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.
"Actually, we did take that land from Mexico."
Actually, we bought it.
After we took it.
So it's paid for.
It was an "offer they couldn't refuse".
"Once we fine the employers and cut off welfare and other perks, many will leave on their own. We should start extensive deporting - President Eisenhower deported million without any big fuss."
I totally agree. The dims will never stand for it though. Many of the Republicans in office won't go this far either for fear of losing votes. Our best hope is to get more Republicans in office who have some backbone.
Rasmussen reported today that this could help the GOP:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/senateImmigrationBill.htm
How much public and private land did the rail roads take when they were heading west?
"Congress can stop the fence down the line in many different ways; cutting funding and without a line item veto it would work, tie it up in countless committee hearings, etc. Give Democrats control of the House or Senate in November and the fence will be dead."
The fence has already been passed by both branches and finded. The only way that any of the ways you stated above would work is if the President vetoes it, and he has said he will sign it.
That leaves only one option. The Dems have to win at least the house or the Senate and create new legislation to stop the fence, then get that new legislation to pass in both houses and get the President to sign it, or get enough votes in both houses to override a Presidential veto.
I learned a long time ago, it's not wise to underestimate Congress, particularly the Democrats. If they gain control over either house I put nothing past them.
I wish it was 2000 miles instead of only 700 miles, but at least it's a start.
Ted Kennedy was recorded as "not voting". Loserman and the missing Linc certainly voted... and their vote was NAY. Yep, those are our staunch allies on the WOT.
But that's OKAY, it doesn't matter if they vote socialist 90% of the time, as long as they can "win" against a Democrat!
Disgusting.
"RINO" Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
"RINO" Norm Coleman (R-MN)
"RINO" Mike DeWine (R-OH)
"RINO" Bill Frist (R-TN)
"RINO" Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
"RINO" Johnny Isakson (R-GA) (once again voting to the RIGHT of Zell Miller)
"RINO" Trent Lott (R-MS)
"RINO" John McCain (R-AZ)
"RINO" George Voinovich (R-OH)
"RINO" John Warner (R-VA)
Voted NAY on building a wall...
"Conservative Democrat" Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
"Fiscally conservative and socially Moderate" Linc Chafee (R-RI)
"Centrist Independant" Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
"Moderate" Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
"Moderate" Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
"Moderate" Harry Reid (D-NV)
"Moderate" Ken Salazer (D-CO)
Oh well, let's not have actual voting records get in way of people's agenda here. Many freepers will continue to insist Al Gore's running mate and his 90% leftist record is a-okay but Lindsey Graham and his 90% conservative record is unacceptable and ranks on the level of Nelson Rockefeller, and purging him from office should be our number #1 priority. Graham MUST go. But Joe "throw out the overseas milltary vote" Loserman is our best buddy in the WOT.
With some "conservatives" priorities on this board, it's no wonder our "Republican" Congress has record spending levels haven't secured the borders in five years since 9/11.
Sorry you're unhappy about that, looney. Must stink to be you.
bump
"Os simply deciding that it's a potential threat to some rare and exotic form of horned toad and holding hearings on it for the next thirty years."
OK, I have to agree that the hearings on exotic horned toads can stop the fence from being built.
I generally like President Bush but at times I wish he would just shut up about that "guest worker program"; nobody but the Mexicans, the editorial staff of "The Wall Street Journal" and assorted liberals like it.
$64 question: what if Bush vetoes?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
There's hardly any big words in this snippet at all so it shouldn't take too awfully long for you to read and understand it.
Check that...reading may only take a moment. Understanding, well that's another matter entirely.
L
But where is the clause that specifically authorizes the funding??? There is none.
This is what you were being so anal about in the NASA thread. I guess you don't appreciate the same argument being turned against something you strongly support, eh?
Not to worry. Bush doesn't do vetoes.
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.