| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Congress: No Border Fence |
| 2006-04-07 |
| Media reports to the contrary, Congress is not considering a key enforcement measure that the Border Patrol says would halt illegal immigration by 95 percent - a continuous 2,000 mile border fence extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Even HR 4437, the bill passed by the House in December, proposes only a 700 mile barrier that would cover just the points where the illegal traffic is deemed the highest. But according to the Border Patrol - a security fence is far and away the most effective way to halt the flow of illegals currently deluging the Southwest. After interviewing border agents, National Public Radio reports that apprehensions of illegals plummeted after the border was fenced off in San Diego, dropping from 100,000 in 1993 to just 5,000 in 2005. However, the decreased traffic in San Diego had been offset by higher numbers of illegals going around the California fence, exacerbating border problems in neighboring Arizona. The "end-run" phenomenon makes clear the folly of having a partial barrier covering only high traffic areas. And yet even the allegedly "draconian" House bill proposes that only "parts" of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas be protected with a physical barrier. Versions of the immigration bill currently under consideration by the Senate are even weaker on this key provision. Sen. Jon Kyl, who's considered a border hawk, has offered an amendment calling for double fencing only in the urban areas of Arizona, which now have single fencing, plus a stretch of the border west of Naco. But after the plan raised the hackles of environmentalists, Kyl removed the proposed fencing from a sensitive wildlife corridor. Instead of following the Border Patrol's advice, Congress is insisting that a "virtual fence" - with high-tech motion detectors and surveillance cameras - will be an effective supplement to areas protected by a physical fence. But as Human Event's publisher Terry Jeffries argues: "A virtual fence is specifically designed to force hands-on confrontations between Border Patrolmen and foreign nationals crossing our border. It would cause dangerous situations, where a real fence could deter and prevent them." With Washington refusing to stop the bleeding, private groups are stepping into the breach. The group "BorderFenceProject.com" has launched a civilian effort to seal off the entire Southwest border. "We are in the process of obtaining permits from the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, and other government authorities to build a high-tech barbed-wire fence" the group says on its web site. As the federal government continues to dither, groups like the Minutemen and the BorderFenceProject may be America's last hope for effective border security. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #14 JEWISH WORLD REVIEW reports that CHavez of Venezuela may be providing $$$ support to Mexico's ultra-Left political opposition, includ for the upcoming Mexican elections for President. SO we've got Radical Spetzlamists up north in CANADA endangering AMerica not only from radical terror but also from the Gorby-Yelstin-Putin Doctrine where Russia reserves its right to use military force to protect Russian citizenz/emigres anywhere in the world, and now Mexico potens succumbing to the Ultra-Left. AMerica is being surrounded, boyz, FTLG STAY ARMED AND READY!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-07 22:37 |
| #13 With the majority of American citizens-voters in favor of immigration reform, no pol in his or her right mind would support this kind of a limited measure - methinks we should prob be interpreting this article as "Congress votes for Phase One Fence Construction. Phase Two Up for Vote after 2008". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-07 21:39 |
| #12 If you're sick and tired of politics, wait until you get a taste of minority governments, which a viable third party would bring. Be careful what you ask for. |
| Posted by: SA4511 2006-04-07 18:24 |
| #11 For all his faults, Jesse Jackson did once say something that is cynically accurate. "If you can get 100 businessmen to agree on something, it is the law." Much of US law is indeed "business-centric" when the republicans are in charge, and "NGO (special interest group)-centric" when the democrats are in charge. In neither case do the interests of "the people" carry much weight because "the people" do not lobby, frame the debate, or really do much more than vote. The political parties, business organizations, and non-governmental organizations all agree that the status quo, that is, the two existing political parties only, shall be maintained by law, no matter how unrepresentative or ineffectual they become. So there is some truth when people say that there is no difference between the two parties. And yet they are profoundly wrong with what "no difference" means. On this issue, this means that the republicans are split between the businessmen who want open borders, and their NGO factions that want the border closed. Conversely, the democrats NGO factions want the border open, and their business (union) factions want the border closed. This split means that despite the bluster, dust and smoke, neither party intends to do anything, yet declare victory. Paralysis at the federal level. However, this does leave an opening for border State governments and even private organizations to intervene. And this leads to considerable irony. That being that there are ways to do this on a budget, that have not been seriously considered. Ways of dissuading illegals from crossing in the first place that are not terribly expensive and work. Tent cities, national guard, minutemen, Indian tribes, etc. We, the people, might not have even bothered the feds in the first place, and handled the problem ourselves. So all we would really need is that the feds stay out of the way and not try to prevent us from restricting the border. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-07 14:53 |
| #10 Sadly, I don't think that the democratic party can produce a serious candidate in the next several rounds. They have become a party controlled by raging moonbats with no serious plan for national security - no matter what rhetoric they try to cobble together. A third party never does anything but split the vote in the general election. The best thing that could happen would be a serious republican candidate who will win the primary by standing for serious immigration reform. Time to get rid of the good ol' boy network in the republican party by voting out the dead wood in the primary elections. The immigration issue, and the Republican party's inability to address it, may just be the ticket that will finally do just that. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-07 14:47 |
| #9 Jules lol so true though |
| Posted by: Jan 2006-04-07 13:56 |
| #8 A viable third party would focus on the defense of the United States and leave those vexing social and cultural issues to the states -- as the founding fathers intended the system to work. It would admit that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our enemies, and it would seriously tackle our energy reliance on nasty regimes. (One idea: massive income tax cuts for the middle class, to be replaced by massive taxes on imported energy, coupled with a major program to build new nuclear power facilities. Another idea: demand that Saudi Arabia immediately stop exporting Islamism and start acting like a normal country -- if not, a nice little Shiite-dominated US protectorate in the eastern oil-rich area of the country will soon appear on the map). |
| Posted by: pagan infidel 2006-04-07 13:56 |
| #7 But according to the Border Patrol - a security fence is far and away the most effective way to halt the flow of illegals currently deluging the Southwest. Thank you feckless, appeasing, politically correct Congress for fully avoiding the "most effective" solution. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-04-07 13:50 |
| #6 To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-04-07 13:10 |
| #5 And thus will we end up, sooner or later, with a Hillary or a Kerry or a Gore. |
| Posted by: Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 12:51 |
| #4 Rjschwarz-I don't know what it would be called, but I would heartily welcome it-and add even another. It is moronic that people feel trapped to vote for one of two parties. Kinda like a waiter with appetizers walking up to you saying, "would you prefer the boiled cockroach pate or the pureed eyeball pate"? I've lost my appetite for this menu. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-04-07 12:49 |
| #3 We very well may have a third party by the 2008 elections if Congress doesn't shape up. The Permenent Revolutionary Party will have eclipsed the Greens by then. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-07 11:47 |
| #2 In related news the Congress has decided that a near 100% overturn of Congressional members in 2006 would be a good idea. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-07 11:45 |
| #1 The southern border has to be sealed or it's no deal. |
| Posted by: badanov 2006-04-07 10:50 |