Published: Sunday, June 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
20 years ago we had 4000 border control agents. 10 years ago we had 10,000.
Today we have 20,000. This bill is said to double the number, so we will have
40,000. We already spend more on border control than we do on any other law
enforcement activity. Net migration from Mexico is currently right around zero,
meaning there are as many people leaving as coming. All this brought
to you by the people who say they want smaller government and less spending.
I agree. Hidden deep in the bowells of the 1200 page bill, that no one who
voted for it has read, is the provision that if Janet "deems" the border
is secure there will be no further fence or border security measures taken. Key
word is deem and we all know how Harry will pass a bill that is deemed passed.
Year 1986 "amnesty to end all amnesties" invited 1.8 million illegals to
get amnesty. 3.2 million showed up and got amnesty. Year 2013 11.0 million are
invited to the amnesty party and around 33.0 million will get it if Washington
can't say no to illegal migration. Year 2040, past history shows that 65.0
million will be offered amnesty. Will the cycle ever end? With the likes of
Orrin and Lindsay voting I doubt it. Too bad the citizens can't vote on
such a measure.
So Gary just how high should the fence be, and just how much money should we
spend to build a fence in a thousand foot ravine, and at what point is the
border secure? This mania for border security is not conservative. There is
nothing conservative about it except it's the old Republican trick of
supply side economics. They are simply trying to solve a demand problem by
cutting off the supply. Worked well in the drug war didn't it..well guess
what it won't work here either. Pass reasonable laws and then spend your
border security money to create workable systems of enforcement here.
Conservative leaders like Ralph Reed suppoted Republican Senators Haeven and
Corker's amendment on border security."Sessions said the
immigration bill "has a specific provision that says that Secretary
Napolitano does not have to build any fence if she chooses not to." His
press secretary pointed to an "opt-out" provision in the bill.But it would take a dramatic leap of legal interpretation to argue that
provision allows Napolitano to skip fence-building altogether. Legal experts we
spoke to said, instead, it gives her discretion about where to build border
fencing.We rate Sessions’ claim False."(Politifact)
FACT: The amendment contains tangible, concrete triggers which ensure that
Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs) cannot receive green cards until at
least 10 years after the enactment of the bill, AND the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense,
the Inspector General, and GAO, certifies that: An unprecedented
surge of an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed, maintained and
stationed along the southern border.The Comprehensive Southern Border
Security Strategy is deployed and operational, which includes, at a minimum,
full implementation and activation of the $4.5 billion in specific technology
and equipment requested by the Border Patrol to achieve full surveillance of the
border.The Southern Border Fencing Strategy has been implemented, and at
least 700 miles of fencing has been completed along the southern border. The mandated electronic visa entry/exit system has been fully implemented at
all air and sea ports of entry where U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers
are currently deployed, which will improve the identification of those who
overstay their visas.E-Verify is being used by all employers in the
country, making it virtually impossible to work in the United States illegally.
Kayser: And the border agents have been told to stand down and not arrest
anyone. The border control agents are against this amnesty bill.Maybe sen
hatch should read the bill before he supports it. Even one of the designers of
the bill has said he doesn't understand parts of it. GREAT. Just as nancy
pelousi said, "we have to pass it to see what's in it!"I'm sick of our legislators not doing their jobs and refusing to sit long
enough to read it through. I challenge sen hatch to state that he has read
all of it and understand what's in it.
Re:tenxSources? What you wrote is flat out false.
From Politifact:"R-Jeff Sessions said the immigration bill
"has a specific provision that says that Secretary Napolitano does not have
to build any fence if she chooses not to." His press secretary pointed to an
"opt-out" provision in the bill.But it would take a dramatic
leap of legal interpretation to argue that provision allows Napolitano to skip
fence-building altogether. Legal experts we spoke to said, instead, it gives her
discretion about WHERE to build border fencing."We rate
Sessions’ claim False.
Here's a crazy idea: employ an illegal worker? Lose your business and
freedom. If businesses were ever punished you'd see an incredible drop in
illegal immigration. Why not hire Americans? Why does big business
fear this? Oh yeah, because then they'd have to pay them fair wages. And we
all know how big business despises that. Your CEO will have to settle for a 599
foot yacht instead of the 600.
"Real Mav" is right this time. Its MUCH CHEAPER to arrest/prosecute
(and highly publicize)a few employers who break labor and immigration laws, than
use the excuse that we'll build a fence and maintain border security
.......sometime.....IF we can afford it.However, the fact that Mr.
Obama has NOT done that, tells me he has ABSOLUTELY NO intention of ever doing
it. He has no excuse for not using the tools of enforcement at his disposal.
Neither did George Bush for that matter.Real border security and
immigration control is multi-faceted. It should be everything from border
control measures to ICE agents doing stakeouts of the hardware store parking
lots and arresting ANYONE who breaks the law.The problem is the
government doesn't care, or (seemingly)doesn't want to know who's
To Fitness Freak: President Obama has prosecuted more businesses for violating
immigration laws than any previous president.
Roland Kayser,We've been prosecuting businesses caught hiring illegal
aliens all along (both administrations). When the Obama administration OR the
Bush Administration has conducted raids on companies they have evidence is
hiring illegals (SLC Airport, Meat Packing plant in Logan, etc)... the
radical-left comes to their defense, there's illegal sympathizers crying
and gnashing their teeth on the TV every night at the prospect of the government
harshly enforcing the law, the Democrat lawyers come out of the woodwork, and
many of them end up staying.A recent DMN article stated that most of
the people deported for working at the meat packing plant have since returned
(again illegally). They are nervous about getting deported again, but they are
back taking their chances that if they are here when the law passes they can
stay forever.Don't blame Republicans for not raiding
businesses, they've done it. But they get resistance from the left.
Same has happened when Democrat administrations have done raids. The radical
left just doesn't want immigration law enforced, plain and simple.
"Liberals want the rest of the world's poor to come here not only to
raise their children, clean their houses, manicure their lawns and cook their
meals, but to give birth to the Democratic children that liberals aren't
having [to expand their voting base]." - Ann Coulter
Here is the opt out. (5) LIMITATION ON REQUIREMENTS- Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install
fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such
fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary
determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most
appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern
border at such location.It's the same type of opt out used in
the 1986 amnesty. Obama did silent raids for a while, they audited
business, gave them a small fine compared to their net income, and turned the
people working there (illegally) loose. Swifts meat plant went out
of business, a company from Brazil took it over, hired citizens, and has made
record profits. Perhaps we are letting in the wrong group. We don't need
illegal workers, we need illegal business owners.
TS - Fence source= Sen. Lee's Rep in my city, and Sen Sessions. Past
Amnesties = past actions on amnesty. The Bill lacks penalties for not enforceing
(ho hum) provisions stated and ZERO additional ICE agents. Big question, why
was Border Agents and Border Sherriffs not allowed into meet with those writing
the bill (to give input since they do have some skin in the game)? Why was
LaRaza invited to give their input, as well as certain unions who have an agenda
not favorable to the unemployed citizen? What is the $5,000 fine for hiring
citizens over legalized illegals? Why bring the bill out on a Friday night and
call for a vote on Monday (try to get through to the phone lines of the Senators
on a week end)? Just wondering.
We don't have an illegal immigration problem, we have an illegal employer
problem. Until you stop wrist slapping then go home and get back to me when you
are serious. You regressives won't spend money on teaching our children,
healing our neighbors, or feeding the elderly but you have no problem throwing
money down a rabbit hole they call fencing the southern border. Go figure. wrz of Phoenix, just by quoting the vile you have nullified any credibility
you thought you had.
A fence isn't the only deterrent non-Democrat Americans want. But
it's a visible symbol of our government's commitment to enforcing our
borders, and a message to those who would cross illegally that we intend to
enforce our borders.It won't fix everything (nobody said it
would) but it isn't intended to be the only thing we do. But it's an
important message that we intend to enforce our borders.Anybody who
says non-Democrats think a fence will fix the problem... is full of partisan
coolaid and doesn't care about the truth. We understand a fence won't
"Fix" the problem. But it is a symbol or our government's
commitment to enforcing our borders, and is something we'd like to see
commitment to BEFORE we liberalize the "Path to Citizenship".
Go to U-tube and see a video that features Chuck Shummer giving a "we have
to bring them out of the shadows" speech. Notice that he has a lot more
hair. Care to guess why? It was from 1986 and he just gave the same speech
again this year. So why do we not trust these fellows in Wash DC who keep
repeating the same old same old? They don't have a good track record on
the subject of illegal migration or amnesties (7). Immigration (legal) is doing
just fine, maybe to tweak the numbers a bit. Immigration (legal) is what made
this country great. I despise those (media) that keep lumping illegal migration
and Immigration (legal) together as if it is the same thing. It Is Not!!
Again, this mania for 'border security.' South, not north, obviously,
because of the non-threatening skin color of most of our neighbors to the north.
Eric Samuelsen;"We call things racism just to get attention. We
reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it
works." --- Alfredo Gutierrez, political consultant
The FBI has 13,766 special agents. The Border Patrol will have more than two and
a half times as many agents on the southwestern border alone as the FBI does to
investigate crimes anywhere in the world. (And the Border Patrol is even bigger
than that. It assigned an additional 2,430 agents in 2012 to the northern border
and coastal regions, and its parent agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
has nearly 39,000 additional employees in the U.S. and around the world.) According to the International Water and Boundary Commission -- a
bi-national body that oversees governance issues on the U.S.-Mexico border --
the border between the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico is is 1,954 miles
long. That works out to 10.32 million feet.Doing the math, you could
space out 37,716 agents one every 274 feet (or, using the widely published
40,000 figure, you could put them every 258 feet). (politifact)
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments