It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Funds for the New Mexican Border Fence, Votes Senate

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
In a 71-29 vote, the US Senate has denied the $1.8 billion in funds for 370 miles of new Mexican border fencing to be constructed. The funding ammendment was proposed by republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, as part of a bill appropriating $32 billion to the Homeland Security Department- $2.2 billion of which was appropriated for border security and control. In the 83-16 vote on May 17th, the Senate authorized the fencing along high-traffic areas, in addition to approving 500 miles of vehicle barriers.
 



www.washtimes.com
Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who historically has fought to increase border security and enforcement of federal immigration laws, was among those who opposed Mr. Session's amendment.
"We should build these walls; there's no question about it," he said. "But the real issue here is the offset that's being used, and the offset creates a Hobson's choice for almost everyone here."
Mr. Session's amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So is this just another case of "Put your money where your mouth is?", or is this really an argument over which aspects of border control and security should be funded? Well IMO they need to seek increases in the funding to be able to do all of it, including Session's ammendment for the 370 miles of fencing, for starters.

From Article:


"We've attempted very hard to increase Border Patrol agents in this bill, increase detention beds," he said. "And, yes, we haven't funded the wall specifically as a result of our efforts to do these increases."


Ok, so 750 border patrol agents and 1200 beds cost $1.8 billion? And those are more important than the fence which may have eliminated the need for the additional beds, and possibly the agents?

*scratches head*

I suppose an argument for this could be that unless the ENTIRE border is fenced, there will still be an enormous need for patrol agents, and hence, detainee beds. And considering that to fence the entire border would require an investment of an estimated 4 to 8 billion dollars, plus ongoing maintenance expense, maybe this really IS a case of "Put your money where your mouth is."

When examining what it would REALLY cost to provide comprehensive southern border security solution for the US, even a completely fenced border with two hundred legal crossing points to accommodate commerce, tourism and legitimate commuting is not enough. Because many are coming through tunnels, under any surface fence- the act of which building or financing itself should be made a criminal act, as proposed in the link provided.


It criminalizes the act of constructing or financing a tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States . Most people don't know this, but this has become a real problem. There are 40 such tunnels that have been built since 9/11, and the great bulk of them are on the southern border. Large-scale smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants takes place today through these tunnels.

I recently visited a tunnel running from San Diego to Tijuana , and I was struck by the inordinate sophistication of the tunnel. It was a half mile long. It went 60 to 80 feet deep, 8 feet tall. It had a concrete floor. It was wired for electricity. It had drainage. At one end, 300 pounds of marijuana were found, and at the other end, 300 pounds of marijuana.

What was interesting is that the California entry into the tunnel was a very modern warehouse, a huge warehouse compartmented but empty and kept empty for a year. You went into one office, and there was a hatch in the floor. It looked much like the hatch which Saddam had secreted himself in. But when you lifted that hatch and you looked underground, you saw a very sophisticated tunnel. It went under other buildings all the way across the double fence into Mexico and up in Mexico in a building as well.

Today, interestingly enough, at this time, there is no law that makes building or financing such a tunnel a crime. A provision in this bill includes language from the Feinstein-Kyl Border Tunnel Prevention Act which would make the building or financing of a cross-border tunnel a crime punishable by up to 20 years.


So my vote would be to have the entire fence

external image

PLUS a coordinated service assessment and implementation from establishments such as the ERDC, who provide tunnel detection, confirmation, closure, and monitoring services.



Surely with all the genius present between those entities they could come up with a workable, cost effective solution to finally, once and for all, secure our southern border.

Does this solve the existing 20 million+ illegal alien problem already within our borders? No. But it does provide assured prevention against the vast majority of illegals, as well as opportunistic terrorists, entering the US via that border in the future. Half the problem is those illegals already in the country. The other half is preventing new illegals and terrorists entering in the future from that southern border.

And if it's anywhere near as secure as the Israeli Security Fence, a new comprehensive border fence would be extremely effective, and maybe even more so than the Israeli one, given the tunnel detection and control measures.

And so, let's say all in all it costs a one-time $15 billion with additional funding for appropriate ongoing maintenance and support to provide us with this security. That pales in comparison to the $80 to 100 billion+ PER YEAR being spent on the War on Terror alone, as well as the costs of funding illegals through social programs, the additional crime they bring, and additional economic problems they present to the American workforce.

Sources:
weneedafence.com...
feinstein.senate.gov...
ERDC
theage.com

Related News Links:

www.msnbc.msn.com

www.nytimes.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-7-2006 by TrueAmerican]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
In addition, please note another little tidbit in the source article:


Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision -- slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote -- that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.
"I know of no other provision in U.S. law where the federal government requires state and local governments -- every state and local government on the border -- to consult with state and local governments of a foreign power before the federal government can act," he said.
"Now, from my experience as a Justice Department official, when we had consultation requirements with the State Department, just getting two agencies in the executive branch to consult took months or years," said Mr. Kobach, now a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. "If you add this, three levels of government and a foreign power, your delay" will never end.


Consult with the Mexican Government before building the fencing? For what? To tell them they can't play "send your criminals to the US anymore?" And what's with this "slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote" crap? Another Patriot Act Ploy, I see. A true Patriot Act would be to secure our border.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Building--I should say trying to build--an impenetrable fence along the entire southern border would be a total waste of money and effort. No fence we could build would be good enough to keep people out, besides which, I don't think we should even be trying to keep them out. Let them in and do it all legally so the current problem just disappears by definition.

Let Mexicans & others who want to work in the U.S. in. Tag them in some way so we can keep an eye on them, but nothing else. Collect taxes from them that are sufficient to pay for the social & medical services they use and otherwise just leave them alone.

Combatting terrorism is not about trying to keep would be terrorists out, it is about discovering them and arresting them before they can carry out any terrorist acts. We should be screening for potentially dangerous materials & equipment entering the country, but even that is secondary to identifying and arresting would be terrorists.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
There's simply no reason to build a giant fence along the mexican border.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Well, Nygdan...
i dont agree... but for a different reason
it has nothing to do with mexicans...

it has to do with National Security... and while we have no fence, any amount of government snooping, bugging, civil rights abuses, and all the rest is just that much more useless...

with all the high tech gizmos, and hundreds of BILLIONS of waste on these DHS programs, you would think someone would at least close the door on this ultra effiecient house...

because that is what it is like...
building a super dooper ultra effiecent house, with all the solar, geothermal, triple pane windows, and then some idiot leave the door off the house...
bunch of good that effort did...

anyone who gets caught from all these new "saftey features" was going to get caught anyway...

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Ali and his 40 theives will sneak across the border, and come steal our lives in the middle of the night without ever using the phone, the internet, the cell, or the twoway, and without ever going thru an airport, a customs center, a security checkpoint...
... and that means that the NSA/FBI/DHS couldn't have done squat about it.


df1

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
There's simply no reason to build a giant fence along the mexican border.

Wasnt this sort of thing rendered obsolete with the invention of the extension ladder?

As for the politicians, they love to have their cake and eat it too, so this is perfect. They got to vote in favor of the fence and against it. Non-partisan politics at their finest.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Another ridiculous lie.

Doesnt anyone get it yet?

There was never any INTENT for a fence, much less securing our borders.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Hmm, aight. So I am wondering if you people actually looked into what I posted, and understood the concept of an Israeli style fence WITH the added tunnel services. In my mind, that would offer a hell of a lot more security than we have now.

For those that think the fence is not the answer, well, we've tried it your way for 200 years. I think it's time to try something new.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
IMHO they're doing that because of the possible North American Union that is probably coming in the near future. Those congressmen don't care about the sovereignity of your country.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

FBI Director Robert Mueller confirmed earlier this spring that Hezbollah agents were caught trying to enter the country illegally through the Mexican border.


WorldNetDaily


Nevertheless, gimme the fence! (and the tunnel services).



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I wrote a long article on how soem way to get rid of this problem. I decided not to post it cause it maybe offensive to some.

However, there are other ways that are even cheaper to stop this border problem. But all in all, the bottom line is we need to take back our gov to do the things "WE THE PEOPLE" ask for. Not big corporations. Maybe we should be more froogle with our handouts and make it not worthwhile for them to coem over here illegally. Maybe we should get the military in there.. with the right to capture them (no just report them).

All in all, I hope people will be able to work together to start resolving these problems.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
the sad thing is, a physical fence wont do anything alone...
and a electronic fence (of sensors similar to area 51) would be so much cheaper, and enable monitoring of the entire border via centralized stations, with helocopters to dispatch to intercept border crossers...

affordable, reliable, more sensitive than a physical fence, and much easier to maintain...
but will we do it?

hell no, because the administrations supporters want mexicans to be able to cross unmonitored...

I say, let mexicans come down and register as guest workers, get a RFID badge they wear to cross the border, and only go intercept non-registered crossers...

this would enable a quick fix of the border security, by stopping terrorists from gaining easy entry... and allow our friends to the south to still come work (plus, having registered guests makes us all safer as well)

it also eliminates the problem guest workers have of crossing at only border crossing areas... it is almost funny that people live all along the border, and sometimes have to travel 10-20miles to cross 20 feet of border at a crossing station (legally)...
we all know that isn't what happens... they cross where they can... and truly there is nothing short of a total border patrol that can stop that...(way too expensive)

[edit on 19-7-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
it has to do with National Security

But a fence won't help that. Besides, its the US-Canadian border that has had the most activity wrt international terrorism. Indeed, it is the greater threat. Canada has close ties with Britain, and because of Britain's standing in the world and its history of colonialism, there are large numbers of middle eastern immigrants that come into britain from those former colonies. Mexico, on the other hand, doesn't have any connections like that. So if we are going to build a fence anywhere, put it between the US and Canada, not Mexico.


and then some idiot leave the door off the house

Makes sense, except that I don't think a fence across a border like that is going to be any different than, say, installing the door, but leaving it open and unlocked


TrueAmerican
well, we've tried it your way for 200 years I think it's time to try something new.

Based upon what? We haven't had a fence for our entire history, infact practically no country has had anything like that, and it works perfectly fine. Only, to my immediate mind, the Isrealis, the East Germans, and the Romans, had fences. They weren't applicable to the US-Mexico situation. Hadrian's Wall, and the german frontier Limes, were there to control trade and the movement of entire tribes. Not individuals that are being brought in by human smuggling gangs, or drug cartels. The Berlin wall was intended to keep people within east berlin, and was heavily militarized, we can't even do that along the entire mexican border, let alone have any reason to go to that extreme. The isreali wall isn't designed to stop people from comming in or out, but merely to prevent attacks, and, again, over a much shorter border, mexicans aren't like palestinians, firing rockets, organizing armies, etc etc.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
...besides which, I don't think we should even be trying to keep them out. Let them in and do it all legally so the current problem just disappears by definition.

Let Mexicans & others who want to work in the U.S. in.


This kind of thinking is based not on facts or intellectual thought, but on heart alone. While many would believe in their own hearts that all immigrants from everywhere in the world would be good for the United States, they fail to look into the issue enough to realize that this kind of fairy tale thinking is bogus at best.

The facts are that a good number of illegal border violaters are here to commit crimes, crimes against society and individuals. Crimes in the name of the respective gangs they belong to, crimes such as fraudulently claiming expemptions that they are not due on their income taxes, crimes such as smuggling drugs, guns, explosives and human slaves for prostitution and sweat shops, crimes such as using Citizens Social Security numbers to get work using Fake Identification(Identity theft). Many illegals will room together averaging 10-15 people in a one-bedroom apartment, with the all-knowing landlord taking under-the-table extra rent for not turning them all in to INS. This violates State, County and City health codes for starters, some illegals will "live off the land" camping in State and Public Parks or in canyons that are part of privately owned subdivisions. They do this so that they can keep the living expenses down and Joe-Homeowner gets a cheap source of undocumented labor to do his chores, avoiding the payment of any taxes completely.

Of course the kicker is this, Federal Law requires Hospitals and Caregivers to treat undocumented border violaters "to a level of good health" and not get paid for it, yet hospitals and caregivers are not required to treat American Citizens or guarantee their good heath which is why American Citizens are loosing their health care system due to the financial erosion caused by border violators. I'm all for an Israeli style fence on the border hotspots with tunnel detection equipment because these so-called immigrants are desperately trying to destroy the American society.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

For those that think the fence is not the answer, well, we've tried it your way for 200 years. I think it's time to try something new.


Well now, how many terrorist attacks across that border have we had?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
I'm all for an Israeli style fence on the border hotspots with tunnel detection equipment...


If we could just start with the hotspot areas, it would be better than nothing. If that could expand to near 100%, I think it would be damn effective. I think the exact style of fence and equipment should be studied by an independent comission for effectiveness, cost and viability, as well as social/economic impact, and even potential resulting Mexican/US relations. All the things that would go into a well-planned study, so that the American taxpayer gets the most bang for the buck.

And Nygdan, this article I think deals more specifically with the problem of Mexicans crossing the southern border. The additional protection it offers against terrorists crossing through the southern border is more of a fringe benefit than a main arguing point. Nonetheless, you're making some great points about the Canadian border.
And ultimately, there should probably be one there too.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop

This kind of thinking is based not on facts or intellectual thought, but on heart alone. While many would believe in their own hearts that all immigrants from everywhere in the world would be good for the United States, they fail to look into the issue enough to realize that this kind of fairy tale thinking is bogus at best.


I beg to differ with you sir, what I proposed would enable the various states to collect taxes and what not. Very, very few of the illegal immigrants who sneak across the border are criminals or ever get into serious trouble with the law. Admittedly illegal immigrants cost the border states in particular serious bucks for the health & social services they use, but there is bound to be some way to recoup that cost without making them all criminals. Remember I did say make them all legal. If the employment laws and such were redone to recognize the realities of life and not the ivory tower policies of insulated intellectuals then people would mostly stop breaking those laws. The fact that such laws are broken so frequently now is more a reflection on the law than on the people who break them.

Let's face it, there is a high demand for cheap labor all across the country and the illegal immigrants are filling that demand, they are not here trying to destroy american society, they are here trying to feed their families.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
... Very, very few of the illegal immigrants who sneak across the border are criminals or ever get into serious trouble with the law.


I believe that statement is somewhat misleading. And in some border towns, flat out wrong. Check some of the crime statistics for some of these places and some of these illegals. Insanely high. The mere fact that they are sneaking over causes them to BE criminals. They have violated a sovereign border, when they knew damn well that if they really wanted in here that bad, then they should get in line like everyone else and do it legally. Does that guarantee entry? No. But just because you can get away with it and the penalty is less than China or North Korea who might shoot you on the spot for the same crime, does not make it any less of a crime. They have still broken the law if they have crossed the border illegally, or stayed here when their visa expired.


Well now, how many terrorist attacks across that border have we had?


This article I think deals more specifically with the problem of Mexicans crossing the southern border. The additional protection it offers against terrorists crossing through the southern border is more of a fringe benefit than a main arguing point.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
For TrueAmerican

www.eriposte.com...

is a link to a good general discussion of the illegal immigrant problem.

The following information is largely lifted from an extensive, peer-reviewed study conducted on the illegal immigrant "problem." The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, Editors; Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration, National Research Council" There are certainly other studies floating around, but this one is highly regarded.

The adjusted male rate for Mexican immigrants (incarcerated behind bars) between ages 15 and 34 (47.61) is particularly notable because it is quite similar to the U.S. citizen rate (45.51). This particular statistic is rather remarkable because illegal immigrants are much more likely to be imprisoned for any crime than U.S. citizens. Illegal immigrants are far less likely to be released from jail prior to trial and they have fewer resources to defend themselves in court than do U.S. citizens, leaving them more vulnerable to conviction, and ultimately to imprisonment..

..arrest records in cities such as El Paso and San Diego [border cities] suggest that illegal immigrants are less likely than citizens to be involved in drug crime, and instead that they are most distinctively involved in property crime. This kind of petty property offense activity is consistent with the picture of offending than Freeman (1996) has suggested in his foraging model of crime. That is, young male illegal immigrants may be most likely to become involved in petty property crime as they attempt to satisfy basic subsistence needs while moving through the early stages of seeking, finding, losing, and regaining employment.

Some conclusions of the study were:

(i) There is at best weak evidence, and at worst no evidence that the majority of immigrants are MORE predisposed to crime than Americans of comparable age and gender. An optimistic reading of the data might extend the same conclusion to illegal immigrants - but even a non-optimistic interpretation suggests that the majority of illegal immigrants (largely Mexicans) are probably associated with imprisonment rates not significantly higher than that of American citizens of their same age and gender.

(ii) Imprisonment rates for illegal immigrants are biased unfavorably in their direction because of lower likelihood of "bailouts", and greater probability of tougher sentencing - quite possibly exacerbated by prejudicial notions regarding crime rates associated with them.

(iii) Illegal immigrants are probably less likely to be associated with drug crimes than American citizens, but more likely to be associated with (petty) property crimes. The latter tendency may be exacerbated by the poor treatment and low wages they receive at the hands of employers within the U.S. (more on this below).

(iv) However, as the proportion of youth in illegal immigrant populations if often higher than in the general population, the overall crime levels attributable to illegal immigrants is likely higher. With higher fertility levels in Hispanic immigrants (also briefly addressed in my following article - Part II), the propensity for them to constitute an increasing proportion of the youth base will increase the probability that such immigrants are over-represented overall in crime and imprisonment statistics over time. Governments and citizens ignore this at their own long-term peril. Lack of extensive communities and/or social support networks for immigrants is likely to increase the probability of criminal acts.

Now as to fiscal costs associated with illegal immigrants:

Immigrant households with children typically represent a net cost to state/local Governments (although immigrants considered by themselves without their families usually do not), but in most cases they represent a net fiscal benefit to the country as a whole.

As a general rule, those programs in which immigrants receive fewer benefits than native-born households are predominantly at the federal level (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), whereas programs in which immigrants receive proportionately more benefits are at the state and local level (e.g., education)...

There are different ways to look at the fiscal impact of immigrants and their families, but the most appropriate approach which includes looking at immigrants as well as their adult children (and, as appropriate, their subsequent descendants) shows that they are a net fiscal benefit to the United States.

Here is a link to an article concerning illegal immigrants and crime from a biased source that has not been peer reviewed and validated: www.city-journal.org...

The information above is not likely to get you to change your opinions on the illegal immigrant situation, but I wanted you to know I did not, and do not, base my comments on emotive stirrings from my heart...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Astronomer, thanks for the interesting and informative reply. While we can discuss this study and what I have absorbed through various radio programs, television interviews, and internet articles thus far on the issue of illegal immigrant criminal statistics- and that might be interesting to debate in another thread- let us not forget a couple things here:

This thread article deals with the no senate funding for partial fencing that was already approved. It was approved by congress that this fencing was needed, but they deemed the agents and beds more necessary given a cap on the budget. So the issue here is already pretty far down the road along in relation to the immigrant issue as a whole. It deals specifically with one aspect of the immigration issue, and that is illegals coming over the Mexican border.

It could be that studies like the one you mentioned contributed to that determination. Might be interesting to get a CSPAN segment on the issue if there is one, to better understand the exact reasons why that decision was made. I might look into that, but I have only so much time. I wonder how a congressman would respond to the question as to why they were more in favor of the agents and beds.


The information above is not likely to get you to change your opinions on the illegal immigrant situation,...


My opinions vary every day as information is received.


...but I wanted you to know I did not, and do not, base my comments on emotive stirrings from my heart...


You should try it sometimes. Brings out the love in you.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join