So yesterday I happened to glance at C-SPAN, just to see what was on, and I caught this title as I was flipping through the channels. "What in the
hell," I thought, and so I stayed and watched it. Just about ALL of it.
Should Mexico Hold Veto Power over U.S. Border Security Decisions?
I am thinking "Wow, so I am paying my congressmen to debate THIS?"
I think "preposterous" is a light word to describe my utter disbelief at the title of this congressional hearing. So I just kept waiting, watching
and listening for someone, ANYONE, to address the TITLE issue of this hearing. And waited. And waited.
NOTHING, until a passing comment was made about the title of the hearing, in a somewhat derogatory sense. And that was IT.
As it turns out, the purpose of this House Judiciary Committee hearing, with all testimony given under oath, was to consider part of a proposal in the
Senate which actually says that expansion of border fencing would only be done in consultation with Mexico.
Yes, you heard me correctly. Only in consultation with
The House Judiciary Committee held a field hearing at Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, Texas. The hearing examined the financial impact of
illegal immigration on border communities. The hearing also poses the question "Should Mexico Hold Veto Power over U.S. Border Security Decisions?"
in regard to a Senate proposal that expansion of border fencing would only be done in consultation with Mexico.
Interestingly, this description on the C-SPAN website is somewhat misleading. Order the tape and see for yourself, if you have an extra $120.00. That
phrase is actually the TITLE of the session, which was flashed on the screen many times throughout the session as the title, but which C-SPAN
conveniently now represents as a secondary issue.
Now first of all, whoever put that in the senate proposal needs to be whipped, tied to a stake and burned. Why in the HELL should US border security
issues be subject to another country's veto? WHY WHY WHY?
So on went the meeting, without ever addressing the title issue at hand. And to claim that most of the meeting was to discuss the financial impact of
illegal immigration on border communities is a bunch of crap. I wached pretty much the whole entire thing, lasting nearly two hours.
Not a single one of the four witnesses addressed a damn thing about the economic impact of illegals. They had the EL Paso chief of the sherriff's
office, the El Paso chief of the police department, an associate advocate (who ended up providing some very interesting off-topic information), and an
attorney who actually did try to sell the case that these security decisions should be done in consultation with Mexico, citing other non-related
cases where cooperation with Mexico seemed advantageous.
I was getting sick. My first thought after watching all of this bull proceed was that these people need a bunch of ATS moderators to keep the
discussion on topic. What was being presented was what appeared to be mostly opinion, on off topic issues.
One thing that was interesting, though, is that the advocate guy stated, under oath remember, that there have been 235 DOCUMENTED cases of Mexican
military-assisted, drug-related incursions accross US Borders. 235!
One of the only on topic things said that I remember was the sherrif chief stating that he has not seen at all the cooperation from Mexico, and really
quite to the contrary, for various reasons. And the advocate guy's opinion that Mexico's government was corrupt. But so little evidence was
presented at this meeting to back up any of the opinions, that I could only come away with the impression that my government is not the place to go
for facts. But hey, any time that I want politically motivated biassed BS, now I know where to go.
I have been turning more and more to C-SPAN, to try and stick to the facts. And more often than not, end up watching lengthy, off topic sessions that
spew over into petty arguments and pure political agenda. That is your House Judiciary Committee at work, folks. Think about that the next time you
look at all that money that has been removed from your paycheck.