government fulfill one of it's few constitutionally mandated duties - protecting the border????
133
posted on
01/25/2005 9:46:17 PM PST
by
adam_az
(UN out of the US! - http://www.moveamericaforward.org/?Page=Petition)
To: citizen; Mr. Mojo
To: Ben Ficklin
Thanks. It's a little bit of help, but with an estimated 8000 people coming across the Mexico border each day, we need more personnel... Or a secure fence/wall.
We have thousands of military personnel on active duty in Germany, Japan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.
They are not protecting or defending OUR country from anything. They've been in those countries long enough.
I'd like to see President Bush pull those troops out of those countries, and put them on our Mexican border to defend it from people illegally sneaking in. These troops can be trained in nonlethal methods of arrest and detainment.
Personally, I'd rather have a secure fence/wall, with monitored ports of entry, along our southern border.
We are at war, and the Islamo- Fascists will eventually find our southern border is as easy to penetrate as an unsecured cockpit door, pre-9/11.
Regards
135
posted on
01/25/2005 10:00:02 PM PST
by
FBD
("A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan)
To: Ben Ficklin
Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy declined to comment on the numbers because the 2006 budget has not been released. He warned figures can change up until it is actually sent to Congress.Any idea why Bush is waiting until 2006 to do this?
To: FITZ
"Well --- there was a billion dollars tacked onto the recent Medicare bill for the free health care of illegals, there are billions of dollars for the free hospitals and free clinics along the border --- and billions of dollars for the free schools for the citizens of Mexico."
That makes a good case for investing in the Border Patrol being a good investment.
However, it's an investment that won't pay off immediately.
Our laws don't allow us to stop providing that care, so the money still needs to be there for that now. The money for the border patrol needs to be there now. What do you want the government to do, borrow more money? They don't have a real good record on paying it back in a timely fashion, and they just use the higher spending level for a baseline for their next budget.
A better solution would be for Congress to change the law so that we don't provide these services, or we only provide them pending deportation. However, you're going to hear liberals screaming about the poor children that can no longer get basic health care, because their family would be deported.
A lot of that money you're mentioning is State money, not Federal money. However, the states don't appear to be taking much of a role in trying to limit those costs by getting involved in enforcing immigration laws.
There's lots of blame to go around on this issue. What there isn't is money in the budget for Border Agents, because the legislators are unwilling to change the laws that require these benefits be provided for illegal immigrants.
Even when the citizens have made efforts to change the law, such as in California, the liberal Judges have said it's not Constitutional. I believe they were referring to the CA State Constitution in that case, but since they seem to have a habit of making the rules up as they go along it might as well be that court's constitution.
To: pooh fan
I really think Bush thinks he's doing the right thing, for some odd reason. Either that or he's just trying to keep Hispanic voters in the GOP camp.
Funny thing is, most Republican Hispanics would rather see something done about the illegals, since after all, they came to the US the right (legal) way and don't want the cheaters/lawbreakers to get pardoned.
The only Hispanics that want to encourage their cousins to illegally arrive and then be pardoned are the ones that vote Democratic in the first place, methinks.
138
posted on
01/26/2005 6:02:32 AM PST
by
RockinRight
(Sanford for President in '08!)
To: B4Ranch
"But his Oath of Office says that he will do his best to see that all laws are enforced.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If the law is unconstitutional it is his duty to see it is removed, not just ignored."
You've got to be joking. Congress passes hundreds of laws that each cover many topics. The administration has the same problem that everyone faces, lots of responsibilities and a limited budget. In this case, this one part of this large piece of legislation is unfunded. That means it gets to compete with all the other priorities of the Department of Homeland Security for their limited budget.
You're suggesting that because it's not fully funded, the law should be ruled unconstitutional removed? Our courts would spend all their time reviewing every portion of the law that is passed.
Congress passes the laws and passes the budget. How that budget is spent, except for on things that are specifically budgeted for is the responsibility of the Executive branch of our government. They have to do the best they can with the money Congress gives them.
In this case Congress passed some feel good legislation, and like a lot of such legislation there's little evidence that they really planned to fully fund it. It's just another political play to say they voted for this stuff, but Bush failed to deliver.
They're going to keep doing that unless, we the people, do something about it.
There's no real point in taking this to the courts and getting it thrown out, because it's just a pointless waste f time. Just like there's no point in taking the Bush administration to court to try and force them to hire the 2000 agents if Congress fails to allocate the funds. It's Congress' responsibility to allocate the funds.
The administration can't make Congress allocate funds. They can request that funds be allocated to fund the project, which Bush has not done.
To: citizen
Yep.
Welcome to the new world order.
140
posted on
01/26/2005 6:15:15 AM PST
by
lodwick
(Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-155 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson