| Here is the source document (PDF) referred to. The costs portion begins on page 25. Note that the authors of this document are: Blas Nuñez-Neto - Analyst in Domestic Security - Domestic Social Policy Division Stephen Viña - Legislative Attorney - American Law Division |
WASHINGTON - A hotly disputed fence on the U.S.-Mexico border will cost more than $60 billion - nearly 10 times more than original estimates - with billions more needed for land acquisition and maintenance, according to a new government study.
 |
| Tombstone, AZ |
The new cost estimates come as a Democratic-controlled Congress prepares to revisit the contentious issue of reducing illegal immigration. And a number of lawmakers have called for a re-evaluation of the fence now being built along the Southwest border.
"It won't ever get built the way it was mandated," predicted Marshall Fritz, advocacy director for the Washington, D.C.-based American Immigration Lawyer's Association. "I don't think you're going to see them repeal the law. It's just a matter of whether you're going to see them fund the entire thing."
| Or none at all, which is your goal. |
President George W. Bush signed the measure into law. Lawmakers so far have allocated $1.2 billion for the fence's infrastructure and technology.
But the fence also has raised the ire of many Democrats, who call it an unnecessary and costly diplomatic obstacle. And now they will be in charge of deciding how much funding the project will get.
| Let's not talk about the $billions$ we spend annually directly resulting from the illegal flow. Why Laficornia spends more than this just on the preggers illegals - annually. And, well, it's just not nice. They're not breaking US law really. We've never enforced our borders before, why start now? Evil bastards. |
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who will head the House Homeland Security Committee, has indicated he will re-evaluate the project - a plan that could involve denying additional funding.
Other lawmakers - including Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. - have met to discuss a renewed immigration bill that would offer a guest-worker program and a means for millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status.
| Neither of those creatures speaks for flyover America. |
Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for Immigration Reform, a D.C.-based group that advocates against illegal and most legal immigration, called the barrier a necessary expense. "That fence is a very tangible statement of this country's intent to enforce its borders," Dane said. "It is expensive, but it's a fixed cost," he said, contrasting the cost of the fence to what he described as the "variable" cost to the U.S. of paying for illegal immigrants' education, health care and other social services.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who supports extending the fence, has not taken a position on future funding, said her spokesman, Scott Gerber. "She has seen the fence be effective in California," Gerber said. "The question is, how much money is there and how much is realistic?"| Got a wet finger in the wind. She'll let you know when the feeling returns to her digits. It all rushed to her head in November and hasn't come out since. |
And investigators warned Congress that extending the fence through Arizona and Texas will still leave vulnerabilities. One side effect could be an increase in underground tunnels like the ones discovered this year, necessitating federal investment in tunnel-detection technologies.
The report also found a number of other costs that Congress has not yet accounted for, including increased costs associated with building in remote areas where workers might need to be housed for extended periods; purchasing land in Texas; and using private contractors, as the DHS has proposed.
Fitz and others predict that immigration in general and the fence in particular will be at the forefront of policy debates in 2007. "The time has ripened for this issue," he said. "Democratic leaders recognize it as an absolutely critical policy issue for them to address head-on."
| Head on? Lol. I predict the "debate" will be dominated by crapweasel tactics. |