Cornyn Speaks On Immigration (opposes a fence)

The Monitor ^ | December 28,2005 | Victoria Hirschberg

[Reaganwuzthebest]

MISSION — U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said Tuesday that building a fence along the southwest border is unrealistic and ultimately would not deter illegal immigration into the United States.

Cornyn, R-Texas, was in Mission on Tuesday to discuss flood control and the Rio Grande Valley levee system, but spoke briefly with the media about immigration issues and his plan to allow workers into the country legally but temporarily. He said he would not support a bill calling for a security fence — which could start in California and end in Brownsville — although the U.S. House of Representatives approved the measure last week. The Senate will discuss the measure when they reconvene next year, and Cornyn said immigration would be a pertinent issue.

He expects a compromise between the Senate and the House on immigration bills.

"(The wall) is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem," Cornyn said, calling for a more comprehensive immigration plan. Millions of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, cross daily through the southwest border and Cornyn said his bill permits workers to enter for a set time period, calls for increased enforcement at the border and more investigations into employers that hire illegal immigrants.

Hidalgo Mayor John David Franz said he would oppose any wall cutting through his border city.

"I think we need to be looking at amicable solutions," he said. "(A wall) would put us back 100 years. A wall isn’t going to solve anything."

[antisocial]

The CAFTA law that passed requires us to have open borders. We are not allowed to set our own immigration policy, because it intereferes with "free" trade.

[Plutarch]

Today, about 80% of all foreigners in the U.S. on work visas legally "adjust" from temporary to permanent status.

The Migration Policy Institute said the popular H1B program for skilled workers "implicitly encourages a transition to permanent residency" because H1B workers are not required to demonstrate that they intend to return home.

I had not known this.

[Dog Gone]

Problem being that if the land owner next to your property does not fence in the same manner, they just go around it.

I'm not convinced a wall or fence will do anything except cut off access to the river by Americans. At best it will divert the problem to other areas.

We already know that the Mexican coyotes and drug smugglers are expert at digging tunnels under the border.

And even if we somehow prevent that, all any Mexican needs to do is catch a plane to Canada and enter from the north. For what they pay coyotes to smuggle them, I don't know why they are not doing that already. Maybe they are.

And then there are thousands of miles of unguarded coastline where illegals could simply unload and walk freely onshore.

I think the people who believe a fence will end illegal immigration haven't really thought this through.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

I think the people who believe a fence will end illegal immigration haven't really thought this through.

Very few people that I know of have actually said a fence will end the problem The goal is to slow it down and make it more manageable.

[penelopesire]

"We are not allowed to set our own immigration policy, because it intereferes with "free" trade."

lol..well..I guess we can all forget writing our senators concerning immigration law..(rolling eyes)

[Dog Gone]

The CAFTA law that passed requires us to have open borders.

That is utterly false. It, in fact, explicitly states the opposite. Quit spreading this BS.

[Plutarch]

Guess he wants to pander to the Latino vote.

It is not the Latino vote motivating the Quisling pro-illegal Republicans. They are sell-outs to illegal hiring business interests. Any hispanic voter is already here, and a fence would protect him from more job competition. The illegal hiring employer on the other hand, wants a steady flow of newbie exploitable labor. Their actions betray their aim.

[antisocial]

This is what our illustrious Politicians are planning for us:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548025/posts

[Dog Gone]

At best, it will temporarily slow it down. Then what?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The Infrastructure fund is part of the plan to erase this Nation.

You ought to spend some time looking into the North American Community.

It is the worst sort of treason and your boy Cornyn is one of the architects.

So are many other republican heroes.

[zeugma]

Noone is proposing that the fence be built in the Rio Grande itself. I've seen a really well done proposal for building the same kind of walls used for freeway sound reduction, 10 feet down and 20 feet high. That would put a stop to a lot of the illegals coming in these days. Better inspection of trucks could help with those attempting to smuggle through legitimate border crossings, and there is plent of tech out there that could be imbedded in the wall to detect tunneling. Given the damage illegals are doing to this country, it would be worth the $2B as proposed for the Texas segment and in fact would be a bargain at 5 times the price if we could finally take control of our border and force mexico to finally deal with its own internal problems and corruption rather than attempting to export dissent here.

[antisocial]

This is what our illustrious Politicians are planning for us:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548025/posts

[zeaal]

Is he seeking re-election?

[deport]

The CAFTA law that passed requires us to have open borders. We are not allowed to set our own immigration policy, because it intereferes with "free" trade.

---

You maybe correct.... Do you have a link/cite to the section of the CAFTA that requires 'open borders'? If so please provide it as I'd like to read what it says.

If that is the requirement then it appears CAFTA needs to be eliminated as it stops any progress towards closing the borders via any method.... correct? Is that your understanding?

[servantboy777]

I think were forgetting the federal boundaries here. A ranchers property may run all the way up to the border but the area of the actual border is Federal property.

Also, the Federal governments duty to the American people is to protect the borders. If a multi-billion dollar fence is needed to protect our borders, the Feds are responsible for making that happen.

Yes, we can afford it. Think about the amount of dollars it cost our economy when Sept. 11th happened. The trickle effect was enormous, multimillion's of dollars.

Look at how much we've spent in the Afghan and Iraq wars. The cost of an advanced border fence would pale in comparison to the cost of the total war on terror, it would pale in comparison to the lives lost on Sept.11th.

I for one feel a border fence is worth every last penny.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

At best, it will temporarily slow it down. Then what?

By making the situation manageable the border patrol can catch more of those trying to get in. But a fence alone will not do it and again very few are saying that, there must be interior enforcement against businesses doing all the hiring.

Cornyn believes a guest worker program will solve all that but it won't because this government has a history of not enforcing its own laws when it comes to immigration. That's why before we go with any new plans a commitment first that they will actually do that must remain a prerequisite.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

It doesn't specifically say open borders. There's stuff in there about the free flow of workers which is the same result.

[Dog Gone]

Here's the link.

[penelopesire]

The Migration Policy Institute is a spin off from The Carnegie Endowment For Peace which should tell you all you need to know. Liberal policy wonks for the most part.

[zeugma]

Imminent domain to build the fence? Just curious about the practical implications of the fence...

Unnecessary. From what I understand, the 1st 500' is government land anyway. If not, then yes. ID the hell out of it. If a border fence does not fit this excerpt from Article I Section 8, I don't know what does...

...for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;