I agree.
I used to work here.
The entire project was completed (in a swamp) in 18 months.
Nuff said.
Posted on 12/18/2007 1:34:32 PM PST by pissant
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 18, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655, dlhunter08@yahoo.com
Washington, D.C.–Presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter returned to Washington this morning to immediately begin his efforts to overturn provisions contained in a Democratic spending bill that eliminates current legal requirements for double-layered border fencing. Congress last year passed legislation authored by Hunter, the Secure Fence Act, mandating double-layered fencing and related infrastructure at strategic entry points along the Southwest border.
“Now is the time when those who take the threat to our nation’s borders seriously stand up and be counted,” said Hunter. “Last year, Congress successfully passed legislation that mandated a double fence requirement based on the success of the border fence we’ve built in San Diego. The Democrat majority in this Congress has taken it upon themselves to overturn federal law to pursue a policy that does nothing but harm our border enforcement capabilities. This is not leadership, it is irresponsibility.
“Border enforcement is too serious of an issue to pursue only when politically convenient at election time. If Congress is to reverse its border stance after just one year, what message does that send to illegal immigrants and drug smugglers who are watching to see how serious we are about protecting America’s borders? I believe we must uphold our nation’s immigration laws, support our agents serving on the border and protect our border communities and I am going to make every effort to overturn the damage this Democrat leadership has caused.”
H.R. 2764, a bill that provides funding for several federal departments and agencies, was brought to the House floor and passed late last evening by the Democratic leadership. Not only does the bill contain provisions removing all specific locations as outlined by the Secure Fence Act, it also removes all requirements to construct any fencing or physical barriers along the border. This action basically repeals the Secure Fence Act and undermines past efforts to secure our nation’s border.
H.R. 2764 has been referred to the Senate for consideration and then will be returning to the House with any changes in the form of a conference report. Congressman Hunter is working with his colleagues in both the House and Senate to ensure that these dangerous provisions do not remain in the final version of the funding bill.
I agree.
I used to work here.
The entire project was completed (in a swamp) in 18 months.
Nuff said.
“But it wasn’t he who stripped the funding for the fence this week.”
There have actually been two moves to eliminate funding and the requirement that the double-fence be built. One pushed by Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941181/posts
Her amendment removed any requirement that a fence be built by giving all discretion to Homeland Security.
And the House has cut the funding in the action which is the subject of this thread.
And, Jorge and his Homeland Security Department have had more than a full year to make progress on the fence, and have deliberately done very little.
all mine, thanks.
exactly!
The entire project was completed (in a swamp) in 18 months. Nuff said.
bttt!
AFTER:
Well, you’re sure tryin your best to whip up some kind of “self-fulfilling prophecy!” What is that? your immitation of the power of positive thinking? Good grief!!! (besides, it’s the White House! Not the “big house!”) Judas Priest!!!
The open border is nothing but a grain of sand in this Administration’s shoe. The agenda is being carried out, increment by increment, and has been since Poppa was POTUS. And, I believe it will have a massive impact on this country and every one of us.
He knew if he delayed long enough something like this would take place.
The bi-partisan pro-illegal contingent in Washington is relentless and will not stop until there is no more USA as a sovereign nation.
It is true that a man of honor and integrity like Hiunter or Tancredo will never be elected president.
They aren't slimy enough and are too nationalistic. I am disgusted with both political parties.
The only difference between the two is who they pander to and enrich with our tax noney.
"Johnny Come Lately's" on Immigration can just get behind him in line and support.
Tancredo is also a very good man. A great American.
a little touchy arent you? I have not been impolite or deserving of your tirade. Settle down. That kind of treatment will surely make progress. Good luck.
Results, not Excuses!
FOLKS, START CALLING THE TALK SHOWS TOMORROW IN EARNEST OVER THIS. Let us set this on fire and get this party ROCKIN'.
Very recently I completed a course of instruction presented by the Department of Homeland Security. Here are a couple comments on the material presented. No fence wouldn’t surprise me.
The National Strategy for Homeland Security, reissued October 2007 includes this vision statement:
“A secure Homeland that sustains our way of life as a free, prosperous, and welcoming America.”
The DHS vision presented on their website, - “Preserving our freedoms, protecting America ... we secure our homeland” – obviously differs from this reissued version. The “welcoming America” portion is especially disturbing given the problems on our southern border.
Next we were shown the four segments of domestic incident management, these being Prevention, Protection, Response, and Recovery. Not very different from the strategic goals DHS presents on their website.
The instructor then made an unexpected comment. He stated that “prevention”, though included in the DHS mission, was really a function of the Department of Justice.
DHS also includes on their website an interesting mission statement:
“We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.”
Note the differences in the reissued vision and mission – a welcoming America as opposed to welcoming lawful immigrants and visitors; prevent and deter as opposed to prevention is a function of Department of Justice.
Having been in Washington too long, I guess, I stated that if I were a conspiracy theorist these subtle changes could really make my case. My statement was met by silence – what I perceived as hostile silence.
Agreed!!
"Voters are looking for a solution - after this era of failing on most major problems - that builds on our immigrant tradition. We believe this is a progressive approach to illegal immigration that Democrats should embrace without apology. It combines acknowledgment of the problem, pragmatic and tough ideas to stem the flow of illegal immigration with a path to citizenship laden with the kinds of requirements that anyone should meet if they are to attain the honor of being an American citizen. This survey confirms the power of this approach with the electorate. The following elements are essential components of a winning national Democratic approach on illegal immigration: * Recognition of the problem: 'get it.' Candidates ignore the issue at their peril. It is essential to convey an appreciation that illegal immigration is out of control and needs to be addressed immediately and seriously. If leaders do not show their own frustration with the problem, they will not be heard on this issue - and many others. * Attack Bush for losing control of the problem. A strong critique of the Bush administration's failure to address this issue shows that we understand the problem and empathize with voters' frustration with the lack of leadership on this issue. * Enforcement at both the border and with employers. Voters believe that controls at the borders and enforcement in the workplace have disappeared, allowing the problem to get out of control. They are particularly angry with companies that are looking for cheap labor, partially explaining why this is happening. * Opposition to non-essential benefits. The public's leading concern about illegal immigration is that the immigrants get access to non-essential government benefits at a time when government spending is squeezed and taxes are a burden. There is strong opposition to Medicaid, taxpayer-subsidized health care, for illegal immigrants. But they are also strongly opposed to drivers' licenses, an implicit recognition of legal status and claim on benefits. * Support for emergency health care and education. Most Americans accept access to emergency health care for illegal immigrants and education through high school for the children of illegal immigrants who are U.S. citizens. * Positive views of new immigrants. Negative attitudes toward immigrants combine with a lot of respect - many in a new survey describing them as 'hard working,' 'family-oriented' and 'trying to be good citizens.' That creates an opening for an inclusive approach, based on America's strength as an immigrant nation. There is strong support, for example, for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. military being able to win nearly immediate citizenship. * Toward a solution: responsibility and a path to citizenship. A large majority of voters support a path to citizenship if we are serious about having to qualify for citizenship: expelling anyone who has committed a crime, others pay a fine and taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the queue. But if voters hear only the part about a path to citizenship without the responsibilities, they do not support this - and punish incumbent Democrats. But if Democrats 'get it' and are very serious about getting the problem under control, including benefits, their leaders can get support for solving this problem in ways consistent with our values. A Deadly Serious Issue With the problem out of control, voters believe immigrants are taking more from the country than they give. The public feels this way when asked only about "immigrants," not even "illegal immigrants." The view that immigrants take more than they contribute is most pronounced among some key demographic segments, including senior citizens and men with no more than a high school education. In congressional battleground districts, a clear majority (54 to 36 percent) believes immigrants take more from the country than they give. That leads almost 40 percent of the voters to say that "immigration is among the country's biggest problems" and reject the idea that immigration does not rank with our top problems, like Iraq, health care and energy independence. This is a top priority for a large bloc of voters and cannot be swept aside. That includes 33 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of African-Americans. When the focus turns to illegal immigrants, public opinion turns more negative. By a more than 2-1 margin, the public thinks illegal immigrants take more benefits such as education and health care than they contribute with work and taxes. Positive Views of Immigration and Immigrants At the same time, however, attitudes toward immigration are not wholly negative. By about two-to-one, voters think immigration is good for America. "
I’m not as “touchy” as you are “feelie!” What’sa matta, did I hurt lil donnab’s feelers? Start thinkin positive, will ya? Don’t be so danged negative, fearful and timid about supporting conservatives and conservative causes!!!
Get a grip yourself and grow up. When you want to discuss this as an adult ..well never mind...I have better things to do than waste my time.
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.