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
If you want me to attack W ask me what a crappy job he is doing with the WOT which this immigration issue is one of. Why after 5 years did he get decided to sign a bill with a fence? Answer - so his party faithful can go home and declare victory. Why didn't he propose "meaningful immigration reform" in the last 5 years? The White House did not sponsor ANY bills on immigration reform on positions on what should be in the bill - almost splitting his own party apart.
The president had proposed comprehensive immigration reform that included, among other things, his priorities of a guest-worker program and a path to legalization and eventually citizenship for most of the 11 million or so illegal immigrants already here. The plan also called for verifiable IDs and employer sanctions. Bush got his comprehensive reform bill from the Senate, but it was Democrats who gave it to him — 38 Democrats voted for the measure, only four did not. The sharply divided Republicans voted 32 nay and 23 yea. Source: http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46085&Section=Opinion Comment: Yup the Dems gave it to him because it was good for them to go home and say they did. The Senate Reps were still asleep. • President Bush does not support amnesty because individuals who violate America's laws should not be rewarded for illegal behavior and because amnesty perpetuates illegal immigration. The President proposes that the Federal Government offer temporary worker status to undocumented men and women now employed in the United States and to those in foreign countries who have been offered employment here. The workers under temporary status must pay a one-time fee to register in the program, abide by the rules, and return home after their period of work expires. There would be an opportunity for renewal. In the future, only people outside the U.S. may join the temporary worker program, and there will be an orderly system in place to address the needs of workers and companies. o American Workers Come First: Employers must make every reasonable effort to find an American to fill a job before extending job offers to foreign workers. o Workplace Enforcement of Immigration Laws: Enforcement against companies that break the law and hire illegal workers will increase. o Economic Incentives to Return Home: The U.S. will work with other countries to allow aliens working in the U.S. to receive credit in their nations' retirement systems and will support the creation of tax-preferred savings accounts they can collect when they return to their native countries. o Fair and Meaningful Citizenship Process: Some temporary workers will want to remain in America and pursue citizenship. They should not receive an unfair advantage over those who have followed the law, and they will need to be placed in line for citizenship behind those who are already in line. Those who choose the path of citizenship will have an obligation to learn the facts and ideals that have shaped America's history. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html Comment: So in one paragraph W says he doesn’t support amnesty but three paragraphs later you can apply for citizenship if you are “temporary” but how you get from illegal to temporary is only paperwork. The program would grant temporary legal status to about 8 million immigrants, but it's not going to make the 9 million Americans who are out of work happy, and some of them vote. The most moving part of Bush's speech was this passage: "We see millions of hardworking men and women condemned to fear and insecurity in a massive undocumented economy. ... Decent, hardworking people will now be protected by labor laws with the right to change jobs, earn fair wages and enjoy the same working conditions that the law requires for American workers." It's always hard to know if Bush doesn't know or he doesn't care, but under his administration, Americans themselves are less and less protected by labor laws, including fair wage laws and working conditions, because Bush keeps cutting the enforcement staff at the Department of Labor and OSHA. Source:http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2004/812 Comment: So if you are hard working and illegal we will grant you the first step of amnesty. OVER native citizens. If you are illegal you should live in fear and insecurity. “But what I do think makes sense is that a person ought to be allowed to get in line. In other words, pay a penalty for being here illegally, commit him or herself to learn English, which is part of the American system -- (applause) -- and get in the back of the line. In other words, there is a -- there is a line of people waiting to become legal through the green card process. And it's by nationality. And if you're a citizen here who has been here illegally, you pay a penalty, you learn English, and you get in line, but at the back -- not the front. And if Congress wants a shorter line for a particular nationality, they increase the number of green cards. If they want a longer line, they shrink the number of green cards per nationality.” Source: http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/04.24.06.html Comment: So how the hell are you a citizen who has been here illegally? Fruedian slip, AMNESTY! And yet over the past several days, he confounded all those weary expectations by seeking a decent compromise on immigration policy that includes a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens. Reaching out to Democrats as well as Republicans on Capitol Hill, he rejected the bigots in his own party and changed his own position to reflect a more realistic and humane approach to this difficult question. Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/04/28/immigration/index_np.html Comment: Amnesty. (02-09) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday. Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year. But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents. The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said. Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities." Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL Comment: NO FINANCIAL COMMITMENT! Mr. Bush in brief remarks to the press said there was agreement to get "a bill that does not grant automatic amnesty to people, but a bill that says, somebody who is working here on a legal basis has the right to get in line to become a citizen." But senators, speaking afterward, said Mr. Bush was far more specific in the meeting. Source: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060426-121912-1269r.htm Comment: Yup, do the hokey pokey pay your fine and don’t forget to get here fast so you can get an early bird special of citizenship. “And so what you're seeing is, you're seeing a combination of fencing, cameras, infrared, and border patrol agents all doing their job. What we've done is we have boosted the amount of money available to our - to enforce this border. We're adding agents - we've added agents since I've become the President; we're adding more agents as a result of the bill I just signed; and we're adding infrastructure to make the city secure, as well as the rural parts of our border secure. So step one of a border control strategy is increase the resources so the people standing behind me are able to do their job. “ Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051129-2.html Comment; As noted by Chertoff – never funded. Congress also passed a separate $34.8 billion homeland security spending bill that contained an estimated $21.3 billion for border security, including $1.2 billion for the fence and associated barriers and surveillance systems. “This is something the American people have been wanting us to do for a long time,” said Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, whose state would be the site of substantial fence construction. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff praised the money for border security. He said it would “enable the department to make substantial progress toward preventing terrorists and others from exploiting our borders and provides flexibility for smart deployment of physical infrastructure that needs to be built along the southwest border.” Some Democrats ridiculed the fence idea and said a broader approach was the only way to halt the influx. “You don’t have to be a law enforcement or engineering expert to know that a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border makes no sense,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate. Nevertheless, more than 20 Democrats moved behind the measure. The fence bill and homeland spending were among security-related measures the Republican leadership was pushing through in the closing hours to bolster their security credentials. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30cong.html?ex=1317268800&en=4ac2ee35f706fb97&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Comment: All of the sudden the Reps leaders in the Senate got religion on fence. The bill in April had no fence and amnesty in it. Do I need to go into what McCainiac did this summer after having a very nasty homecoming from his constituents? Every one of these articles contain direct quotes from W, a Rep leader or somebody in the Administration. I reassert my position that W did not want a fence and only signed the bill so the Reps could go home 14 days before the election and claim victory. Every position from the White House encourages the current problem with dangling a “path to citizenship”. I have gathered and had translated Hispanic flyers encouragig as many to get here as can before W is out of office. This extends into Central America also. Do you require more information? If so Google it yourself.
Not really though. I've repeated if we can spend $13 million/mile for a four lane highway, we ought invest at least that much for a linear border barrier. That would make the total 700 mile infrastructure $9.1 billion, less than a quarter of the annual trade in illegal narcotic substances crossing the border. The current target year to be completed is 2008. By that time some $95 billion illegal drugs will have made their way into the US from Mexico and a million and a half illegals will have evaded capture adding to the already $40 billion annual burden upon taxpayers. $9.1-10 billion investment isn't such a high price with all those aspects taken into consideration.
Such a barrier wouldn't need to be built all at once because as the infrastructure grows and sectors become more secure requiring fewer border patrol personnel, the majority of patrol can be redeployed to less secured sectors.
If you don't have anything substantive to say without cutting and pasting a bunch of paragraphs from left-winged newspapers like the NYT, then stop posting to me.
Haven't you heard of paragraph breaks? It's harder than hell to read without them.
What a dopey statement! You would have been much happier if they all had just ignored you, me and everyone else that elected them? You would have been happier if Bush finally used his veto power? You would have been happier if they kicked this issue down the road AGAIN for someone else to deal with?
But you have yet to prove that you can read minds, mad, and that's what you'd have to do to draw the conclusions you've drawn.
As for the rest of your tome, I have chosen not to read it. Perhaps if you broke it down into paragraphs I might be tempted, but taking that much time to read the words of someone who is both disrespectful and rude is something I choose not to do.
btw, I did read the first sentence, and if the President were doing a 'crappy job' in the War on Terror, we would have been attacked multiple times since 9/11. You lost that argument before it started.
Now if you wish to discuss his (IMO wrong) policies regarding immigration, you may do so, but no more encyclopedias, OK?
I am up to speed on what's happened, so you don't have to feel the need to educate me. Just discuss your POV...........in shorter segments, please.....
But I see we came to the same conclusion.
Thanks for the info (I didn't read that far) that this freeper's 'opinion' came from the NY Times.
Why am I not surprised? Bush haters on either side of the fence join hands to discredit him.......and those who claim to be conservatives don't seem to mind being a kindred spirit to a leftist.
And I find that VERY revealing......
And I find that VERY revealing......
I expect liberals to quote from their own bible (the NYT). I don't expect consistency from liberals.
Conservatives like me have been HOWLING for a border fence. They got one, and they're still mad. I wouldn't be surprised if Chris Simcox and his little band of patriots were totally and wholly against this signing. Even Tancredoites are taking Tancredo to the woodshed. I mean, GEEZ. It's like the world got thrown upside down.
They care about being angry, and nothing will satisfy them. The immigration issue is just their current excuse.
Those of us who really DO care........like you and me........are pleased with the small steps that move us toward the goal.
I applaud this President for taking a step in the right direction and for Congress for listening to those of us out here on the fruited plain.
I'll be damned if I am gonna let a few angry malcontents stifle progress. President Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
He talked about a 'comprehensive bill' over and over, and finally recognized that border security had to come first, like the House Republicans had been saying.
I think this is a good step in the right direction, and IMO, anyone who says it's nothing doesn't give a rip about border security.
Bush smoked out the 'cut-and-run Conservatives' with a stroke of the pen.
This place was nearly ruined by them a while back. Many good freepers were about to leave because they attacked and hijacked every thread..........and some good people did leave.
These threads are proof that the place has been cleaned up, IMO. And that's a really good thing.
"There ya go, that's how out of touch this president is. I'm not an immigrant, how about you, janetgreen, are you an immigrant? In fact there hasn't been an "immigrant" to this country in my family since the 1600's."
First of all, this country did not exist in the 1600s.
Second, in the quote you used, it said a country "of immigrants". The word "of" is key here. The President did not say a country "by" immigrants which is your argument, and you would be correct if he had said "by immigrants" becuase he would have been saying each of us, for the most part, are immigrants. What he did say was "of immigrants", which means we are a country made up from immigrants, like your ancestors from the 1600s.
I did not immigrate here, but my ancestors did, and that makes my family "of immigrants". The same goes for anyone else who is not 100% American Indian.
However, that does not change what W said in those five years.
Enough trying to get you to understand the point. Apparently your tunnel vision doesn't allow it.
I have made the point clearly. You continue to argue the data (from the NY Times? LOL!), and refuse to defend your highly faulty conclusion based on that data.
Have a good day, mad...........and try not to be mad that we're finally making some progress on this issue......
I'm off now to make some telephone calls for Ohio candidates who have as a high priority, illegal immigration.
I'm going to do my best to get conservative candidates in our Congress who will keep at this huge problem and get some solutions.
You may continue to argue on the Internet about it............I'm going to DO something about it. Good day.
Here. Let me make it simple for you before I go.........
You cannot prove this statement. It is based on supposition, not fact. Period.
Ah so a direct quote from the NYT is not acceptable to you? Many of those quotes were directly from the White House and news conferences.
You are completely deluded if you think this last bill is progress. The first step is to turn off the magnet. NO one in Washington - except maybe Tancredo - is even talking about that. How many terrorists got in while W ignored secure borders. All of the money spent in Iraq could of sealed both of our borders tightly and not cost 2,000 lives. Oh yea I forgot "He tried to kill my dad."
Sorry you think I am offensive. The most offensive thing to me is a politician that betrays the trust of the public. Words are just words, actions matter. The man you have chosen as your hero is short on results based upon his actions.
"You would have been happier if they kicked this issue down the road AGAIN for someone else to deal with?"
They did kick it down the road again. It is only partly funded.
New funds will have to come from congress to finish it.
Why didn't they fully fund it and be done with it?
The difference between you and me is that I believe President Bush is an honest man, and you believe he is a liar, and for you, that colors everything he does.
But until you can prove that he wasn't convinced by the Republicans in Congress to get the fence first, and that this whole bill signing was nothing but the political deceit of a dishonest man, you are at a dead end here.
As for the 'progress'......you may think anything you want. But when the fence is under construction, you'll have to move your perpetually moving goalposts even further. I have no doubt that it's exactly what you'll do, because admitting President Bush did something right is something you'll most likely never be able to do.....
What was the secret deal with McCainiac? Do you know? Why all of the sudden did he sign the bill when he stated in May that he would not sign the House bill with a fence in it?
You confuse progress with motion, a common problem with many Americans. I won't move my "goal posts" ever on this issue - but I will tell you this when this fence hits 700 oh hell even 600 miles get back to me and I will have Hannity go to dinner with you at Ruth Criss while I ice skate in hell.
As far a "admitting" W did something right you are making wide assumptions (also another problem with many Americans) I have given him credit for many things in the past. Just go back in my posts here on FR. I question the timing of this bill. Did they just invent fence building in September?
Too bad you and many others actually think this fence will happen.
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.