Posted on 09/29/2006 7:40:28 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance
Edited on 09/29/2006 7:52:46 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The House version of the bill approving and funding the building of a U.S./Mexico border wall has overwhelmingly passed the Senate, according to KFI News.
Link to station provided.
UPDATE: Senate backs fence along Mexico border
Reuters
By Donna Smith and Richard Cowan
The U.S. Senate on Friday overwhelmingly agreed to authorize construction of a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico, sending to President George W. Bush before the November 7 elections a bill that Republicans hope will showcase their efforts to stop illegal immigration.
The Republican-written bill authorizing construction of about 700 miles of fence was one of the last bills to clear Congress as lawmakers prepared to leave Washington to campaign for the congressional elections. On a vote of 80-19 the Senate approved the bill already passed by the House of Representatives and it now goes to Bush for his signature.
Bush had sought broad immigration legislation that would create a guest-worker program to help provide a steady workforce for jobs Americans are either unable or unwilling to do. But he was unable to marshal support for it in the face of opposition from a solid group of House Republicans who pushed for tougher enforcement and border measures instead.
A separate bill approved by the House on Friday provided an initial $1.2 billion in funding for the fence and other border-security measures for the fiscal year that begins Oct 1. The money is part of a $34.8 billion bill for domestic security programs for the fiscal year that begins October 1.
The broad spending bill also criminalizes the construction of tunnels that could be secret passageways from Mexico or Canada for drug smugglers, illegal aliens or terrorists.
The Senate was expected to pass the funding bill quickly and send it on to Bush along with the fence authorization.
Opponents of the fence said it would be expensive and was not an effective deterrent to illegal immigration.
"This is a political gimmick," said Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado. "It is not in the long-term interest of of the United States of America and the Western Hemisphere."
The government of Mexico on Thursday issued a statement expressing "its profound concern" with the fence. The statement, translated from Spanish, said such measures "are contrary to the spirit of cooperation that should prevail to guarantee security in the common border."
IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL
Backers of the fence said it was an important tool to clamp down against illegal immigration. An estimated 1.2 million illegal immigrants were arrested in the last fiscal year trying to cross into the United States along the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Sections of the fence would be built in each state.
"Fortifying our borders is the first prong of comprehensive immigration reform and it's an integral piece of national security," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.
Lawmakers and analysts say Congress could tackle comprehensive immigration legislation in a post-election sessions, but they acknowledge difficulties.
"It will be tough but doable," said Rep. Adam Putnam (news, bio, voting record), a Florida Republican.
"There is a lot of pent up pressure and interest in doing something in the lame duck session," said Craig Regelbrugge of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform.
Democrats accused the Republican majority of playing politics with the fence bill after raising immigration as an election-year issue but having little to show in the way of legislation.
"This is about November. This is about incumbent protection, not about border protection," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Earlier this year the Senate passed broad immigration legislation that combined border security and employer sanctions with a plan to create a guest-worker program and provide a path to citizenship for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
The Senate and House were unable to compromise and instead resorted to passing a series narrow border security measures.
Hey, I know of someone 90 miles from Florida who doesn't need any votes for him to govern. It's something he never needs to worry about.
I think you misunderstood my post # 88. I was telling CWJackson that if (huge if) the democrats controlled congress and make a bill to stop the fence then the President will veto the bill. Again it is not going to happen, so I do not worry about it at all.
You thinking building a fence is cheap? This isn't going to be your Home Depot fence that you see in suburban backyards.
PING!!!!
People like you cannot fool the vast majority of us, so stop the crap you are spewing.
Your objections were addressed in post #43 by Lurker, and further explaination by JH in #89, just downthread of your questions.
You'll have to give us a clue on what grounds. It's not the much abused interstate commerce clause.
Personally, I don't think the fence will be completely effective. Maybe 75%, but Americans would take that for starters.
Understood. My bad, thanks for the clarification.
I disagree. The fence on the Mexico/California border isn't perfect....but it did significantly reduce the number of illegal border crossings (and helped move the illegals to crossing in Arizona).
Sorry about that, Arizonians. Guess that is one more reason not to like folks from the PRC!!!
"There is still the little matter of getting it built"
ABSOLUTELY. Any sense of Citizens easing up the pressure would enable an enormous amount of foot-dragging at many levels. Get it done.
Because parts of the U.S./Mexican border is rocky along the Rio Grande River. A fence just isn't feasible. Hence the funding for sensors and cameras.
Despite the naysayers and teeth-gnashers on this thread (Not you KoRn) this is a SOLID victory for border security advocates.
God Bless them!
I'd like to hear a statement from J.D. or Sessions to be sure the amnesty seekers didn't sneak something into this and I still await the funding approval, but I'm issuing a cautionary "WooHoo" for the moment.
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? This has been an awesome week - conservatives showed muscle in pushing through the detainee rules and the good parts of immigration reform - gas prices have plummeted and the DOW is flirting with all time high - the declassified NIE report pretty much nuked the MSM/DEM spin efforts on the leaked pieces - Al Qaeda has released tapes indistinguishable from Democratic campaign commercials - and W seems to be in a kick-a$$ mood - all in all, one of the most exciting weeks I can recall in years.
It's a done deal. It only awaits the President's signature to make it a law.
The current legislation is for 700 miles...my guess is that very little will be on private land at this point. But I believe we need the barrier along the entire border and would welcome the legislation inacting it and funding it.
You are free to feel as you wish and use your rights of free speech and petition to influence this however you wish. I and others have that same right.
As to those coming here demanding or seeking a "democracy" should be sent packing. This nation is not, never has been, and was never intended to be a democracy. The form of government ensured by the constitution and stipulated therein is a Republic.
"On a vote of 80-19 the Senate approved the bill already passed by the House of Representatives and it now goes to Bush for his signature."
More Dems voted for the bill than against it. This is truly a bipartisan bill.
That's a stompin' if I've ever seen one.
So we have common ground. I believe that a fence will cause problems with legitimate business, as well as proving a teency weency inconvenience for the worthless coyotes and smugglers. For starters, I would LOVE an exclusionary zone for South American and Mexican criminals. Yet I am called an extremist for demanding that Mexico enforce this, upon pain of military action. Others say let us quietly build a wall, and elect more people to pick our pockets. This is a schizophrenic approach, IMHO.
WE not only TOOK it from them...WE BOUGHT IT...only in Texas was the land "taken" - and that because Santa Ana overthrow Mexico's constitution and tried to be teh Napoleon of the West. Didnt sit too well with a lot of Tejanos, not to mention the Anglos that agreed to come do what the Mexican government would not: settle the land and work it and fight with the Indians of the area.
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.