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 ...
BTT
Base to President Bush: Hello? Hello?
LOL!
If you knew the whole truth, you would march on DC...
I'd bet we could get a pretty good volunteer corp if they were actually allowed to SHOOT. Forget the budget.
What is the White House definition of "work with?"
If you were a Mexican laborer and you had a choice between driving across the border with a guest worker visa or paying a coyote $1,500.00 to guide you on a three day walk across the desert, which would you choose.
If you were a Mexican laborer and you had a choice between living and working legally in the U.S., or living and working illegally hiding from the law, which would you choose?
If you were an employer and had the choice between hiring someone who was legal, or hiring someone who was illegal, couldn't get a drivers license, might be deported without notice and subjected you to heavy fines if caught, which would you choose?
I doubt that they come here at all if they know they are on the list.
When you finish laughing perhaps you can explain to us why a Mexican laborer would prefer to enter the US illegally when he could enter and work legally under the guest worker program.
Why? Why would a Mexican laborer prefer to remain illegal when he could just as easily become legal?
Why would an employer risk the fines of hiring an illegal worker when he could hire a legal one instead?
Those are all interesting ideas, but what makes you think that the "legal" immigrant workers won't be outcompeted by the illegals, as happens now?
"If you were an employer and had the choice between hiring someone who was legal, or hiring someone who was illegal, couldn't get a drivers license, might be deported without notice and subjected you to heavy fines if caught, which would you choose?"
This is a JOKE - it's the kind of enforcement "they" tell us can't be done NOW. How gullible do you have to be to think it will happen LATER?
"When you finish laughing perhaps you can explain to us why a Mexican laborer would prefer to enter the US illegally when he could enter and work legally under the guest worker program."
Because it's easy and there are really no penalties for doing it.
Why would a Mexican come "legally" and have to pay taxes, when he could come illegally and do the same work for better money (no taxes) with no consequence?
They need to let the Border Agents do their job by sweeping workplaces in CA first.
Operation Wet Back 2
Because they are the same people, they'll just have an extra card in their billfold, the supply/demand ratio wouldn't change.
They have to pay taxes whether legal or illegal. It's a myth that most of them are paid under the table in cash. If an employer pays off the books he can't deduct wages from gross income. He has to pay income taxes on that money, usually at a higher rate than the laborer would.
Companies with an bookkeeper/accountant/payroll office can't pay off the books.
If an employer gets audited by the IRS he could go to prison for tax evasion and failure to withhold.
It's easy to tell which posters have never had to make payroll.
Still laughing?
I notice you always use examples of mexicans in your cute little stories. Do you care about any other illegals or are you just focused on mexicans?
Fences have been useful in high population areas but haven't completely stopped illegals even where there are guards almost shoulder to shoulder and more flood lights than a new car lot. People climb them in sight of the guards and try to outrun them. Some get caught and some don't. In urban areas there are even tunnels dug under the fences.
In desolate areas where the nearest guard may be miles away and there are no lights, fences will just be cut or torn down and stolen.
Fences for desolate areas are false solutions put forth by scam artists trying to con people with lower intelligence or emotional issues into sending money (or in Buchanan's case, to undermine Bush's base)
Yes. It worked in California.
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.