Posted on 10/26/2006 10:33:21 AM PDT by IntelliQuark
President Bush Signs Secure Fence Act The Roosevelt Room
9:34 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thanks. Please be seated. I'm pleased that you all are here to witness the signature of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.
I want to thank the members of Congress for their work on this important piece of legislation. I welcome you here to the White House. I'm looking forward to signing this bill.
I appreciate the Vice President joining us today. I thank the Deputy Secretary, Michael Jackson, of the Department of Homeland Security. Rob Portman -- he happens to be the Director of OMB. I want to thank Ralph Basham, who is the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. David Aguilar is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.
I appreciate the fact that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has joined us, as well as House Majority Leader John Boehner. I appreciate them coming in from their respective states as I sign this piece of legislation. I want to thank Congressman Peter King, who's the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives. I appreciate you being here, Peter.
Ours is a nation of immigrants. We're also a nation of law. Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and, therefore, illegal immigration has been on the rise. We have a responsibility to address these challenges. We have a responsibility to enforce our laws. We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility seriously.
Earlier this year, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office. I laid out our strategy for immigration reform. Part of that strategy begins with securing the border. Since I took office we have more than doubled funding for border security -- from $4.6 billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion this year. We've increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to more than 12,000, and by the end of 2008, we will have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents during my presidency.
We've deployed thousands of National Guard members to assist the Border Patrol. We've upgraded technology at our borders. We've added infrastructure, including new fencing and vehicle barriers. We're adding thousands of new beds in our detention facilities so we can continue working to end catch and release at our southern border. During the course of my administration we have apprehended and sent home more 6 million people entering our country illegally. And I thank the Border Patrol for their hard work.
The Secure Fence Act builds on this progress. The bill authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our southern border. The bill authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally. The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology, like cameras and satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border. We're modernizing the southern border of the United States so we can assure the American people we're doing our job of securing the border. By making wise of use of physical barriers and deploying 21st century technology we're helping our Border Patrol agents do their job.
The Secure Fence Act is part of our efforts to reform our immigration system. We have more to do. Meaningful immigration reforms means that we must enforce our immigration laws in the United States. It is against the law to hire someone who is here illegally. We fully understand that most businesses want to obey that law, but they cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of widespread document fraud. So we're creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility, and in the meantime, holding people to account for breaking the law.
We must reduce pressure on our border by creating a temporary worker plan. Willing workers ought to be matched with willing employers to do jobs Americans are not doing for a temporary -- on a temporary basis.
We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship; that is amnesty. I oppose amnesty. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic pass to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation. And I look forward to working with Congress to find that middle ground.
The bill I'm about to sign is an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our border and reform our immigration system. I thank the members of Congress for joining me as I sign the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
(The bill is signed.)
END 9:40 A.M. EDT
"Because any way you slice your silly kool-aid posts, you seem to be coming out against voting for Republicans, and according to the founder and leader of this forum, that's pretty much anti-American".
I have been a proud member of this site for many years. This is NOT a BUSH site.
It is a conservative site. I am a conservative first, a republician second. Many posters here have warned the Check Pants Republicians of the results of failure to secure our borders, failure to quit spending like drunken sailors and the overall failure of the the "New Tone" thing.
There is no one on this site that will change their opinion based on what I say.
I am not the cause of the things I mentioned above. I don't set policy.
I have simply highlighted the difference's.
Plenty of links I just wanted to know what part of the argument you wanted links for. Did you go to the White House site and read the position paper?
No one has ever said this was a "Bush site".....it's a bogus, paranoid accusation.
I asked you if you were recommending that we stay home, or vote third party and usher in the Dems to power. Are you?
Because if you are, with your anti-GOP rhetoric and silly kool-aid posts (can't you be a tad more creative or TRUTHful??), suggesting that the Dems' regaining power is not harmful to this country, then you are directly opposing the opinions of the owner of the forum, who has stated very clearly the danger of leftist control of Congress.
My question to you is, are you, or are you not working against the Republicans (who gave us this fence bill) and de facto working FOR the RATS?
I asked you for proof of your CONCLUSION.
You obviously have none, so your attack against the President was speculative and you are unable to support it with facts.
Thanks for making that clear.
What a load of hoooey.
Glad I missed it.
I love the moving goalposts unappeasables on this forum. You're so............transparent.
Well, sure, because the aliens will zap you if you get too close! : )
I am not recommending anything.
I simply stated fact mam. Just facts.
As far as what I am going to do, thats my business not yours.
I would like to see us get back to a syle of conservatism that Reagan gave us,
not this "New Tone" experiment that has failed.
As for Reagan conservatism..........you mean Amnesty, liberal judges and broken promises about reducing the size of government?........THAT kind of conservatism?
I'll take the fence, the Constitutionalist judges and the much stronger stand on the sanctity of life that we have now, myself.
I guess it's all just a matter of perspective, eh?
Reagan had a democratic congress led by Tip O'Neil and brought in a GOP senate majority on his coattails. He accomplished quite a bit, even though he had a divided gov in his first term. Amazingly so.
President Bush has accomplished as many major things.........no, more........than Reagan with an intransigent Congress (including a major taxcut without a Republican Congress....remember Jumpin Jim?) and a decidedly UNloyal opposition. Tip O'Neill was far more honoralbe than Dingy Harry or San Francisco Pelosi.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I resent it when people use the great Ronald Reagan to beat up George W. Bush with.
Reagan would have hated it, and every one of you who use him to bash this President should know it. Every one of us who greatly admires President Bush, also greatly admired President Reagan, both human but used by God to lead this nation.
Both men are/were honorable, strong, courageous, conservative Presidents.
Using one to beat up the other is not only pointless, but it is destructive. As long as you continue to accuse the GOP of being evil and those of us who suport a Republican victory on November 7th as drinking the koolaid, you will be a destructive part of this forum.
btw, check the record about which President has done better in achieving and retaining a majority in Congress.
What a buncha total BS!! President Bush, you DO NOT take this responsibility seriously. If you did, you'd see to it that existing illegal immigration laws are enforced. This would cut illegal immigration tremendously. But you don't. BS!!
I don't appreciate it your comments about my comments being destructive on this site. What you call destructive is what many of of here call warnings. We have tried to warn you of what could happen by not securing the borders, not cutting spending and adhereing to this "New Tone" thing. You have failed to heed the warnings that so many of us have given to you over the years.
You blame us, yet we have no power to set policy.
Why do you think these races are as close as they are.
The senate wasn't even supposed to be close. Yet even the senate races are within the margin of error.
You place blame of those of us who have warned for years of this.
Yet you place no blame on the ones who actually set policy. You blame us, you blame the MSM, but you are incapable of looking at policy decisions that have gotten us to this point.
Only if and when you understand the policy issues that have gotten us to this point, will you understand the fustration that some of us feel about some of the policy issues.
Define "Us"
Exactly who is the enemy here? Me? Other conservatives like me?
Be specific, because your charges are serious and relentless, and I take them very seriously.
"check the record about which President has done better in achieving and retaining a majority in Congress"
You mean Reagans 49 State Win Over Mondale?
A feat that won't likely be duplicated until another Reagan like nominee comes around.
btw, check the records and see where poll numbers were.
We just disagree.
And I'll leave it at that.
Have a nice day.
I believe the average loss in the 6th year of a presidency is usually somewhere between a 30 and 40 seat loss in the House.
Oh.........and at this point in the 80 election, Reagan was going to lose to Carter according to the polls.
Your memory is somewhat flawed.
Please define who "you" is and who "we" are, so that there can be a rational discussion of the issue.
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.