• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Approves $600M for Border Security

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
FOXNews.com - Senate Approves $600M for Border Security

Senate Approves $600M for Border Security
Published August 05, 2010 | Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Senate agreed Thursday to add $600 million to the effort to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the U.S. Mexican border.

The money would be used for such purposes as adding 1,500 new enforcement agents and deploying unmanned aerial drones to improve border surveillance.

The voice vote to pass the emergency spending came in the final hours before the Senate leaves for its monthlong summer break. Its sponsor, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said it would boost border spending 10 percent above 2010 levels.

President Barack Obama has urged Congress to come up with $600 million to reinforce border security, and, with Arizona's attempt to crack down on undocumented immigrants bringing national focus to the issue, both Republicans and Democrats have endorsed more robust border security spending.

The main stumbling block has been how to pay for the increased spending. Republicans sought to use unspent funds from the economic stimulus act, an idea rejected by Democrats.

The Democratic plan passed Thursday would boost fees assessed on foreign-based personnel companies that take advantage of U.S. visa programs, such as the H-1B visa program for temporary skilled workers, to bring foreign workers, mainly from India, into the United States.

---snip---

The legislation includes $176 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents to form a strike force to be deployed at critical areas, $89 million for another 500 customs and immigration personnel and $32 million to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles or drones.

It provides an additional $196 million for the Justice Department to bolster its forces of U.S. marshals, and FBI, DEA and ATF agents along the border.

"Now our attention must turn to comprehensive reform, which is the only way to fully address the problem of illegal immigration," Schumer said after the vote.
This is a step in the right direction, provided it actually gets done. I like the idea of assessing fees on companies employing foreign workers in the U.S.

Now we need to focus on tougher penalties for companies who employee illegals. I don't like the idea of imprisoning illegals for many years. We are not accomplishing anything beneficial by doing that. McCain is crazy. Deport them. Eliminate anchor baby loopholes. Continue to work towards physical security.

I like that it's getting bi-partisan support.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There has been a law enacted a few years ago that made it harder to employ illegals. I remember going to a temp service for extra work last winter because they were hiring snow shoveler for like $14/hr. I was curious and asked, "Couldn't you get Mexicans to do this for cheaper?" to which the guy replied, "Obama's new crappy law makes it harder for my to employ illegals but that's good news for you huh?" Good news indeed.
 

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Further, I would like to see more federal dollars going to the local law enforcement agencies for personnel, technology, weapons systems, vehicles, and body armor. They are on front line and there is a war spilling over our borders.

With unemployment where it's at, there is no excuse for an illegal immigrant holding a job that could put a legal U.S. citizen to work. I'm all for managed immigration to this country, but I'm absolutely opposed to illegal immigration on all levels now. I'm out of measurable sympathy for the plight of those in foreign countries with regard to unemployment and low wages. At this moment it's America first from where I am sitting. I still think we should be a good neighbor and play well with others, but we need to tend to our own first.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
24,054
Reaction score
8,685
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree that part of the solution to illegals in the US is going after employers who hire them. IMO the current Administration is talking out both sides of its mouth. AZ is having its employer sanction law reviewed by the SC. Lower federal courts have sided with AZ. What does Obama's people say, "On Nov. 2, 2009, the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to state its views on the law. In May this year, the Solicitor General office in the Department of Justice issued an opinion against LAWA, arguing that it is not a licensing law, but it is aimed at prohibiting the hiring of undocumented workers.
Supreme Court to Review Arizona Employer Sanctions Law - New America Media.

They are against the AZ law because its aimed at prohibiting the hiring of illegals. What a bunch of idiots. Obama wants to get get tough on employers, what a laugh.
 

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree that part of the solution to illegals in the US is going after employers who hire them. IMO the current Administration is talking out both sides of its mouth. AZ is having its employer sanction law reviewed by the SC. Lower federal courts have sided with AZ. What does Obama's people say, "On Nov. 2, 2009, the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to state its views on the law. In May this year, the Solicitor General office in the Department of Justice issued an opinion against LAWA, arguing that it is not a licensing law, but it is aimed at prohibiting the hiring of undocumented workers.
Supreme Court to Review Arizona Employer Sanctions Law - New America Media.

They are against the AZ law because its aimed at prohibiting the hiring of illegals. What a bunch of idiots. Obama wants to get get tough on employers, what a laugh.
I have to agree with you here. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Obama administration, and this is one of the main reasons. States are in a corner and doing what they have to in order to try and get a handle on a problem that federal government (the body of government responsible for these types of problems) seems to have all but ignored. Of course this problem existed long before Obama took office, he's just carrying on a long tradition of paying lip service to the issue...something both sides of the aisle seem good at doing.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,743
Reaction score
27,893
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Further, I would like to see more federal dollars going to the local law enforcement agencies for personnel, technology, weapons systems, vehicles, and body armor. They are on front line and there is a war spilling over our borders.

With unemployment where it's at, there is no excuse for an illegal immigrant holding a job that could put a legal U.S. citizen to work. I'm all for managed immigration to this country, but I'm absolutely opposed to illegal immigration on all levels now. I'm out of measurable sympathy for the plight of those in foreign countries with regard to unemployment and low wages. At this moment it's America first from where I am sitting. I still think we should be a good neighbor and play well with others, but we need to tend to our own first.
I'd like to see less federal dollars collected so states can collect the taxes to pay for this stuff.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The legislation includes $176 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents to form a strike force to be deployed at critical areas, $89 million for another 500 customs and immigration personnel and $32 million to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles or drones.
1,000 new border patrol agents=$10 million for support; $166 million for the 1,000 agents = $166,000 per agent.
500 new customs agents and immigration personnel = $178,000 per agent.

Can I have one of those jobs, pullleeeeze???
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,462
Reaction score
8,028
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Until they build a big ass wall, this is really just a waste of money (considering the objective).
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,462
Reaction score
8,028
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'd like to see less federal dollars collected so states can collect the taxes to pay for this stuff.
The issue with this is based on demographics. If one state is more "in tune" to weak border security, it diminishes the effectiveness in other states. It is the federal governments job to secure national borders as it pertains primarily to national defense and interstate commerce.
 

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The issue with this is based on demographics. If one state is more "in tune" to weak border security, it diminishes the effectiveness in other states. It is the federal governments job to secure national borders as it pertains primarily to national defense and interstate commerce.
I think he was referring to my comment regarding federal dollars going back to local jurisdictions on the border so that they could use the money to fund the local effort. To the tune that if the feds took less from the state, the state could purchase the items themselves...sort of cutting out the federal middle man. The upside being the state uses the money the way they see fit and you lose the federal leech.
 
Last edited:

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
1,000 new border patrol agents=$10 million for support; $166 million for the 1,000 agents = $166,000 per agent.
500 new customs agents and immigration personnel = $178,000 per agent.

Can I have one of those jobs, pullleeeeze???
Those are multi year jobs with full benefits and the cost of training and equipping the agents. It's probably a 50K a year job at best.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would imagine the net result of that spending will be no change at all.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Until they build a big ass wall, this is really just a waste of money (considering the objective).
It has many of the same effects as building a wall, though maybe not as cost effective. Stricter enforcement makes illegal immigrants utilize more remote areas to enter the us, as well as utilize smugglers more often. This makes it more expensive for illegal immigrants to enter the US. A side effect however could be an increase in violent crime, since proffesional smugglers will be used more often.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,462
Reaction score
8,028
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think he was referring to my comment regarding federal dollars going back to local jurisdictions on the border so that they could use the money to fund the local effort. To the tune that if the feds took less from the state, the state could purchase the items themselves...sort of cutting out the federal middle man. The upside being the state uses the money the way they see fit and you lose the federal leech.
My concern is, what if the state uses the extra cash to fund other projects? Being that border states are heavily concentrated (relatively) with "pilgrims", there desire to secure the borders can greatly diminish.

For example, amnesty is more popular in California than say Michigan.
 

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My concern is, what if the state uses the extra cash to fund other projects? Being that border states are heavily concentrated (relatively) with "pilgrims", there desire to secure the borders can greatly diminish.

For example, amnesty is more popular in California than say Michigan.
That is a good point. As political winds change so could the desire to secure the border and address illegal immigration. And certainly the proximity to the border and the ethnic concentrations in certain states make a realistic difference in their positions on the issues. But look at Arizona. They are in relatively the same position as California yet they have a completely different outlook.
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In the US we have a DECLINING birth rate, probably there are many reasons why this is so, someone else may care to promote those.
The only sections of the population with birth increases are African Americans/Hispanics/Chinese/Immigrants in general.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My concern is, what if the state uses the extra cash to fund other projects? Being that border states are heavily concentrated (relatively) with "pilgrims", there desire to secure the borders can greatly diminish.

For example, amnesty is more popular in California than say Michigan.
And walls are largely unpopular in cities where they see co-existence as normal. Even more unpopular on the Canadian border.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh boy, 600 million.

What was it we sent to Africa to combat AIDS? Ten Billion?

How much is the debt this year, mostly because of social spending? A Trillion, isn't it?

Yeah, 600 mil, whoo-wee....


Pardon me. I've been contemplating our debt while we argue about whether people on food stamps should be allowed to buy soda...
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
1,000 new border patrol agents=$10 million for support; $166 million for the 1,000 agents = $166,000 per agent.
500 new customs agents and immigration personnel = $178,000 per agent.

Can I have one of those jobs, pullleeeeze???
I hope those are boots(or what ever border agents wear) on the ground instead of paper pushers and administrative jobs. When it comes to illegal immigration pro-illegals tend to spend money to achieve nothing nothing in order to give the appearance that something is being done. For example the national guard troops on the border. On the surface it sounds like a good thing. But when you realize that they have no authority to arrest,detain or prevent illegal crossing and can only put up fence and act as spotters for the border patrol. You realize that the national guard are doing the same **** the minutemen were already doing for free. In other-words the NG on the border are nothing more than paid minutemen.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Until they build a big ass wall, this is really just a waste of money (considering the objective).
A wall's not going to be that effective. It's too easy to climb it or dig under it or knock a hole in it... a wall by itself is not the solution.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,251
Reaction score
3,979
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Further, I would like to see more federal dollars going to the local law enforcement agencies for personnel, technology, weapons systems, vehicles, and body armor. They are on front line and there is a war spilling over our borders.

With unemployment where it's at, there is no excuse for an illegal immigrant holding a job that could put a legal U.S. citizen to work. I'm all for managed immigration to this country, but I'm absolutely opposed to illegal immigration on all levels now. I'm out of measurable sympathy for the plight of those in foreign countries with regard to unemployment and low wages. At this moment it's America first from where I am sitting. I still think we should be a good neighbor and play well with others, but we need to tend to our own first.
Think that one through alittle bit. It's really a catch-22.

Those who strongly oppose illegal immigration would certainly be in favor of such spending measures, but those who strongly believe in state's rights and self-sufficiency would certainly think it the State's responsibility to provide such funding for themselves.

I'd be all for improving IT infrustructure and the like to aid in sharing information across multiple database and web-based platforms, but the body armor, weapons, vehicles and personnel would certainly be on the State and city government's nickle.
 
Top Bottom