If you ever go to Mexico City, you need to go to Chepultepec Castle where the US army scaled the walls to end the war. The museum there has the flag flown by the Texian defenders of the Alamo.
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.
Ha, ha, I see Michigan's Senator Diane Stabenow voted for the fence. The Chicken Sh!t didn't have the guts to face the electorate in November with a "No" vote. I'm guessing most of the Nay voters are not up for election or from ridiculously safe Democrat states.
Not much, if we are willing to trash our Constitutional Republic. Otherwise, the President must seek concurrence from two thirds of the Senate to nullify the treaty. In my opinion this was a late night "deal" to mollify the public. No more, no less. Good PR for the Republican party, no doubt. My stance is simple. Such a maneuver for political gain is inappropriate. Else the "opposition" (joke) would have stalled it. IMHO it is a bipartisan ploy to garner votes. On both sides of the aisle.
If we are indeed suffering an invasion, and the "War on Drugs" (and illicit smuggled weapons and sex slaves) is a failure; please explain to me why we allow our finest men and women to give the ultimate sacrifice for zero benefit. Simply put, when a muddy creek and some barbed wire can not be controlled; too many "conservatives" demand to throw money at the problem.
If you ever go to Mexico City, you need to go to Chepultepec Castle where the US army scaled the walls to end the war. The museum there has the flag flown by the Texian defenders of the Alamo.
Ok. So when do they break ground? Monday?
Yes, it was an important event in its entirety.
Mexico's upset, Teddy's upset, pelosi is stomping her foot and Chafee voted against it. These are good signs. :-)
I know all of that-I may not have made it plain in my post because I am tired- long day and it is getting past my bedtime.
I was speaking in general terms. Many people don't realize Texas was a seperate country for a while; and not acquired the same time as the land the US bought in the Hidalgo Treaty and the later Gadsden Purchase. You of course are right that most of the issues of the border boundary were settled with the Treaty de Hidalgo- but not all of course which is why the Gadsden purchase was needed. We almost went back to war w/Mexico then too.
The actual boundary of what exactly was the Republic of Texas differed at the time, the arguement over that and a few other things is why the Mexican War was fought.
The proposal for this 700 miles of fence that I saw does include part of the Texas border- I didn't really pay attention to what part(s) I was mostly concerned with my area when I read it and we are going to be in a gap between two long stretches if they passed what I read.
That is already part of the deal. They RINO's and Dims that agreed to vote for it have their corporate sponsors eagerly waiting for the contracts to be issued.
Gonzalez?
History is *not* soon forgotten, that's what's goin' on. ;') :') :'D A wise man (well, he was kind of a dumba@# really) once told me there are three kinds of memory -- long term, short term, and convenient memory. (': And there's the primacy (remembering what happened first) and recency (what happened last). And, well, it's late, I've been to two parties (no drinking, no drugs), and it's late, and I've been to two parties.
Who is this Chafee guy? He's voted NAY on everything the Republicans have passed the last few days. RINO?
With an 80-19 margin for passage, if the Mexican government is unwilling to come to an agreement on this issue, it is quite possible the Senate could vote to nullify the treaty in whole or in part.
Outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox has condemned it as "shameful."
I think folks will like this above knowledge.
Hutchison had hoped to offer an amendment that would have allowed the Department of Homeland Security to determine location and need for border fencing after consulting with state and local officials. But Senate leaders decided not to allow amendments to avoid sending the measure back to the House, where it would have likely been rejected.
Apparently some Senate leaders wised up.
House and Senate leaders assured Hutchison that they would allow modifications to accommodate her concerns after lawmakers return for a so-called "lame-duck" session after the elections./i>
uh-huh. We'll see about that.
Well, moron (Senate Democratic Leader Reid), if it's about "incumbent protection", it must be what constituents want. How radical, passing something the people want for a change.
Jerk.
Is the fence really going to be 50 feet? I hadn't heard that before.
Do you have a map of where it's going?
That is the point in summary. Political posturing, and nothing more on the part of our politicos. When a radical such as I proposes anything with teeth, both sides defer. If the status quo is acceptable, so be it. Yet the House bill indicates that we the people are fed up. The Senate bill does not bother me on a personal level. For our Texas legislature and county commissioners courts will take it up. The other states are kind of on their own. Exactly what does it take for the Mexican government to reach an agreement? Appeasement and deference have not worked to date.
I still don't see anything in the treaty prohibiting us from building a border fence. Please explain.
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.
