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.
Yeah. Bazookas.
Thanks, I found it one second before your reply ;).
Upon reading the details, and the specifics I hereby retract my previous stance. I fully support this bill, and encourage the President to sign the Act into law.
This does NOT include provision for the taking of private land. It does include necessary surveillence. This is a good act IMHO.
In study after study, the HELLCROWTM Ver. 4.01 beat out the leading scarecrow competitors 99 times out of 100 (the other competitor used a HelenThomascrow, illegal to use due to instant death upon viewing)...Act now and get a free HELLCROWTM with every 50 purchased.
Aiiiieeee! Santa Maria! Es Chupacabra! Mommiiiie!!!
This section is particularly appealing. And I could not find anything relating to building a fence across the entire southern border. Only expanding barriers in the problem areas at the current border crossings.
This does NOT include provision for the taking of private land.
Great news about the passage of the bill regarding interrogation of terrorists as well.
Woo hooo would be right BUT I'll wait to celebrate until FUNDING is approved for the fence.
Fox New's explanation, which I'm not sure makes sense, was this....There are actually two bills.
One is for 700 miles of fencing and is NOT funded.
And the other is for funding of only 300 miles (of the 700) of fence.
Bull. He'd better take another look at 20th century history. When the Berlin Wall was at full capacity, when even ONE person made it out of East Berlin, it was international news. Just one. All that is needed in this case is a double fence, inner fence low voltage electrified, with K9 patrols and some military reaction forces. The big thing will be to smoke any Mexican Army forces who show their corrupted snouts escorting coyotes smuggling dope, people or terrorists onto our soil. Right now we have French ROE on this and it's ruining the morale of our Border Patrol folks who find themselves badly outgunned with the Mexs having Humvees and 50's. The border should be under the control of the US military.
So, let's see how this looks with respect to those Demodog Senators who might just possibly be considering running for the presidency in '08 (using the fact that they were considered by someone/ anyone on tradesports.com to be worth more than 1/100 sometime during 2006):
yea - Clinton
yea - Warner
yea - Biden
yea - Bayh
yea - Obama
yea - Dodd
no. - Feingold
no. - Kerry
So, Feingold and sKerry are the only two Demodogs who are not concerned about the immigration issue. This is a winner for Republicans - no matter HOW the Dems will try to spin it.
And I use the term 'fence' quite loosely, as I have found or heard nothing that stipulates that this will be a 'hard' fence, as opposed to 'virtual' with camera's, etc.
Not that it matters. Frankly, I don't think any of it will happen anyway, unless a deal for amnesty was cut. But it sure sounds good doesn't it. I wonder how many will return home and allow themselves to be patted on the back for taking action to 'defend' the border.
SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF MEXICO.Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking `Near San Diego, California'; and `(1) SECURITY FEATURES-
`(A) REINFORCED FENCING- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--
Oh, I certainly agree! My concern is that "Texan" has been watered down too much be people that DO sell their house in San Jose, CA, fly to Austin, buy a t-shirt at the airport, start a PAC for non-smoking bars, call themselves Texans and THEN buy three old houses, tear them down and build one ugly mcmansion.
"Texas" has been invaded and debased by foreigners FROM CALIFORNIA...and to a lesser extent, New York.
The difference is, that Californians moved away from a place they had screwed up, and immediately began trying to screw Texas up the same way.
Yankees (yanquis?) are less problematic, in that they don't seem bent on turning Texas into Jersey or Taxachussets, and gladly trade Texas August for New England February.
The reason I like Texicans and Mexicans is that, if anything, their attitudes are most closely related to the "Old Texas" that I remember growing up. Once you've poured concrete in August with a group of Mexicans, you can call yourself a Texican, I think.
I don't mind them moving in (legally) and offsetting the lazy socialists. Texicans don't care who you are, they'll work with you in any weather, treat you well if they're your boss, and toss a cold one back with you at the end of the day. T-shirt 'texans' tip poorly, hire someone else to do their yard work, are afraid of their neighbors, will turn you in to CPS if you spank your kid at the grocery store, and sue you if you smoke.
I wish they hadn't hijacked the term "Texan".
My next door neighbors, he was born and raised in London, she in southern France. They lived all over the world and several places in the US before moving to Texas. They are now American citizens but said they would never have done that if they had not wanted to be Texans. They are GREAT Texans, very conservative.
Lieberman knows what he's doing. Dodd will take the people's money for any idea that will get him a positive news story in the Hartford Courant.
The idea of funding a fence on any border is ludicrous when expertly built tunnels are popping up all over. The Canadian border is more of a problem to those of us in New England.
Use wicked high-tech surveillance instead - it's a lot cheaper. UAVs, infrared, etc. Connecticut could increase its output of submarines, helicopters and other defense-related equipment.
"Open Borders" is nothing but rhetorical b.s. We haven't had (even figuratively) open borders for a couple decades. 'Course the populist/nativist crowd claims that nothing has been done about border security in that time frame, but that's just not true. Not even remotely.
The fact is the southern border has been considerably tightened since 1986, and spending on border security and the deployment of resources has doubled several times over.
15 or 20 years ago illegally crossing the border, in the typical instance, involved literally nothing more than a 5 or 10 minute walk. The crossing points were near metropolitan areas, and after that 5 or 10 minute walk you could jump in a cab. That cab was about the only expense involved.
Today there already are fences near the border cities. The typical crossing now involves a one or two day walk, often across desert or other forbidding terrain. And when you finish that walk you'll still be in a remote area, so even if you didn't pay for a "coyote" or a guide, you'll still have to pay for someone to pick you up in a van.
The pro-fence people don't want to hear it, but until the fence is complete, and when (and if) we achieve near zero penetration, further increases in border security will actually mean MORE illegals in the country, not less.
The reason is that "circularity" (illegals crossing the border in both directions) is decreased when you make it more difficult, expensive, uncertain and dangerous to cross the border.
Back when borders were effectively open, more than 50 percent of Hispanic illegals would return to their home countries every year. They knew that they could easily return when, if and as work was available. In the meantime they could keep their families in Mexico, where the cost of living was much less, and take seasonal work like agriculture and construction, letting them spend much of each year with the family. If there was a recession on, or work was for some other reason scarce, or if they had a good farming season in Mexico, they could elect not to cross at all in some years. And of course they would retire in Mexico when their working life was done.
"Circularity" had already dropped from 50 to 25 percent as of the late 1990's, and has almost certainly dropped lower still since 9-11.
IOW tighter borders mean that illegals, once they make it across, are more likely to STAY in America year 'round, even permanently, and they are more likely to cross WITH their families and dependents.
They're also more likely to compete for employment with natives, since low paid seasonal work is no longer good enough to support families at the higher cost entailed by living in America. Now they need better paid year-round jobs, OR they need to turn to crime of relief.
I'm not arguing AGAINST tighter borders, btw. I'm only urging that FReepers realistically understand the problem we're dealing with here. You can argue about the form it should take, but some kind of "comprehensive" reform really is needed. Tightening the borders alone is not enough. Indeed it will for some time, AS IT ALREADY HAS, make the problems associated with illegal immigration worse, not better.
Unless we do more than just a fence we'll have more illegals remaining in country year round, and they'll have more resource consuming dependents with them. The days of illegals from Mexico and points further south consisting almost entirely of young working age males (and coming here only to work, otherwise spending as much time as possible back home) are gone, probably permanently.
Well, I've dug ditches with El Salvadorians in August. Does that count?
Army Corps Engineers
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.