Has Congress Gutted the Border Fence?
[Guest post by DRJ]
Mickey Kaus says the spending bill may gut funding for the border fence:
“Congress’ Fence-Gutting: Get the old gang back together one more time? Provisions buried in the huge omnibus spending bill about to pass Congress gut the program to build a border fence, according to Republicans–and they appear to have a point:
The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for “two layers of reinforced fencing” and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.”
Kaus specifically targets Texas’ Senator Hutchison:
“Defenders of the changes (i.e. Sen. Hutchison of Texas) argue that the Department of Homeland Security should have discretion to “utilize limited resources.” But the whole problem is that nobody trusts President Bush’s Department of Homeland Security. Or anybody’s Department of Homeland Security, for that matter. Whoever is president, DHS will always have a bureaucratic bias toward expanding its budget by employing more DHS personnel–e.g. border patrol agents–and less cheap, inanimate fencing. They can’t be expected to stand up to the businesses and local interests and ACLU lawyers and diplomats who hate the fence and will always lobby against it.”
There has been significant opposition on the Texas border regarding the fence, some of it from landowners who need access to the Rio Grande water and others who oppose it as unrealistic, wasteful, or anti-Hispanic. If Kaus’ information is correct, I’m sure this has something to do with these provisions.
In addition, it’s well-known that Hutchison is considering a run for Texas Governor. I guess she thinks Hispanic votes are key to her election. She may be right but I know many Texas votes she’s lost because of her votes on immigration issues.
— DRJ
Actually the money is still in the package for fencing , but there is also a list of 15 requirements added on that have to be met before the money can be used.
Hoops have been set up that will be a steep hill to climb to make it almost impossible to do the actual building that needs to be done.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:15 pmMost voters would be at least a little happier if at least the known areas with the highest confirmed illegal crossing rates were dealt with first to slow the flow at the worst crossing points.
But odds are if anything is built it will be in the middle of no where at points where border crossing are almost non existent.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:18 pmIf the Republicans ( Bush ) lets this betrayal go through, will Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo join up for an independent run for the presidency?
j curtis (8bcca6) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:16 pmThe issue is not who is the president as much as people think that is the controlling item.
The members of congress are where the major part of the blame should be placed.
You can have the toughest person on immigration or the most open border advocate at the top and they would be able to talk about it till they are blue in the face.
But if the congress members themselves stick with the positions they have and choose to ignore the vast majority across party lines who want the issue accomplished then it is time for the voters to start with contact to convince them otherwise and keep it up on a long term basis until the issue is resolved in the manner that the voters wish for it to be.
Sure piling on when votes are up is one thing, but long term telling them over and over again and not letting the other guy do it will be what it takes to turn the tide.
Otherwise we can spend hundreds of millions of wasted money each year on catch and release or repeated throwing them back over the border only to have to do the same thing over and over again.
The country wants it fixed, all that needs to be done is make sure the congress members know it in no uncertain way.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:31 pmOne of the parts of this is that Mexico tries to get along mainly on oil income and money flowing back across the border.
They have had years to develop even simple manufacturing capacity and we have put factories there to employ the local population.
Mexican workers by all reports are hard workers and only want a fair wage and not to be exploited in their own country.
If investment in their own country by the rich elite were to occur they could easily build a manufacturing base for export to us and central and south america with their willing and able workforce.
If they accomplished that the infrastructure of the country and quality of life for their own countrymen would all be improved.
It is well past time for Mexico itself to step up to the plate.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:40 pmDRJ, I guess it remains to be seen whether this action is a subterfuge to gut the fence or a subterfuge to allow more local control in Texas. I hope it’s the latter. I want to see the fence built, but have seen various articles how the fence may harm the property rights of some people on the border. There should be discretion to deal with these situations. I’m not really going to be a fan of condemning peoples homes to build the fence.
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:44 pm6.JayHub
Property rights? They cleared a whole neighborhood out in my city 10 years ago so they could build a freeway. Those were actual houses, not small strips of weed infested vacant fields.
We are supposed to be in a “war on terror” and Bush is allowing any terrorist with a mind to to cross our border into the United States. Bush’s border patrol chief in Laredo admitted a couple of months ago that they have no intention of stopping people who enter the US illegally. I don’t even remember anymore why Bush is sending Americans across the ocean to die. Can someone remind me?
4.Daytrader
Bush is entirely to blame. He could publicly condemn the Democrats for gutting the fence funding. He won’t.
j curtis (8bcca6) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:02 pmJayHub,
I understand what you are saying. I’m still concerned because some Texas border landowners aren’t interested in securing the border and might even have an interest in promoting/maintaining a porous border.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:51 pmJ Curtis
Screaming and pointing fingers only results in keeping the divide. There is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle.
Fix the worst places first and then expand as necessary if they move. If nothing else you can divert them into wide open areas where they are easy to round up without having to keep very high numbers of people in areas where the fence itself can lower the crossing rate.
Thus you make much better use of your people than a total wide open border.
To leave the worst crossing points totally open would require far more personnel and only put a dent in the flow compared to a better situation of a fence and using people to run down the few who make go over or under it. If built right you can detect and counter breaches before they provide a gap to be exploited.
One thing that can’t be disputed is that what we are doing now is not handling the situation.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:20 pmFor those who don’t want a fence in their back yard, give them the option of not having the fence but require instead 24/7 video of the gap and hold them liable for any damages done by the illegals who used their property as a path across.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:27 pm“… nobody trusts President Bush’s Department of Homeland Security. Or anybody’s Department of Homeland Security…”
Absolutely right! And the mistrust starts with all of the a..hats on Capitol Hill, all 535 of them.
I wouldn’t trust any of them to cast a shadow on a sunny day.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:45 pmI think all the points raised with regard to my comment #6 are valid, but still think there needs to be discretion on the local level, not some fiat from Washington handed down to appease voters who have no knowledge of the history or culture of the border.
Here’s an article to consider:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-granjeno17dec17,1,2774675.story
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:04 pmLeaving it up to the local authorities is fine with things like abortion, schools, and property taxes but this is national security. What if a local jurisdiction is paid by drug smugglers and decides to leave its border open?
DRJ (09f144) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:35 pmIt turns out that they also took out Tancredo’s bills regarding sanctuary cities and Ramos/Compean.
j curtis (8bcca6) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:44 pmThe border fence was always a bad idea. What we need is not a fence but simply enforcement of the laws we have. If employers thought there was any serious chance that the laws against hiring illegal immigrants would be enforced, then they wouldn’t hire illegal immigrants.
Besides enforcing the laws already on the books, the only thing we need to mostly eliminate illegal immigration is to pass a law that a child born in the US to a mother who is not here legally is not a US citizen.
Illegal immigration isn’t a problem that is difficult to solve; it is a problem that no one in power wants to solve.
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:01 pmI hope Kay Bailey runs for governor. She will learn what a defeat of “biblical” proportions is. She has consistantly voted against the will of the people who sent her to D.C. for years. She would have run againt Perry last time, but knew she could not beat him. I know. I asked point black in ’05 if she was going to run for gov and got an answer in the form of a surprised look that anyone knew what she was up to.
Hutchison has caved to a few border mayors, most are Hispanic, all are Democrats, and a few ranchers. The ranchers are so damned worried about water rights but never say a word about their dead cattle (killed by illegals who are hungry) or the tons of trash left behind every day. Oh, yeah, there are some that are squeeking about those things, but for the most part, the mayors know that the first shopping stop on the trip to El Norte is in their town. For them, money trumps security.
Kay Bailey has grossly misjudged her voters this time. Texans, who support a 2+ million illegals, are pretty fed up and that is going to resound at the ballot box.
And the next damned illegal that sees my beautiful daughter and graps his crotch and cat calles to her is going to require me to need a very good lawyer. I’ve absolutely had it with that crap.
retire05 (33bb19) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:12 pmDRJ, I don’t think you could justify building a fence along the Southern border of the US if national security was the only issue. There are lots of other things going on to detect potential saboteurs, like we caught the Germans off U-Boats in WWII. If you read the comments above and almost all others, the fence is about illegal immigration. If that’s it’s only really justifiable purpose, then taking the needs and rights of our existing citizens in the area seems the right thing to do. I agree, you’ve raised a very valid point that some in the border area may not agree with the sense of most of the nation on this issue and would seek to undermine it, but again I don’t think the way to deal with that possibility is just to apply a one size fits all template from Washington.
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:27 pmDemocrats – Proudly undermining America since 1968!
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:53 pmJayhub is either being disingenous or has a screw loose.
When I grew up in Chicago I saw large urban neighborhoods containing thousands of homes, stores and churches go under the wreckers ball for highways and a university. I can’t think of a more appropriate use of eminent domain than a fence protecting the US southern border from mass illegal migration, criminals and terrorists
sabanaoeste (004797) — 12/19/2007 @ 5:01 amI am surprise at how…well…surprised I am that this has happened. Depending upon whose numbers you trust, between 70% and 85% of Americans threw a hissy over “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and shut down the switchboards in DC heralding the defeat of the amnesty-laden joke of “reform.” The catchphase became “Build the Borders First.” Flash forward four months and Congress sneaks through their virtual defeat of any border in another mega-package their staffs received a mere couple of days before the votes were placed. As a little lagniappe this time, we taxpayers will foot a $10M bill for legal representation of illegal aliens, too?
Great.
And so we call and write again. More petitions enroute from NumbersUSA. Blah, blah, blah.
What, I ask, can we individuals really do to accomplish anything to have our national leaders meet the will of the American citizenry? One would think the backlash from the Reform Bill, Spitzer’s 70% embarrassment, and many other fallouts across the country before and since would have sent a resounding message to our representatives.
This treachery should finally lay to rest any and all illusions that that our government is a representative body.
Should Senator Hutchison seek my governor’s office, she will do so without any assistance from me. Quite the contrary, in fact.
EHeavenlyGads (17aca7) — 12/19/2007 @ 6:40 amTexas has less of a problem from illegals than California because the state government is funded largely by sales tax and has lower spending levels per capita. Thus the illegals pay a larger share of the cost for the services they use than here. Maybe that has something to do with the apparent willingness of Texas politicians to tolerate the invasion. Building a fence has become a symbol of a serious concern and we are not winning this contest. One hundred years ago, there was no welfare state and unrestricted immigration was less of a threat. Even then, Ellis Island was used to require physical exams and screening for criminals.
Mike K (86bddb) — 12/19/2007 @ 6:47 amThey dont call it the demacratic CONgress for nothing i mean a whole lot of big time crooks,cheaters,liars,an no good low account side winder polecats owlhoots
krazy kagu (8d6a8f) — 12/19/2007 @ 7:48 amThe way support for a border fence was tangled up in multiple requirements for any funding shows that those who said they could not trust the border fence aspects of the comprehensive immigration bill were correct in their analysis.
That bill offered little to draw border control leaning people except the fence and congress has shown their true colors of gutting the fence in this new bill.
It is proof positive that if the comprehensive bill had gone forward the same result would have occurred as well as any similar features. In effect the bill would have been finalized by revision to be mainly an amnesty bill with no counter features.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/19/2007 @ 8:07 amI’m puzzled by a couple of comments here in favor of eminent domain. Sure, Chicago neighborhoods were bulldozed to create highways, but I thought most agreed that this is a bad thing. Out my way they bulldozed a lot of houses to build Dodger Stadium.
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:07 amWhat about the recent case in New London that incensed us all. What about property rights. I thought this was a conservative blog.
Also, remember, I’m not arguing against building the fence, or against using eminent domain as a last resort. I’m arguing for a rational approach at the local level when it comes to dealing with the property rights of local citizens.
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:15 amJayHub
This is a national security matter and as much as all dislike the impact on locals the national need over rides that most would say.
I have seen whole valleys displaced when hydro electric dams were built but those were for at least public usage.
The Kelo decision was transferring private property for commercial use that only was attempted to be justified as better usage resulting in a higher tax base not public usage.
Also if you follow up that story, the property still has not been used and the commercial developers are near to losing their permits since partially they can’t get funding for the project.
Next I expect to see a municipal bail out of that situation.
daytrader (ea6549) — 12/19/2007 @ 3:25 pmAnd the next damned illegal that sees my beautiful daughter and graps his crotch and cat calles to her is going to require me to need a very good lawyer. I’ve absolutely had it with that crap.
Comment by retire05 — 12/18/2007 @ 9:12 pm
How do you know if they are an illegal? And what if they are a “legal”?
voiceofreason (6fa337) — 12/19/2007 @ 4:39 pmInquiring minds…..
Daytrader: “This is a national security matter and as much as all dislike the impact on locals the national need overrides that most would say.”
As I said above, I don’t think we would build the fence to keep out terrorists, the risk would not justify the expense. If it did, we’d need to build a fence on the Canadian border too. It’s as easy to slip a small group of men across there. So, I don’t consider the fence a national security matter in that sense. It’s a fence to keep out illegal immigrants, which is very serious but I don’t see overriding local interests in all cases. If we cut illegal immigration by 90% instead of 100% by being reasonable on the local level, I could live with that huge improvement.
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/19/2007 @ 5:20 pmDaytrader – I agree that there are legitimate uses of eminent domain, just disagree that ipso facto the fence is legitimate in all individual cases.
JayHub (0a6237) — 12/19/2007 @ 5:23 pmWe don’t need no stinking fence; not if the President would do this:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/19/2007 @ 5:54 pmhttp://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2004_11_14_archive.html#110070926255531129
“If the Republicans ( Bush ) lets this betrayal go through, will Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo join up for an independent run for the presidency?”
-j curtis
Maybe… if they think the Belly-Laugh Vote is strong enough to propel them to the White House.
For what it’s worth, I would love a Tancredo/Hunter ticket. It would break the back of any real candidate the Republicans put forward.
Leviticus (3e5d77) — 12/19/2007 @ 6:16 pm#31 Yes, it would split the Republican vote. I, for one, would vote for them as they are the only people running from either party that I even begin to trust.
I voted for Bush because he hid his real agenda during the campaign. “We’ve got to enforce our border!” So much for that.
Duncan Hunter has represented my district for quite a few years. I agree with most aspects of his voting record. However, we all know that the only way his name will ever grace the main stream media is if he buys an ad. And without the MSM talking about you, you have NO chance of getting elected.
This year, we really have no good candidates on either side of the isle.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/19/2007 @ 7:08 pm