Immigration officials hit lack of new hires

Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2005 | Jerry Seper and Stephen Dinan

[ConservativeStatement]

The Bush administration's decision not to hire 2,000 new Border Patrol agents for fiscal year 2006 will seriously hamper efforts to control illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border, said current and retired officials.

[gubamyster]

ping

[GvMeLbty]

The reason that they are not funding the 2000 border patrol officers is because the republicrats are planning on passing the FTAA, which will make the borders completely disappear; as in the E.U.

[ConservativeStatement]

Tom Tancredo will be on a local radio talk show this week (2/4/05). I am sure he will discuss the matter.

[Dat Mon]

Im a big believer in use of high tech to supplement and enhance human effectiveness.

Technology such as smart sensors and recon assets all networked together provides alot of coverage, and is a good resource to utilize for enhanced border security. So I approve of this aspect of the Administrations plans.

HOWEVER...you still need a certain minimal physical presence.."boots on the ground"... to apprehend and process the individuals detected by the sensors.

As people have pointed out...if your primary group of agents are busy processing and detaining the first group of illegals you capture...there are no additional agents available in the field to round up the next wave. The sensors tell you the people are there...but you cant do anything about it.

People who post on this site and who have direct first hand experience tell us that our current manpower allocations are way short of minimal needs.

Ill leave it to others to theorize why this is so. I know I cant understand it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thank you for the posting the truth.

The only thing that can stop them is citizens standing up for their constitutional protections, and requiring lawmakers under penalty of the law to support them.

[hedgetrimmer]

ping

[ovrtaxt]

Mr. Hutchinson told reporters in Arizona that although there would be "some increase" in the number of agents, he would "leave it to the president" to determine how many. He said the addition of 2,000 agents this year "would not be doable within our budget constraints."

And yet we have the dough for the expansion of socialist wealth redistribution schemes, and we have plenty of jack for the foreign aid that we spray all over the planet...

Why don't we just take the budget for the UN and buy border security with it? 2 birds, one stone.

[FITZ]

And for some reason we believe in border patrol for Iraq. Nothing is too expensive for that country --- yet the whole reason we're over there was because America was attacked --- and our borders remain wide open.

[conservativecorner]

It's congress that will decide this issue because they hold the purse strings. I'm not worried about the House, but the Senate is another matter entirely. The Republican Leadership in the Senate need to extract their heads out of their asses, and get serious about illegal immigration and secure borders.

[Dat Mon]

You said..."And for some reason we believe in border patrol for Iraq. Nothing is too expensive for that country --- yet the whole reason we're over there was because America was attacked --- and our borders remain wide open."

Simple basic logic and well stated.

[Pro-Bush]

Painful to read-what a shame.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Seadog Bytes]

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "Why don't we just take the budget for the UN and buy border security with it? 2 birds, one stone."

...A simple, yet ELEGANT solution, without a doubt!
Why didn't I think of that???

...BTTT !!!