Nelson wants to fence off Mexico

Omaha World-Herald ^ | March 4, 2006 | Henry J. Cordes

[Hat-Trick]

Nelson wants to fence off Mexico

BY HENRY J. CORDES

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

There's a growing consensus in Washington that before Congress can address comprehensive immigration reform, it must first crack down at the nation's borders, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson said Friday.

Sen. Ben Nelson

Nelson this week introduced a new border security bill, one that would go even further than the proposal he first outlined in September.

Among the provisions added since September is the construction of a $5 billion, two-layer reinforced fence that would stretch from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico along the 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

The latest bill also includes a requirement that all employers verify that their workers are in the country legally and adds 10,000 new detention beds to hold those found in violation of federal immigration laws.

"It's a border-security-first bill," Nelson, a Democrat, said at an Omaha press conference.

"If we don't do something about the border, the problem is going to get worse."

Nelson introduced his latest bill on the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee began work on an immigration reform proposal. Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, has asked for a bill to be ready for debate by the full Senate later this month.

Nelson said the problem with most immigration proposals introduced to date is that they get bogged down over what to do with the estimated 10 million people already in the United States illegally.

There is much disagreement over that, from calls to deport them to various proposals to create amnesty or guest worker programs.

"A huge bill with guest workers or amnesty is going nowhere," he said.

Nelson said it will be possible to bring more people together if the issue of border security is addressed first.

A Nelson spokesman said the senator's bill is the only one in the Senate that includes provisions for a fence, though there have been other fence proposals in the House.

Nelson's bill is co-sponsored by two Republicans, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

While the cost of the fence might be high, Nelson said, it's modest compared to the cost of dealing with illegal immigration.

He said he didn't think his proposal would hurt companies in Nebraska that have come to rely on labor from undocumented workers. Nelson said efforts to stop illegal immigration should be accompanied by steps to increase legal immigration.

Overall, he said, his proposal would "solve the border security problem where it starts - at the border."

Nelson's Nebraska colleague, Chuck Hagel, is among the senators who have introduced bills for comprehensive immigration reform.

Hagel has advocated legislation that would give legal status to undocumented immigrant workers under certain conditions, such as maintaining a work history in America for several years and passing security and criminal background checks.

Asked about Nelson's security-fence proposal, Hagel said he makes a distinction between immigration reform and border security.

"I'm generally not in favor of building walls," he said.

This story includes material from the Associated Press.

[dirtboy]

A militarized wall is a miltarized wall. Why is a miltarized Berlin wall bad, while a militarized southern border wall is good. And by miltarized, I mean with guard towers, mines, etc.etc.

Dane, I do realize that explaining this to you is a complete waste of time, but someone impressionable young person might fall for your nonsense the way they also fall for the babbling of liberal professors.

So, once again, the Berlin Wall kept people in their country. The wall along the Mexican border would keep people out of ours who are not supposed to be coming here.

A truly fundamental difference. Oh, and we don't have to have shoot-to-kill orders along the wall. If a few illegals still make it past the wall, it's not the end of the world and we won't need to gun them down. The point is to get illegal immigration to a level that does not overwhelm this country, and change the likelihood of failure for attempted illegal immigration from a slight possibility to a strong probability. That alone will stem the tide.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Uh jaybo there, then why would Ronald Reagan, go out publicly to declare that a wall be torn down, and also his speech of that wall to be torn down, become a cornerstone of his presidential legacy.

Uh, Uh, You're stuttering again, Dane.

President Bush's own ambassador to Mexico disagrees with you. Bristling over the repeated comparisons with the wall built by East German Communist leaders, U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza responded last month with an angry letter.

"Comparisons of proposals to alter our border policies to the Berlin Wall are not only disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, they are personally offensive to me," Garza wrote in a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy here. "The Berlin Wall was built to keep its own people trapped inside, and was created by an oppressive authoritarian government." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-wall26feb26,0,3447246.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Go Gordon]

The Berlin wall was also controvesial and building one on the souther border should also be In what way are your two examples similar?

They aren't. One country was trying to keep its citzens IN, the mexico border wall will keep other countries' citizens OUT.

[CowboyJay]

To your comment (120):

Since we are now addressing one another in the familiar...

Dearest daniac,

It doesn't appear that you've yet come up with a single defensible argument, but you are starting to tickle my funny-bone with this new level of vitriol, name-calling, and positively stale alliterations.

I'm going to grab some popcorn and/or an adult beverage.

Please continue further the downward spiral in my absence. I'll be back shortly to check on your progress.

FReegards,

CJ