| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Senate OKs Mexico Border Fence, Mulls Citizenship |
| 2006-05-17 |
| The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally. Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure. The prospects were less favorable for their attempt to strip out portions of the legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs. The Senate acted in a volatile political environment, as the White House struggled for a second day to ease the concerns of House Republicans who contend that President Bush favors amnesty for illegal immigrants. Thousands of demonstrators massed a few blocks from the Capitol demanding immigrant rights. Construction of the barrier would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. He said border areas where barriers already exist have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime. "What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries." The Senate labored to complete work by next week on immigration legislation that generally follows an outline Bush set out in a nationally televised speech this week. The measure includes provisions to strengthen border security, create a new guest worker program and crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants. Most controversially, it offers an eventual chance at citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. Senate Republicans staged an impromptu, occasionally emotional debate over whether that amounted to amnesty. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said it did. "Surely this is a pardon from what present law says must happen," he said of provisions in the bill that require immigrants to undergo background checks, pay back taxes and take other steps before they can become citizens. Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel replied heatedly it was not amnesty. "Let's stop the nonsense," said Hagel, addressing fellow Republicans. "You all know it's not amnesty." Said McCain, addressing Vitter, "Call it a banana if you want to ... to call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty frankly distorts the debate and it's an unfair interpretation of it." Vitter sought the last word. "Methinks thou dost protest too much." The clash erupted after Vitter sought a change in the legislation to strip out provisions of the bill that would allow for guest worker programs and give some illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship. Supporters of the Senate measure credited Bush's prime-time Monday night speech with giving fresh momentum to the effort to pass long- stalled legislation. Across the Capitol in the House, the story was different. Republicans pushed through a border security bill last year, and several members of the rank-and-file have criticized Bush for his proposals. To calm their concerns, the White House dispatched Karl Rove to their weekly closed-door meeting. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an outspoken opponent of the Senate bill, derided the effort. "I didn't see it was a persuasive event. If it was about Karl Rove seeking to convince members of Congress after debate that he's right and we're wrong it would have been better not to have the meeting," he said. King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life." Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed that Rove did not seem to have been persuasive. "It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on; either you're giving amnesty to people who are here illegally or you aren't." At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow defended Bush against criticism. "The president is actually taking a more aggressive role on border security than the House itself took," he said. "That is the sort of thing that is going to answer a lot of the complaints that we have heard." The National Capital Immigration Coalition organized the afternoon demonstration on the National Mall a few blocks from where lawmakers debated the issue they cared about. "This is a critical moment. We oppose the militarization of the U.S- Mexican border," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, one of the event's organizers. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #25 Specter is a disgrace. They should have backed Toomey. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 23:59 |
| #24 I still can't belive Arlen got the party support with his lies, RINO attitude, and love for Scottish law |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-17 22:24 |
| #23 Actually the wall can work quite well - the East Germans and Czechs had one that worked quite well for several edcades - with a much tougher task: keeping people in rather than preventing intrusion is a far more difficult task. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 22:19 |
| #22 Don't feel bad, Frank: I've got Sen. Sphincter... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-05-17 22:02 |
| #21 Frank, that does suck about your state senators, although Michigan ain't much better. At least you got a good representative out there. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-17 21:48 |
| #20 Unfortunately, BH - I live in Duncan Hunter's district (couldn't ask for more and contributed my limit) and have two dickhead senators Feinstein and "Box-of Rocks" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-17 21:34 |
| #19 Iff one believes that America is at war becuz someone or some group(s), andor some nation(s), attacked America on 9-11, then America's leaders should act appropriately, i.e. as if we are indeed at war, and do everything in their power to protect America and Amer interests for the durtaion, UNTIL VICTORY IS WON. Pragmatically, its always better to have too much than too little, aka "bigger is better", even when fighting terrorists, anarchists, and radical Governmentists-Socialists wilfully disguising and hiding themselves amongst the mainstream civilian population. America can "trim the fat" after the WOT is won. I agree in principle wid Dubya's "earned citizenship", etal. scheme - as for deporting all the illegals, unless THE CONGRESS [includ State-Local Govts.] votes to make the proposed reform schemes RETROACTIVE, any and all reforms or changes will only affect those illegals after the passage of reform legislations. We all know the ACLU and other Lefty legal orgs will do their PC, lawsuit-happy best to challenge or "clarify" anything Dubya-GOP Congress does. These illegals as a class were "invading" America during the Saint Clinton years and no DemoLefties ever complained about it back then, even after OKC + KHOBAR + WTC 1 + USS COLE - ditto for the NSA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-17 21:26 |
| #18 Great points by all. Of course we can deport 12 million people, just not at one exact time. It would have to be done very incrementally to say the least but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. However, realpolitik will kill it off because our politicians are for the most part wimps. I agree w/Jules, I've voted independent plenty of times and still sleep darn good. If I may suggest to my fellow RB'rs, if you have not already done so, check up on your respective state senators and reps to see how they voted on this. Then take 5 minutes to send their office an email either supporting or criticizing their vote. It may not seem like much but that's how we eventually get heard. I'm telling my elected officials that I'm going to ensure they are out of a job next term if they didn't do the right thing to protect our sovereignty. (of course that's a big bluster but what the f*ck - makes me feel better to say it). |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-17 21:20 |
| #17 Until there is agreement between bills passed in both the House and Senate, nothing can happen anyway. I'm afraid I haven't been following closely -- are we anywhere near that point? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-05-17 21:18 |
| #16 Unfortunately, its already well-settled US caselaw that the children of illegals, and the children of these children, etal, are de facto US citizens by virtue of being born here. The Border Patrol and other Fed agencies do not have the manpower or the budget to investigate the birth history of each and every descendant let alone their older/elderly illegal ancestors. Dubya in his speech is doing what any POTUS can do, but the ball is now in the hands of the GOP-led US Congress - as illustrated by France's experience wid the MAGINOT LINE during WW2, NOT EVEN THE BEST LAID, MOST POWERFUL OR IDEAL PLANS WILL WORK IFF NOT PROPERLY MANAGED OR SUPPORTED. The Maginot Line fulfilled its intent despite defects - it was French planners, 'crats, and politicians whom forgot about the Ardennes Forest and WW1. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-17 21:07 |
| #15 SPoD-My sentiments are somewhat like yours, but I don't feel forced to vote for a Republican CONGRESS. For the commander in chief, if the party doesn't pick a rabid moralist/religionist, if they could back someone like Giuliani, then yes, I would vote Republican. We need someone with intellectual and moral clarity in this WoT. But feel compelled to vote for Republican Congressfolks? Not necessarily. People need to keep pressure on Republicans in Congress to think their positions over VERY carefully. I don't know what will happen in the next Congressional election, but a continued Republican majority is not a given. Nor is my pro-Republican vote. I've voted Independent before and didn't regret it one bit. We don't have to be part of a flock that wastes our votes on folks who take our support for granted and turn a deaf ear to our concerns. Is it going to be a dysfunctional two-party system for time eternal, or are enough folks gonna trailblaze and try to shape our political system to reflect the broader American will? |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-05-17 20:44 |
| #14 Just how does this bill take the jobs illegals hold and one them up to people like me? Giant gaping hole in this whole discussion in the Senate. But us old white guys don't count anywhere so no wonder, eh? Yea we can't piss of the country club Republican and deprive them of their slave labor and force them to pay real wages for real work done but US citizens. Tell me when they really do something. Bush and Rove can bite me. I am forced to vote Republican because it's whats best for the Nation and our war effort. It's certainly not best for me and my family. The Republican party is out of touch but has a great PR machine going. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-05-17 18:54 |
| #13 They all complain we can't deport 11-12 million people but no one ever acknowledges the 6 million the President said they have returned to their native countries. I've heard that figure a couple of times but obviously, if so, 12 million illegals is a serious underestimate because they are still around everywhere. The Guard is also good at constructing landing strips and detention facilities quickly, and could also take DNA and other biometric information down. There are lots of units that could aid in the battle without actually apprehending migrants. They need to get a handle on who is here and take note of the Israelis' solution with suicide bombers. They should deport entire families of those gang members with serious criminal records first so they can identify the real contributors to society. Get a database going. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-05-17 18:37 |
| #12 The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Bottom line city. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-05-17 18:34 |
| #11 Viter did a good job for no automatic citizenship - but not really for the no guest worker program 0- with the proviso that it have a sunset provision built into it. Without a sunset provision, the GW program becomes a permanent spigot allowing millions in for no good reason at all. For every person that moves off the GW program into green card & citizenship programs (getting in line behind those already there), the allotement of GW cards shoudl be dropped, 1 for 1. And the remaining people who have no desire to be citizens should be put on a clock, with deportation to follow if they have worked the alotted time, no more than a decade, and have nto made a move toward being a citizen or at least a green-card holder. That sort of deportation is possible, as it woudl be spread over time, limited in scope, and doiable with the resources ICE will have in hand within a few years of good budgeting. And the fence and better border enforcement, as well as the end of catch-and-release (more detention beds), will make deportation much more effective within a few years from now. Right now? Not really worthy it. Get the GW program going so we can register the people here so we at least have a way of tracking who we have inside our borders, where they came from, and what they are doing. The unhearlded positive to the GW program is that it also allows the automatic assumption that someone NOT in the GW program is up to no good and can be summarily arrested, held and deported. Sorts the wheat from the chaff so to speak. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 17:43 |
| #10 I jsut thought of a better summation: The Guest Workers remain free agents, in the capitalist sense, abel to sell their labor to whomever they wish at a price they can get, within the laws of the nation. The H1B gave the corporation control over the worker - who was bound to that job and that company with the threat of deporation if the employer decided to terminate them for any reason. They were essetnially indendured servants - they had no rights to the fair price of their labor nor to feely contract or associate. As a side note, I've seen H1B's abused because of that - workign 60 hour weeks for 40 hour salaries, becaue they wre told if they compoained, they'd be terminated and deported and the company would get another person just like them to fill the billet. Also, I saw job openings posted with rediculously low salareis (40K for a software engineer in telecom with 5 years experience required), that they accepted applicants from the US but never processed the few they got, because they wanted to fill the slot with an H1B. So the H1B law hurs everyone involved excpet the businesses who pressured congress to pass this abomination of a law. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 17:34 |
| #9 Senator Vitter made a very eloquent, well reasoned, and persuasive argument to eliminate the legalization component from the current Senate Immigration reform bill. Just the sort of thing you would expect to prompt McCain to indignantly shout the usual “It’s not amnesty” followed by the straw-man argument “We can’t deport 11 million people”. Hagel chimed in with the standard “It’s not a perfect bill…none are.” line indicating the ram-rod of expediency is destined to trump political will. I urge anybody concerned with this issue to either watch or read the transcript of Vitter’s proposal. If after you hear his “Devil in the Details” and you’re still not concerned about this legislation then I suggest you focus your attention on the missing girl in Aruba story. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-05-17 17:33 |
| #8 1) I dont support the Guest Worker program, I tolerate it. Its too late to do anything else - you simply cannot mass deport 12 million people. Anyone that thinks you can has obviusly not done the logistics and is smoking crack if they think its even remotely politically possible. 2) The GW program has a time limit on it, H1B does not. Also (and this is the key part) H1B gives the employer the power to fire the person and then have the worker deported. GW allows them time to find another job as long as they dont become a draw on social service spending. The GW program is designed to get a census of, register and ultimately control illegals who are already inside our borders due to our neglicence over decades of porous border security. H1B, on the other hand, was supposed to ease allowing skilled technical professionals into the country. It did so in an unjust and unfair way. One thing that I think is being overlooked is that the GW program should have sunset provisions worked into as well, so that its not a permanent conduit sitting wide open like it is now - it should allow the registration of however many we have right now, then peel those numbers down every year until there are NONE left in the program within a decade - either they enter the green card system on their way to citizenship the same as anyone else, or else they leave the country and are not allowed back in, or else their work pass expires and they are deported a few at a time over a decade. The primary solution for illegals is to dry up the jobs for illegals by cracking down hard on employers, while shutting down the border, and channelizing all the illegals into programs where we can track them (so we know who is where , where they are, and what they are doing). But ultimately the best solution (after locking down the border) is to pressure Mexico into reforming its government and economy to where they have no need to come here in order to earn a living - the Mexican political and economic systems are so borke, which is why we basically have a refugee problem, looking at the numbers. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 17:28 |
| #7 IIUC, H1B's are targeted - specific jobs with a specific "sponsor" company. I believe a green card allows the holder to seek amployment with any employer. |
| Posted by: eniac 2006-05-17 17:22 |
| #6 How is H1B different from the Guest Worker program you support? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-17 16:44 |
| #5 SPDO - good point abotu H1B - they need to chop that at the knees. If we need these skilled peopel, then lets open up the Green Card to them and get them in here on the citizen path. All H1B is, is an "iundentured servant" plan that allows the techology industry to artificially depress salaries for computer programmers and other technical professions. It does this by flooding the market with people on whom they can force grossly lower salaries and threaten with deportation if they speak out about the salary, or if they do not accept the alary (usually half what a non-H1B worker gets). I've met some H1B's in the civilian sector, and to a man, every one of them was technically competent, willing to work, and decent people. Most (if not all) ultimately hoped to get a green card and then US Citizenship. Why do we allow them to be screwed over to enrich a few already fat-cat millionaires who are abusing the immigration lawmaking process to make themselves money at the expense of the H1B and US Workers? H1B should be abolished, and the green card should be expanded for people with technical skills. Give those whoare willing to play by the rules a fair chance - and don't let them be abused in terms of pay - and in turn don't let them be used to depress pay for US Technical Workers. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 16:34 |
| #4 About time - this is an important first step. Next they can keep the "guest worker" rpgoram, but they MUST strip out the "automatic citizenship" provisions, and substitute a "you can get your card in your country of origin" policy - meaning these people have to GO HOME FIRST and then come back ONLY WIATH A CARD. As for the morons pontificating on this - this fence was overdue from the 1980's. The immigration amnesty with a failure to buidl a fence, and Beruit, were Reagan's only major mistakes IMHO. If youw ant to blame someone for the fence - bleame the corrup statist Government of MExico for failing to open thier economy to free-market capitalizim and restricting foregin investment and corporations - whus a failure to improve citizen's living conditions and hamstrining job creation. If Mexico had a cronyism-free government and a less statist heavy had, they'd have a lot mroe job and a lot less of them would "need" to come N to get work. The blame for the wall lies with MEXICO. And if they dont like us militarizing our side, then they shoudl get control of thier side. Plus what about all their ARMED TROOP INCURSIONS of the past few years by Mexican military forces into US Territory? Local Sherrifs have had trouble, but our Guard troops, desert combat veterans that they are, will drop these assholes DEAD if they set foot inside US territory. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 16:26 |
| #3 Re #1: I see the same thing in Tucson. Thousands could easily be picked up, but.... |
| Posted by: borgboy 2006-05-17 16:20 |
| #2 "What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries." That should've happened about 20 fuckin years ago, asshole. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-05-17 16:02 |
| #1 A lot of noise which in the end will ammount to nought. The Dems and country club Republican's that benefit from not paying living wage jobs to US citizens by hiring illegals and importing H1B visa holders will block any action. Guys like me will continue to get screwed and displaced in the jobs market. Every Friday and Saturday if I need gas I see the line of illegls cashing their checks at the Korean owned mini mart that serves as a bank for them. No attempts at real enforcement of existing imigration law is made. Any new law will get the same treatment. These folks are sitting ducks and the Border Partol knows where they are at it is choosing to do nothing. This ought to be the motto of the Border Partol: The U.S. Border Patrol stealing jobs from US citizens while enjoying the comfort of a Union protected government job. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-05-17 15:58 |