Posted on 01/21/2015 3:43:04 PM PST by MarchonDC09122009
New GOP Border Security Bill Removes Border Fences The new border bills drafted by Republican leaders require the actual removal of at least 66 miles of weak border fencing between Mexico and the United States.
The border bills also only require for the construction of 27 miles of effective double-layer fencing along the 2,000-mile border.
“It is a remarkable that the direction of our progress is going backwards, from a goal of building 700 miles of double-layer border fencing [in 2006] to only 27 miles [in 2015],” said a Hill staffer who opposes the leaders’ bills.
“Where the double-layer fence has been put in, it has worked spectacularly. The public is with us 80, 90 percent on this issue,” he added.
Extra fencing would be a waste of money, according to Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
“The bill matches resources to needs, putting 27 more miles of fencing where fencing is needed, and technology where technology is needed,” said the statement.
“In our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border,” said the statement.
A House staffer said the McCaul’s bill doesn’t require a major fence because of advocacy by Heritage and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.
Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action for America, told The Daily Caller that Heritage did not recommend against fencing.
ATR has joined with wealthy advocates — such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — to call for increased use of foreign workers and residency for illegal immigrants.
Senate committee staffers declined to offer any reassurances that Senators would modify the bill to fund more fencing and to block Obama’s catch-and-release policy, prior to a Senate vote in a few weeks.
“We’re going to be looking at everything,” said a committee staffer. “We can’t give any detail beyond that.”
The Senate bill is co-sponsored by Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who co-sponsored the Senate’s 2013 immigration bill.
“We introduced the McCaul [House] bill [in the Senate] as is and plan to update and improve it as we study the issue through [House] briefings and hearings,” said the staffer, who works for the Senate’s homeland security committee. The committee is chaired by Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson.
The public strongly supports a border fence. An April 2013 poll by Rasmussen shows “that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should continue building a border fence, while 29% disagree.” Support for the fence is much higher among the GOP-leaning voters that provided the votes for the GOP victory in November.
A 2006 law required the construction of 700 miles of double-layer fencing along the 2,000 mile border. However, Congress quietly modified the bill in 2008 to allow the construction of simple, ineffective fences in place of the required double-layer fencing.
Officials claim that just over 600 miles of the border now have obstructions, including barriers. But those barriers include lines of bollards to stop vehicles, plus single-layer “landing mat fencing” and only 36.5 miles of double-layer fencing.
The leaders’ bills call for the replacement of anti-pedestrian mat fences by anti-vehicle bollards.
The bollards will allow migrants to be driven up to the border, and then walked over to a pick-up vehicle on the U.S. side.
“Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall replace, at a minimum, each of the following: (A) Thirty-one miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector. (B) Five miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s El Centro sector. (C) Three miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector. (D) Twenty-five miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector. (E) Two miles of landing mat fencing with bollard style fencing in the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector,” says a section on page 12 of the House bill, HR 399.
Why do we even bother pretending to have borders? We don’t defend them to any real effect.
I’ve said it before... when it comes to the border, no elected official is to be trusted. Not a single one... they’re all for sale.
Hey Norm.
LOL. Now is not the time to fight. In fact, it’s never the right time for the
GOP to fight. We must support the lessor of two evils in 2016.
And we are surprised by this because...???
“I was being sarcastic.”
Ahhhh got it. Kind like “boy we will really get him after we control congress”... Or the next budget we will cut cost ... or.....
of course pertinent is the definition of evil
broadening it to the point of absurdity is intellectual dishonesty a la ISIS
At this point I don’t care anymore. We need someplace to escape from Obama’s impending full-blown dictatorship.
Understand, that lesser-of-two-evil hold-your-nose election voting has been for me and many, a matter of pragmatic compromise.
I did not entirely agree with or appreciate your take and other skeptic’s warning until now.
The country has absolutely been betrayed.
See my tagline.
Something has to be done as border security, amnesty, obolacare, nat’l debt, personal privacy legislation is up for action.
We are at a point of no return or recovery.
That's a nice start (i.e. a heads up) but until you can present an article with an actual named opponent of the bill stating facts about the bill, you got nothing, Just innuendo.
Anyone really surprised?
Well of course! Because it’s purely patriotic to vote for people against everything conservatives believe in!
See, here’s my reasoning. The “D” is on which side of the alphabet? The left. The “R” is on which side? The right.
So even if the candidate the GOP pushes is a screaming leftist with a record of pushing the gay agenda, abortion and hating Reagan (Hi Mitt!!!) He is STILL further to the right than the dem because of alphabetical location alone.
And if you disagree, you hate America and love obama ;)
Yes. All the Flagladys, Whats ups, Logical Me’s and Lakesharks that pushed ‘no matter what crap till their fingers bled.
Then again, that assumes facts not in evidence like them being simply idiots instead of paid plants.
Although fences are nice, the first rule of border security is to have armed men posted. Fences, walls, moats, minefields, and high tech surveillance are all useless without men on the ground. Wouldn’t take much more than two or three brigades of the regular Army, but that would be too sensible for DC!
bump
RE:
“said a Hill staffer who opposes the leaders’ bills.
That’s a nice start (i.e. a heads up) but until you can present an article with an actual named opponent of the bill stating facts about the bill, you got nothing, Just innuendo”
Do statements from the bill’s supporters warrant concern?
“Extra fencing would be a waste of money, according to Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
“The bill matches resources to needs, putting 27 more miles of fencing where fencing is needed, and technology where technology is needed,” said the statement.
“In our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border,” said the statement.”
Very few are even POTUS worthy. Cruz maybe Palin if she ever got serious about it, Lee, and Jeff Sessions. The rest the media has mentioned forget it.
Actually, most borders on the globe are marked by rivers and mountain crests -- and are without fences.
So far as the Rio Grande border is concerned, we can go to school on the nation that absolutely has to have a secure border: Israel.
Their border with Jordan is the Jordan River. And there is no fence. Instead, there are advanced observation posts, technological listening posts and a highly mobile border force.
This approach allows the farmers on both sides of the river access to its waters, while maintaining security.
To the GOP loyalists that scream, “But you HAVE to vote for X, or Y will get in!”....
.....My response is always, “Yes! Because it is MUCH better that X approves illegal amnesty, bans guns, votes for socialism, adopts fringe Greenie positions, cows to every Obama initiative, backs abortion, and elevates gays over heteros. MUCH better!”
In general terms, there is only one most important General Election ever.
It's always less than four years in the future.
I can guarantee you only one thing.
On November 10th, 2016, the most important General Election ever will be less than four years ahead.
Huh? Didn’t we just re elect these people?
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.