Advertisement

Archive for Friday, October 27, 2006

Bush signs fence bill

October 27, 2006

Advertisement

— President Bush wanted an exchange of workers with Mexico to bring order to the border, but wound up signing a law Thursday that approves partitioning 700 miles of the United States from its southern neighbor.

His White House signing ceremony for the new fence law, just 12 days before the Nov. 7 elections, gave Republicans something to point to as they try to convince voters their party would do a better job of cracking down on illegal immigrants and keeping criminals and terrorists out.

The bill didn't come with any new funding, and the $1.2 billion that Congress previously approved is not enough to build the full 700 miles of proposed double-layer fence.

A 14-mile stretch under construction in the San Diego area is estimated to cost $126.5 million.

Comments

Agnostick 7 years, 5 months ago

Gee, thanks, staff04! Now I feel even more idiotic than before!!

You're exactly right! After reading your post, I went down the hall for some water and was thinking about all the times I've heard Bush give a speech: the annual SOTU, his post-Katrina speech, etc. One of his favorite words is "authorize."

"I'm authorizing..."

"I have authorized..."

"I will authorize..."

"I have given Congress the authority..."

"Authorize," of course, is a spin-off of "authority"... another word for "power." Bush is paying lip service to power he doesn't even have. To "authorize" something carries about as much weight as a teenager saying, "Dad, I'm authorizing you to spend whatever it takes to get me that new Corvette for my birthday."

"Authorize."

I'll bet this is a Rove strategy...

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

P.S. We still need the fence, though... and we still need to play hardball with businesses that hire illegals.

0

scenebooster 7 years, 5 months ago

Yeah! Perfect! This is how I always thought of America anyway!

From "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" to "Eh, whatever. Fence off the border. Heh Heh". And it's only gonna cost 2-8 billion? Right on!

0

staff04 7 years, 5 months ago

Won't be funded. More lip service from the Republicans in Congress. Just like the 9/11 Commission Act, which authorized thousands of new border patrol agents. They never funded them though. That's all this bill is--an authorization. When the time comes to do the appropriating, tax cuts for the rich will prove to be more important, as they did this year when Democrats tried to increase funding for the Border Patrol b/c the admin and House leadership could only see fit to provide funding for 287 new agents instead of the 4600 they themselves said we needed.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 5 months ago

Good point, bearded_gnome.

I liken my solution to the "nuclear option." In August 1945, we didn't cover Japan with two dozen A-bombs--we just made 'me think we would.

Hiroshima = "OMG!! What the *$&$& was that??? Will they do it again? Can they do it again?"

Nagasaki = "Yeah, they can, and they will. We're done!"

We only need to shut down a business once, twice at the most. That first one, especially, will get media coverage out the wazoo. Be the topic of all the news channels for maybe two weeks... disgruntled workers popping up on O'Reilly and Rita Cosby and Lou Dobbs' programs... cover story on "Time" and "Newsweek"... Rush and the folks at "NewsMax," of course, will cook up some wacky formula to blame the seizure of said business on Billary...

Once the other corporate fat-cats see that Uncle Sam and the American people are serious about this, they'll obey the law... just long enough to find loopholes, or get SCOTUS to throw it out. ;)

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

P.S. FWIW: I've already voted, and I have to say, I was VERY UNCOMFORTABLE with the process. The clerk at the counter asked my name and address... they looked me up on the computer... and then handed me a ballot. I was never asked for an ID.

0

bearded_gnome 7 years, 5 months ago

Aggie, while I agree with the scale of your enforcement for employers, I think instead of shutting down the businesses and thereby harming legal american workers, instead any employer who knowingly hires illegals should be charged as a traitor, with all the attendant charges: loss of citizenship; potential death penalty. if mexico wasn't so bad off then breaking our laws wouldn't be so attractive for the illegals. if we shut down the high number of remittances, illegal employment, and use of social services, then I believe a large number of the millions here would simply return to mexico. they got themselves here, they can return.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 5 months ago

I agree that it would be a hardship for the legal American employees, who would lose their jobs in something like this.

Do you think one or two episodes of this (business confiscated & sold, legal employees sent packing) are enough to send a message?

If the penalties are big enough, severe enough etc.... think about the potential unintended consequences of that:

If they know that their business is going to be shut down... do you think that's enough incentive for the LEGAL employees to pick up a phone someplace, call 1-800-829-4933 and report their employer?

It's as if DHS just "deputized" hundreds of enforcement agents... and we don't have to pay 'em a cent!

The fence is only a good start. Illegals will only stop sneaking into our country when the risks far outweigh the potential rewards... and it becomes more profitable for them to stay where they are.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 5 months ago

Well, Aggie, I agree that penalising employers for hiring illegals is a good thing but you cannot destroy an entire company over it.

Fine them and maybe jail a few employers but destroying the business as a whole would have very negative effects on the legal workers who would be unfairly penalised.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 5 months ago

Since you obviously had your head wedged up someplace the first time, Marion... someplace where you obviously couldn't hear, here's a repeat of a little "history lesson" from a few months back...

The first big blanket amnesty granted to illegal immigrants in this country was in 1986, under the Reagan administration. Pot. Kettle. Black. 'Nuff said.

One of the most objective, comprehensive, and level-headed evaluations of U.S. immigration policy occurred under the Clinton administration. In 1994 and 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, took an in-depth look at things such as employment opportunities, border security, social services, and more. Jordan gave testimony at least twice. Her first testimony, on February 24, 1995 (before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims), can be read here:

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/022495.html

On March 29, 1995 (about a month later), Jordan gave testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies. That transcript can be found here:

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/032995.html

Unfortunately, these issues and recommendations were largely ignored by the Clinton administration, as they are now being largely ignored by the current administration. Your usual liberal diatribe, Marion, is only half-baked, at best: One does not put up an expensive, high-tech fence along the border, while your own corporate community is wide open to hiring illegal aliens, along with the terrorists, criminals and miscreants of every race and nationality that also come into this country illegally.

The USA needs to show some backbone in Mexico, too. If Vicente Fox can't do his fair share of "mending fences," we should cut off all diplomatic and trade relations with Mexico. Yes, this would hurt for a while, but it may give Fox the incentive he needs to come up with his own ideas to help his own people... instead of coming over here and demanding a handout, like he did a few scant days before the 9/11 attacks:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/bush.fox.visit/index.html

There are a lot of people in America that emigrated here legally. They filed the proper forms, they learned the language, they learned the political system, and they took an oath of citizenship. For them, if no other reason, we need to take a serious look at immigration, and fight this battle ON ALL FRONTS.

Thanks

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Agnostick 7 years, 5 months ago

So Marion, merrill makes a good point, and all you can do is jump on the tired ol' "DemonRat" bandwagon?

Maybe a bigger problem is the fact that folks like you, Pilgrim, Patriotman, your hero Michael Savage and other crackpots spend too much time on your knees in worship to the corporate FAT-CATS!!

Building a fence along the border? GREAT IDEA!!

Photo ID when you go to the polls? GREAT IDEA!!

Holding businesses responsible when they blatantly hire illegals for menial jobs? GREAT IDEA!!

Fighting this mess is no different, IMHO, than fighting illegal drugs or illegal prostitution: You have to get both the "retailers," and the "customers."

Personally, I think businesses should only be "penalized" (and heavily) the first time they're busted using (and that's "using," not "hiring") and taking advantage of illegal immigrants.

The second time? I think the business should be shut down, all the assets--buildings, capital, merchandise, all of it--should be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service, and then auctioned off to the highest bidder with a clean employment record.

How many of you self-proclaimed "conservatives" would have the cajones to back a measure like that??

Yeah, just as I thought. Weaklings and cowards, every one of you. All about "lip service."

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 5 months ago

Don't often agree with ljreader, but his 11:14 p.m. post was right on the money.

Indeed, why not penalize employers who hire/use illegals? Have the FBI raid three or four dozen businesses, even big corporations - and have the papers and the six o'clock news show employers being led out handcuffed for hiring illegal immigrants - and a clear message would be sent.

A fence is good, a necessary step, but other things have to occur too - like penalizing employers who break the law and undermine efforts to curb illegal immigration.

0

bearded_gnome 7 years, 5 months ago

congrats to you patriotman. nice to have the first!

0

HesterPrynne 7 years, 5 months ago

I don't find you offensive at all. Carry on.

0

Patriotman 7 years, 5 months ago

my first removed by the site staff for violation of use policy.

I apologize to every member of the forum if I offended anyone. it wasn't my intent.

0

Patriotman 7 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Patriotman 7 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Patriotman 7 years, 5 months ago

Let them all come across the border. We can have one huge happy family of polygamous marriages, gay unions, bysexual unions and so on. Bring over the donkeys, the chickens and anything else. Why discriminate between four legs and feathers. If it feels good, just do it to it.

The DNC slogan; If it feels good, just do it to it.

0

shadower 7 years, 5 months ago

Would never want any woman who would even look a texan. Realize some disagree, but have found average Texan is overly impressed with self. Shing examples being LBJ, Wright, DeLay and last but not least the shrub. Exception being Ann Richards.

0

carolannfugate 7 years, 5 months ago

Quick someone call the ACLU to defend the rights of Texans. Maybe they could hold a march or something.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 5 months ago

A Texan must have taken your woman once!

0

shadower 7 years, 5 months ago

Could the fence be installed with Texas and especially Crawford being on south side? Personally think all Texans should be considered illegals. Have found over the years, the only thing wrong with the state is it's full of Texans.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 5 months ago

Another thing everyone should read.

WE (the USof A) do not control our southern border.... the drug cartels do. WHen you support illegal immigration... you by default support these thugs and the corrupt Mexican and other South American governments how do't care about their people.

http://hsc.house.gov/PDFs/InvestigationsSubcommitteereport.pdf

THIS is a sobering read.

0

bearded_gnome 7 years, 5 months ago

well said LJreader and Asbestos. thanks.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 5 months ago

"Neo-liberal, corporate friendly policies such as CAFTA, NAFTA, etc., have exactly the opposite effect."

Bozo, I agree with that fully!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 5 months ago

"Any of you lovers of aliens and illegal immigration want that?"

The key to stopping illegal immigration is to make it possible for people to stay where they are. Neo-liberal, corporate friendly policies such as CAFTA, NAFTA, etc., have exactly the opposite effect.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 5 months ago

Don't forget what is occurring in Oaxaca. That is the southern Mexico Border. Yeah it is populated with the refuse from their south. It is a classic "bordre battle" event. Where the socialist libs in Mexico are trying to validate illegal immigration into Mexico, and the locals there want it to stop.

That is what is coming here. Border war, outright and anything American and not latino or hispanic will be shot and killed.

Any of you lovers of aliens and illegal immigration want that?

Have you seen what is happening in Kansas????

WAKE THE H UP!!!

Check out the Wichita Eagle:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/15875771.htm

The numbers and events don't lie.

0

ljreader 7 years, 5 months ago

Gnome- Of course Mexico criticizes this fence. Their economy depends upon illegal immigration. They can dump their poverty here, making American taxpayers responsible for educating, housing, feeding, employing and providing medical care for millions of their poor.

Next to oil, Mexico's main income comes from remittances sent to Mexico from the jobs stolen from American workers, and from the money generated from the drug trade. 4 out of 10 Mexican police are linked to drug cartels. Some areas of the southern border are controlled by Mexican drug cartels using military grade weapons.

Mexico says a fence won't work. If this is true, why do they protest it so much?

If Mexico didn't encourage their citizens to illegally invade this country by publishing directions, teaching their children that the US is rightfully their land to reclaim because it was stolen by "the gringos", and put half the effort into fixing their own country as they do meddling in ours, a fence may not be necessary.

As for our part, this country needs to start cracking down hard on the criminals who employ illegals, and we need foolproof ID. Few are "undocumented". Most are fradulently documented, using fake birth cerificates, green cards, drivers licenses, and fake or stolen social security numbers. If we need foriegn workers, fine- let them go through legal channels to work here- and the same for the traitors who hire them.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 5 months ago

Is this fence going to fly? Why else would all these aerospace companies be bidding on it?

0

bearded_gnome 7 years, 5 months ago

low-tech fence, high-tech/virtual fence, fine, whatever. both should prove the utility of fences!

mexico criticizes this effort, ha-ha! their government fascilitates border crossings and looks the other way RE major drug corruption in police/military in their northern states! its said they fascilitated some of those illegal imigrant rallies across the u.s., too. we should limit how much money can be sent back by workers in the u.s. to mexico. that'd fix the problem fast.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 5 months ago

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on October 28, 2006 at 8:53 a.m.

Merrill actually fears that the DemonRat party will lose a substantial component of its voter base if the flow of illegal aliens is stemmed.


Probably why he and every other good looney lefty is opposed to Voter ID requirements, too. Won't do them any good to let all those criminals in the country if they can't vote.

0

Richard Heckler 7 years, 5 months ago

Actually it was Reagan/Bush who opened the flood gates to bust unions and probaly became a part of the republican voter base if they became legal.

Frankly this high tech fence will likely be a very high tax dollar operation not to mention ineffective. But Boeing loves those tax dollars and Bush loves spending those tax dollars.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 5 months ago

Merrill actually fears that the DemonRat party will lose a substantial component of its voter base if the flow of illegal aliens is stemmed.

This is the truth of the basis for oppostion to improving security on our borders.

Without those who come to the USA to seek entitlements the party which promises those entitlements will lose significant control and influence.

Thanks.

Marion.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Richard Heckler 7 years, 5 months ago

Here is the 2 billion dollar fence. Why not bust the employers instead if this is such a big deal?

Reuters September 22nd, 2006

Boeing Co. has been chosen to build a "virtual fence" using sensors and cameras along the U.S. border with Mexico and Canada to help control illegal immigration in a contract projected to be worth up to $2 billion.

The Secure Border Initiative, or SBInet, will be launched along a 28-mile swath of the border near Tucson, Arizona, and eventually be expanded to some 6,000 miles of border areas, the Department of Homeland Security said Thursday. "What we are looking to build is a virtual fence, a 21st-century virtual fence," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a news conference. Chertoff said the first stage of the three-year contract was worth $67 million, but refused to say how much the entire contract was worth. The contract can be extended for up to three additional years.

Boeing and competitor Northrop Grumman are on record estimating the value of the multiyear contract at $2 billion.

"The key to this is integration. Prior efforts to put technology on the border have been focused on individual tools, but not on putting all the tools together," Chertoff said.

Last year more than 1.2 million people were caught trying to cross the borders into the United States, and experts estimate at least that many slipped by undetected. Last week the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of building about 700 miles of fence along the border with Mexico. The controversial fence has been criticized by Mexico and by Democrats who say it is just aimed at gathering Republicans votes in the Nov. 7 election.

SBInet will use different types of technologies, depending on the terrain, Chertoff said. Boeing will help unify existing technologies and install new tracking sensors, cameras and communications equipment so border agents can keep a closer eye on cities and deserts in the Southwest as well as on lakes and forested mountains along the Canadian border.

Boeing's project proposal also included relying on more than 300 radar towers along the borders, some supplemented with cameras developed by Israel's Elbit Systems Ltd. which can spot people nearly 9 miles away and vehicles at distances of up to 12 miles.

Under the program, Boeing and its partners will also work to improve physical infrastructure along the border areas to help agents do their job. After SBInet is deployed in Arizona, it will be rolled out in segments to other parts of the border based on highest traffic areas, Chertoff said.

Other partners of Boeing in the bid include L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. , Unisys Corp. , Perot Systems Corp. , DRS Technologies , Elbit unit Kollsman Inc., Lucent Technologies , Centech and USIS.

0

Confrontation 7 years, 5 months ago

Please, oh please, can we put Bush on the other side of the fence?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.