Bush’s ‘Fence Bill’ Doesn’t Actually Create Fence (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Guess, what folks? We have been lied to yet again.

Today, President Bush held a ceremony celebrating the Secure Fence Act, which authorizes the fence on the Mexican border. However, there is something he isnt telling us. Yes, the the new law authorizes the fence, but guess what? It does not authorize funding for the fence. That was taken care of in a second bill, passed without any fanfare. In this bill, weasel words replaced the wording for the fence in the first bill. Funding would go to roads, tactical infrastructure, and the like. Although the physical barrier is mentioned, Bush approved homeland security to spend the money any way it wants, and you are not going to see a fence. Cant have the Mexican government mad at us, can we? Without a barrier, you at least need more border patrol agents, yet the bill does not provide for those either.

The American people demanded a barrier, and they are getting this instead. Good luck on stopping illegal immigration. But dont despair, folks. The Clinton NAFTA program is supposed to take care of all that, right? In the end, politicians, both Democrat and Republican, keep lying to us. The only way the American people are going to get what they demand is by overthrowing the present government, which serves its own corrupt self instead of the people. I hope this happens at the ballot box.

Article is here.

 

[Kandahar]

Good for Bush. I thought he was going to disappoint me once again by caving to the demands of xenophobes like the Minutemen, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and yourself. But if what you say is true, then I give him credit for weaseling out of a difficult situation to do what is right.

Finally he did something right. I guess it was only a matter of time.

 

[jujuman13]

I am not in favour of a 'fence' / 'Border barrier' and to be quite honest neither are the GOP, in fact this exercise was only to placate those GOP voters that thought the US was going soft on Illegal Immigration, so that having ostensibly signed this law into effect they are supposed to actually believe that the GOP is listening to their views.
In other words it is just some more political posturing for the Mid Terms.

And, to be perfectly honest, the poor saps actually think they are getting what they demand.
:rofl ,:rofl ,:rofl ,:rofl

 

[RightinNYC]

This is a drastic misreading of the situation.

Yes, the bill authorizing the fence and the bill providing the funding were two separate bills. That's how appropriations works. The money is provided by a separate bill, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, as that is the department which this is operating under the auspices of. Not a big conspiracy to keep anything secret here.

The money is authorized for "fences, surveillance cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles and watch towers" among other things. So while you're technically right that the agencies doing the construction COULD spend it all on other security measures rather than the fence, there is literally 0% chance of that happening, and your article provides no support for that assertion either. 1.2 billion has already been authorized, and contracts have already begun being awarded to start building chunks of the fence.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

This is a drastic misreading of the situation.

Yes, the bill authorizing the fence and the bill providing the funding were two separate bills. That's how appropriations works. The money is provided by a separate bill, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, as that is the department which this is operating under the auspices of. Not a big conspiracy to keep anything secret here.

The money is authorized for "fences, surveillance cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles and watch towers" among other things. So while you're technically right that the agencies doing the construction COULD spend it all on other security measures rather than the fence, there is literally 0% chance of that happening, and your article provides no support for that assertion either. 1.2 billion has already been authorized, and contracts have already begun being awarded to start building chunks of the fence.

Why spoil danareas fun? :2razz:

 

[danarhea]

This is a drastic misreading of the situation.

Yes, the bill authorizing the fence and the bill providing the funding were two separate bills. That's how appropriations works. The money is provided by a separate bill, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, as that is the department which this is operating under the auspices of. Not a big conspiracy to keep anything secret here.

The money is authorized for "fences, surveillance cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles and watch towers" among other things. So while you're technically right that the agencies doing the construction COULD spend it all on other security measures rather than the fence, there is literally 0% chance of that happening, and your article provides no support for that assertion either. 1.2 billion has already been authorized, and contracts have already begun being awarded to start building chunks of the fence.

That is simply not true.

The GOP is making a big deal over the 1.2 billion funding, thus implying that the 700 mile fence is going to be built, but aside from small stretches near San Diego, and in Arizona, loopholes ensure that the fence itself will never be completed. Homeland Security has already watered it down by proposing that about half of the fence be completed.

"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The fine-print distinction between what Congress says it will do and what it actually pays for is a time-honored result of the checks and balances between lawmakers who oversee agencies and those who hold their purse strings.


In this case, it also reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government -- oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.

From this article.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

NAFTA ------> SPP ------> NAEC? ------> NAU?
Yes, republicans your president has lied to you again.

You want a border fence?

Why do you hate progress so much? :lol:

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I wanted the damm fence.. Or friggin moat. We need something to hault this invasion... How about a fence and stiff fines and long jail terms for any and all employers that hire illegal immigrants.

 

[Captain America]

I wanted the damm fence.. Or friggin moat. We need something to hault this invasion... How about a fence and stiff fines and long jail terms for any and all employers that hire illegal immigrants.

Moat won't work...... the Rio Grande is a moat....don't slow 'em down.

I was thinking a lethal electric fence but as soon as a citizen gets fried and the government gets sued, that won't work either.

Landmines? :rofl

 

[Captain America]

Good for Bush. I thought he was going to disappoint me once again by caving to the demands of xenophobes like the Minutemen, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and yourself. But if what you say is true, then I give him credit for weaseling out of a difficult situation to do what is right.

Finally he did something right. I guess it was only a matter of time.

Some how your post doesn't seem to add up to your "Don't Tread on Me" avatar.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Some how your post doesn't seem to add up to your "Don't Tread on Me" avatar.

LMAo.. I din't even notice.... Maybe that should be changed to "Walk all over me and invade as desired"

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Moat won't work...... the Rio Grande is a moat....don't slow 'em down.

I was thinking a lethal electric fence but as soon as a citizen gets fried and the government gets sued, that won't work either.

Landmines? :rofl

How about a moat with crocs in it? I really don't care as long as it reduces the invading forces. We can't cover the whole border, but if we take enough out of play maybe it wil make it easier to patrol what is left

 

[Gibberish]

How about a moat with crocs in it? I really don't care as long as it reduces the invading forces. We can't cover the whole border, but if we take enough out of play maybe it wil make it easier to patrol what is left

I just happened to watch Judge Dredd the other day on TNT. We can build a wall that is like the one surrounding the city in the movie, about 75 feet tall, 10 feet thick and shoots spurts of fire out of blow holes.

 

[Kandahar]

Some how your post doesn't seem to add up to your "Don't Tread on Me" avatar.

It doesn't "tread on me" if law-abiding people want to come work in this country. In fact, it helps the economy.

It DOES "tread on me" if the government denies people freedom of movement for no reason other than that it wants to keep wages/prices artificially high.

The whole concept of "Don't tread on me" is opposition to oppressive government. And in this case, it's the xenophobes and vigilantes who favor oppressive government, not me.

 

[easyt65]

Just curious.....

WHY does everyone call this thing 'BUSH'S Fence Bill'?

Did Bush write this piece of cr@p? NO!
Even my Conservative Commrade Stringer inadverdantly blames Bush for this piece of cr@p!

Its Congress and the senate - both parties - who are to blame for this thing!

I contacted Lindsey Graham, rep from SC, several months ago about the illegal invasion going on. He wrote me back and said, in a nutshell, that I - as an American Citizen - was too stupid to understand the problem and that it was very complex. I wrote him back and ripped him a new one! I told him that was BS, that it was as simple as closing the border, enforcing current laws that forbid the hiring of illegals, and stop giving any benefits/support to illegals. About that time, this issue flared up across the country. he wrote back to me several weeks later saying we were on the same page, that he now agreed there shoukld be a fence (where before he totally disagreed), and that he believed no new laws were needed (where before he said the opposite)! :roll: What a pr!ck!

All these guys are the same, and they are to blame for this lame-@$$ed legislation and the fact that nothing is being done. this specific bill - congress' fault. I will be the 1st one to say that Bush is a total dork on this issue, too, that his amnesty idea $ucks, and that he and the rest of the politicians are selling out this country!

This ain't JUST Bush's booger, though!

 

[Calm2Chaos]

It doesn't "tread on me" if law-abiding people want to come work in this country. In fact, it helps the economy.

It DOES "tread on me" if the government denies people freedom of movement for no reason other than that it wants to keep wages/prices artificially high.

The whole concept of "Don't tread on me" is opposition to oppressive government. And in this case, it's the xenophobes and vigilantes who favor oppressive government, not me.

But there not law abiding citizens that you are talking about. They are 1 and all without a doubt, 100% criminals. And the way I know this is if they enter the country illegally then that would make them a criminal. So no... they aren't law abiding, if they were they would have used the proper chanels. Freedom of movement for citizens of this country is pretty easy. But we can't allow complete and open passage through this country without some safegaurds. If you don't understand why then that truly is a problem. It's amazing that you balk at simple measures to ensure your own countries safety and sovergnty. Yet the country these criminals come from do for more with there illegal immigrants. Tell ya what. Have mexico start paying it's tax money to the US along with import and export profits. We will then phase mexico into the US and make it one large country under US governmental law. If your going to send you population over here, we might as well take over the whole thing.

 

[ARealConservative]

It doesn't "tread on me" if law-abiding people want to come work in this country. In fact, it helps the economy.

It DOES "tread on me" if the government denies people freedom of movement for no reason other than that it wants to keep wages/prices artificially high.

The whole concept of "Don't tread on me" is opposition to oppressive government. And in this case, it's the xenophobes and vigilantes who favor oppressive government, not me.

Our current system of government "treads on me" to meet the demands of unskilled workers.

Furthermore, we have laws that allow "law abiding" people to come work in this country. the wall is to prevent those that are not obeying the law. Kind of a key point you ommitted. I assume on purpose.

 

[RightinNYC]

That is simply not true.

The GOP is making a big deal over the 1.2 billion funding, thus implying that the 700 mile fence is going to be built, but aside from small stretches near San Diego, and in Arizona, loopholes ensure that the fence itself will never be completed. Homeland Security has already watered it down by proposing that about half of the fence be completed.

From this article.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the fence will not happen either as planned, or with some other form of high tech/vehicle monitoring. The Post and you can speculate all you want, but until the breakdown comes out in December, it means nothing.

 

[Kandahar]

Our current system of government "treads on me" to meet the demands of unskilled workers.

You're right, it does. For example, their demand that the government prohibit any free-market competition with foreign citizens.

Furthermore, we have laws that allow "law abiding" people to come work in this country. the wall is to prevent those that are not obeying the law. Kind of a key point you ommitted. I assume on purpose.

If we're going to pass a law reducing the number of illegal immigrants, it should be coupled with an equal or greater INCREASE in the number of immigrants we allow to come here legally, as well as the abolition of the minimum wage (which offers employers the incentive to break the law).

 

[danarhea]

Just curious.....

WHY does everyone call this thing 'BUSH'S Fence Bill'?

Did Bush write this piece of cr@p? NO!
Even my Conservative Commrade Stringer inadverdantly blames Bush for this piece of cr@p!

Its Congress and the senate - both parties - who are to blame for this thing!

I contacted Lindsey Graham, rep from SC, several months ago about the illegal invasion going on. He wrote me back and said, in a nutshell, that I - as an American Citizen - was too stupid to understand the problem and that it was very complex. I wrote him back and ripped him a new one! I told him that was BS, that it was as simple as closing the border, enforcing current laws that forbid the hiring of illegals, and stop giving any benefits/support to illegals. About that time, this issue flared up across the country. he wrote back to me several weeks later saying we were on the same page, that he now agreed there shoukld be a fence (where before he totally disagreed), and that he believed no new laws were needed (where before he said the opposite)! :roll: What a pr!ck!

All these guys are the same, and they are to blame for this lame-@$$ed legislation and the fact that nothing is being done. this specific bill - congress' fault. I will be the 1st one to say that Bush is a total dork on this issue, too, that his amnesty idea $ucks, and that he and the rest of the politicians are selling out this country!

This ain't JUST Bush's booger, though!

True, although Bush did sign the bill, and had a photo-op over it, you are right. It takes 2 to tango, and this WAS passed by Congress before Bush signed it.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

This is a drastic misreading of the situation.

Yes and no. The problem isn't the Secure Fence Act but the bill which appropriated the funding. That bill only provides $1.2 billion which is $10.8 billion less than the estimated cost of acctually building the wall. That bill would have to be renewed every year and the wall constructed at a rate of only 58.3 miles per year for 10 years for it to be completed. What are the odds that the Republiicans OR Democrats will renew that bill every year for 10 years? If the Republicans considered the construction of the wall so important then they would have provided the $12 billion estimated cost upfront instead of making it a 10 year project.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes and no. The problem isn't the Secure Fence Act but the bill which appropriated the funding. That bill only provides $1.2 billion which is $10.8 billion less than the estimated cost of acctually building the wall. That bill would have to be renewed every year and the wall constructed at a rate of only 58.3 miles per year for 10 years for it to be completed. What are the odds that the Republiicans OR Democrats will renew that bill every year for 10 years? If the Republicans considered the construction of the wall so important then they would have provided the $12 billion estimated cost upfront instead of making it a 10 year project.

This isn't the case. The $1.2 billion is a down payment, provided in one chunk because the Homeland Security Appropriations bill had already passed. For next years budget, there should be a line authorization for whatever needs they have.

And something in your calculations is a bit off. If 1.2 billion were only sufficient to build 58.3 miles, that would assume that each mile cost almost $21 million dollars. The highest estimate I've seen is 3-10 million per mile.

 

[danarhea]

Yes and no. The problem isn't the Secure Fence Act but the bill which appropriated the funding. That bill only provides $1.2 billion which is $10.8 billion less than the estimated cost of acctually building the wall. That bill would have to be renewed every year and the wall constructed at a rate of only 58.3 miles per year for 10 years for it to be completed. What are the odds that the Republiicans OR Democrats will renew that bill every year for 10 years? If the Republicans considered the construction of the wall so important then they would have provided the $12 billion estimated cost upfront instead of making it a 10 year project.

Bingo, and that is what unfunded mandates are all about. Make a promise to the people via a law, then just dont fund the new law. Homeland Security has already come out and requested that only half the wall be built. How soon before they pare it down some more, eventually ending up with practically nothing?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

This isn't the case. The $1.2 billion is a down payment, provided in one chunk because the Homeland Security Appropriations bill had already passed. For next years budget, there should be a line authorization for whatever needs they have.

It was included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill and the $1.2 billion will be included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill every year for the next 10 years.

And something in your calculations is a bit off. If 1.2 billion were only sufficient to build 58.3 miles, that would assume that each mile cost almost $21 million dollars. The highest estimate I've seen is 3-10 million per mile.

The wall will be 700 miles long.
The estimate to build the entire wall is $12 billion.
700 miles/$12 billion = 58.34 miles per $1 billion.
$1.2 billion was provided to build the wall

So, yes, I was off on my calculations.

 

[RightinNYC]

It was included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill and the $1.2 billion will be included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill every year for the next 10 years.

What makes you think they will only authorize exactly 1.2 billion each year?