Quietly, the Senate GOP Guts Fence
Written by YellowJacket on January 3rd, 2008Daily Pundit points out the ‘treachery’ of the GOP in the Senate in this recent unsurprising move.
In a quiet act of defiance, the Senate approved a $555 billion omnibus spending bill that removed legal requirements mandating the federal government fund 854 miles of a double layer border fence spanning America’s southwestern border.
The funding requirement was codified into law when Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Secure Fence Act (SFA) in 2006.
When the spending bill, which combines appropriations for a number of federal agencies, reached the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) attached S.Amdt. 2466 to the measure in order to silently gut the SFA’s spending requirement.
GOP Establishment to constituents, and voters in general: screw you, we’re not building your fence or enforcing the immigration laws like we pledged we’d do. We’re still going to attempt a run-around to bypass the American people and pass a “comprehensive” immigration bill, full of amnesty and other goodies for people who aren’t in the country legally. We indeed deserve the label “The Stupid Party,” because we repeatedly bash our heads into the wall, whining like children when our constituents and the American people demand results against illegal immigration.
I hope everyone possible sees this today and over the primary season. This is a pretty good slap-in-the-face reminder of who to avoid nominating (Giuliani is all about sanctuary cities, Huckabee wanted to give scholarships to illegals and didn’t participate in rooting out illegals in his state, Romney favored the McCain-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty before opposing it once voters started paying attention, and McCain is, of course, McCain).
In all likelihood, GOP primary voters/caucus goers will ignore this and pick someone who will continue the legacy of “compassionate conservativism.” Because hey, a nation with expanding government but apparently no immigration law is great!
Fred Thompson all the way. Ignore the media who has been against his campaign from the start, ignore the pundits who are apparently all offended that Thompson chose to jump in the race in September (John Kerry jumped in during October, but I digress), and ignore anybody who buys into the “he’s lazy!” bullcrap. For once we have a candidate who is truly interested in holding the office not for the prestige and power, but because he has the right ideas about leading the country and has the desire to serve his country in this capacity. He’s chosen to campaign in his own way, dissing moderators with ridiculous requests, then yesterday giving an answer on global warming that is refreshingly un-AlGoreistic (but Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani have all bought into the Inconvenient Scam), and putting out real proposals that make conservatives swoon, all the while rejecting soundbite-driven campaigning.
3
AM
Amen.
3
PM
you can praise fred all you want, but the fact is he has not run a good campaign.
3
PM
Someone explain to me why you cannot raise money and build a fence through private channels.
3
PM
I think it is pretty clear why nobody wants to deal with this issue:
1) From a demographic perspective, angering the Hispanic community could put any group into political peril as they become a larger voting bloc overall and in a number of swing states.
2) Neither party has a consensus on the issue with some in each party supporting a looser immigration policy while others support a tighter policy.
3
PM
Joseph T McCarthy, because it’s the duty of the Federal Government to defend this nation’s borders, you twit. Quit ignoring the Constitution and falsely justifying your RINO ways.
3
PM
Did anyone actually believe they were going to follow through with building the fence? I never did.
3
PM
Uhmm, Langley….
It seems like it is the Republican Party that is “ignoring the constitution and not defending the border”
I do not think Rinos, or conservatives for that matter, is behind this. Something more troubling is afoot.
Hmmm, seems like Republicans may have the same problem as the Dems–deceitful Leadership!!
3
PM
Chaoticform, of course Republicans have deceitful leadership. We have been saying that on here for a long, long time. Why do you think blog exists?
3
PM
This one in particular, to reform the Republican party.
Your problem is actually harder than the Democrats. Who are the “outsiders” that can put voting pressure on the party so it will change.
Having people on the inside is good to take positions in the party to change direction. But you guys tend to have everything on the inside, putting alot in the hands of the leadership of the party itself.
The only group on the outside that I see are the Libertarians, but you guys tend to spurn them.
3
PM
Langley obviously you cannot win in a debate by using personal attacks against whom you disagree. My clear point is that the border fence may lack the grassroots support of the American people if it cannot raise funding through private channels.
And no, at no point in the Constitution is it written “the Congress shall appropriate and spend $100 million on a fence to stop those Mexicans.”
4
AM
Maybe the wall should be built through private channels…and it should have sponsers too: “Ford Motors, protecting your borders.” -or- “Coca-Cola, the offical thirst quensher of the US Border Patrol and Mexican Federales” -or- “Gillette, the best wall a man can get; with 5 layers of razor wire and 2 aloe strips” -or- “McDonald’s, get the f*ck out of my country”. Seriously? Langley is right; its the gov’t job to protect this country - not American companies or private investors. I think building a wall is a retarded idea to begin with, but if thats the best course of action, then let the gov’t do it. Better yet, give the money to Mexico to build it. 1) It’ll be cheaper and it’ll be built faster and 2) If you make the Mexicans build it from their side of the border, then they are walling themselves off from the our country (poetic justice).
4
AM
“And no, at no point in the Constitution is it written “the Congress shall appropriate and spend $100 million on a fence to stop those Mexicans.””
No, but they are charged with defending the nation and it falls into that category.
4
AM
Sam also the Constitution does give Congress the power to establish a process for immigration and its management.
4
AM
Sometimes I wonder if ronulans have actually ever read the constitution…
5
AM
A fence is expensive and may not work.
You have to maintain it, patrol it, have entry/departure point just for starters.
Also, any area that is not patrolled regularly are prime target for immigrants to cross. Patrols can be timed. Holes can be made under or through it. It could be torn down in certain areas.
A fence is more like candy for kids. It will quiet the anti-immigration crowd for a while, but it will not solve the problem in the long run.
Try to come up with a “no-fence” solution.
5
AM
The problem here isn’t about a fence. It’s about Congress, with Bush’s quiet consent, reneging on their word to the American people to secure the border after their attempt to circumvent established immigration law earlier this year with amnesty followed by “enforcement.” Maybe a fence isn’t the best idea, maybe it is, that isn’t the point. The point is that the government pledged to do something to at least look like they cared about securing the border and now, of course, they aren’t going to do anything after all. That’s the broader point that Joseph T McCarthy and others miss.
5
AM
And no, Sam, this didn’t surprise me. Whether that law stayed in force or not the Bush Administration wasn’t going to execute it, though they are/were legally bound to.
5
AM
The ‘broader’ point?
The point that you are actually pusheing is one that any government can do. Promise something and then ignore it.
Your arguement that we are not defending our border is kind of mixed with the idea that the immigrants that cross it illegally are a threat to this nation. Yet the government, and several other interested parties, sees them as a boon and a necessity!
So a conflict of interset has arisen. Should government cow-tow to populist belief, or thrive for what it considers “BEST”?
You know the answer.
5
PM
Your rhetoric about “populist belief” and government kowtowing is completely ignoring the point, and willingly so I believe, that it is the government’s JOB and DUTY to defend the borders of this nation (not to mention that the citizens demand it - and the government should be of, for, and by the citizenry). That’s all there is to it. The government is supposed to serve the people’s interests, that is why it was created in the first place!
5
PM
You can believe that, but what is best for the general welfare of this nation is decided by our government, not the people that have indirect power to influence the governments decisions.
We are a constituional Republic. And the interpretation of that Constitution is dictated by individuals in the same government. You can send your complaints to them, but those Justices are not oblige to hear your case.
Our government must serve more than just the citizenry and their beliefs. The well-being of this nation as a whole is to be considered. Regardless of what restrictions or laws we may place on it, our government will either try to find away around it or ignore it right out in order to do what it believes is best.
If the government feels that we need immigrants and good relations with Mexico versus expensive measures that will hinder that, then our government will go for the former.
A solution will recognize and regulate the flow of immigration, satisfy both business and economic interest in both nations, and keep relations strong. A fence, and constituional arguements over “defending our borders” with an Allied nation, is detrimental to such goals. In fact, such arguements are illogical and a waste of time.
5
PM
Really? We’re a constitutional Republic? Why, thanks for informing me, I had no idea!
You can’t have it both ways - reference the Constitution, then claim the government has the right to blatantly ignore the principles spelled out in that Constitution. Believe me, I’m all about following the Constitution! Your love of government having its own mind separate (and more legitimate, as you seem to believe) from that of the electorate is NOT a principle in the Constitution - rather, it’s quite opposite from the very intent of the Constitution that you claim to respect.
5
PM
Also, you don’t seem to grasp the idea that protecting the nation’s borders is clearly spelled out as a responsibility of the Federal Government in the Constitution - the Government does not have the Constitutional right to simply decide that it knows best and can ignore Constitutional duties.
5
PM
Protecting the borders from who?
Invading immigrants? Same immigrants that may be a solution for cheaper labor that help many American businesses compete–both nationally and internationally?
Immigrants, similiar to the ones that founded this nation and helped establish the principles you are now trying to badger me with?
They are not as much of a threat in general. Most of the time, specifics are cited to argue against them and for excessive border controls.
And the constitutional statement, our government try to adhere to it, but if it becomes necessity versus principle, necessity wins.
Our government does have a mind seperate from the people. The Framers intended it to be that way while not unduly oppressing us.
5
PM
You don’t seem to understand the word “illegal” in the phrase “illegal immigrants.”
5
PM
I understand it.
Interlopers that cross our borders without permission.
Not exactly the same as “Invading Army”.
5
PM
I realize something.
I am going about this the wrong way. You are to much of a “purist”–i.e., hold to much to principle, for me to argue this way.
So I have to change the direction of my arguement..
This is a bit clumsy, so bear with me…
Maybe there is another way for Congress to approach the immigration issue. We already have recons and so forth for basic defense, but to spend excessive amounts of money on a wall and added infrastructure just to stop every single Mexican citizen is not feasible.
Instead, maybe we should focus on deterring the reasons for them to come over. And find ways to ID those that do come over.
Personally, I do not endorse making them citizens, but I do intend to look for ways that our government can make money out of this problem while keeping good Realtions with the Government of Mexico..
Unfortunately, all the ideas I have involve Unions, regulations and semi-open boarders with the added effect of increasing the cost of living for Americans.
22
PM
Soverignty, we haven’t got it if we don’t have Secure borders. The millions of invaders we have are not immigrants, immigrants are people that we let in the front door, we incidently have 2 million of them,( more that the rest of the world combined) This invasion is going according to plan.” The One Worlders,”- Security Prosperty Partnership (Nafta derivative) etc., etc., they all dove tail to eventually establish One World trade, government, justice system ,(World Court) the head of all this connection is slated to be the U.N. First of course you have to eliminate little pesty things like a country’s soverignty, its national trading freedom, the ability of a country to feed itself, or to arm itself, or to finance itself.(World Bank) You can see evidence all around of this happening. We have to wake up before the brave “new world order” and its VERY POWERFUL proponents suceed. They’ve come quite a distance so far.