/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Bush okays 700-mile border fence



Dahir
10-26-2006, 10:44 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing the construction of a fence along one-third of the 2,100-mile U.S. border with Mexico, but missing from the legislation is a means to pay for it.

"Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise," Bush said before signing the measure in the White House's Roosevelt Room. "Ours is a nation of immigrants. We're also a nation of law.

"We have a responsibility to address these challenges. We have a responsibility to enforce our laws. We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility seriously," said Bush, flanked by Department of Homeland Security officials, GOP congressional leaders and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 is one of the first steps of a tougher illegal immigration policy touted by Republicans. Its signing comes 12 days before potentially pivotal midterm elections.
To see MORE
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
10-26-2006, 11:52 PM
Nearly all of it will be at the Texas/Mexico border. Our poor little Shrub forgot to mention who is going to pay for constructing and maintaining it. I doubt if us Texas taxpayers want to foot the bill for it.
Reply

lavikor201
10-26-2006, 11:57 PM
I'm sure your right wing party in Texas is eager to. lol. :p
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2006, 12:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
I'm sure your right wing party in Texas is eager to. lol. :p
Our right wing party is made up of the people who depend on the unregistered aliens from Mexico for cheap labor. Stop the flow of the illegals and the price of onions in New York will sky rocket.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
lavikor201
10-27-2006, 12:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Our right wing party is made up of the people who depend on the unregistered aliens from Mexico for cheap labor. Stop the flow of the illegals and the price of onions in New York will sky rocket.
So who exactly is sponsering this bill, if the right wingers depend on them, and no left winger in their right mind would ever be against an illegal alien.
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2006, 12:06 AM
I would say that it is supported mostly by the labor parties and the right wingers from the Northern States.
Reply

lavikor201
10-27-2006, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I would say that it is supported mostly by the labor parties and the right wingers from the Northern States.

Isn't America's immigration problem coming mostly into the Southern states like Texas though, so why would northern states wish to contain the problem more. The only reason I can assume is because the southern states may be so dependant on their cheap labor. Have I come to the right conclusion?
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2006, 12:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Isn't America's immigration problem coming mostly into the Southern states like Texas though, so why would northern states wish to contain the problem more. The only reason I can assume is because the southern states may be so dependant on their cheap labor. Have I come to the right conclusion?
Semi correct. But that is basicaly because of the trade unions, keeping out the cheap labor in the Northern States. The illegal population is still providing a lot of cheap labor in places like New York and Chicago. Texas has a very large Mexican population that are US citisens, they tend to keep the majority of illegals from finding employment in Texas. Most pass through and go further North. Down by the border towns there are many Mexican citisens working legaly in the US. They also don't like the competition from the illegals. However I have not seen many Texans that advocate the fence.

I have yet to understand why we don't have the same type of relations with Mexico that we have with Canada. Mexico is a favorite tourist spot for those of us in the US and many US citisens retire in Mexico.
Reply

lavikor201
10-27-2006, 12:31 AM
I have yet to understand why we don't have the same type of relations with Mexico that we have with Canada.
Wasn't Texas at one point a part of Mexico?
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2006, 01:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Wasn't Texas at one point a part of Mexico?
When Mexico gained it's independence from Spain, Texas was a State of Mexico. Estado Tejas de Mexico.

Key dates for Texas:



Before 1500 -- Prior to the arrival of the first European explorers, numerous tribes of the Indians of Texas occupied the region between the Rio Grande to the south and the Red River to the north.

Mid-1519 -- Sailing from a base in Jamaica, Alonso Alvarez de Pineda, a Spanish adventurer, was the first known European to explore and map the Texas coastline.

3 January 1823 -- Stephen F. Austin received a grant from the Mexican government and began colonization in the region of the Brazos River.

Mid-1824 -- The Constitution of 1824 gave Mexico a republican form of government. It failed, however, to define the rights of the states within the republic, including Texas.

6 April 1830--Relations between the Texans and Mexico reached a new low when Mexico forbid further emigration into Texas by settlers from the United States.

26 June 1832--The Battle of Velasco resulted in the first casualties in Texas' relations with Mexico. After several days of fighting, the Mexicans under Domingo de Ugartechea were forced to surrender for lack of ammunition.

1832-1833 -- The Convention of 1832 and the Convention of 1833 in Texas were triggered by growing dissatisfaction among the settlements with the policies of the government in Mexico City.



2 October 1835 -- Texans repulsed a detachment of Mexican cavalry at the Battle of Gonzales. The revolution began.

9 October 1835 -- The Goliad Campaign of 1835 ended when George Collingsworth, Ben Milam, and forty-nine other Texans stormed the presidio at Goliad and a small detachment of Mexican defenders.

28 October 1835 -- Jim Bowie, James Fannin and 90 Texans defeated 450 Mexicans at the Battle of Concepcion, near San Antonio.

3 November 1835 -- The Consultation met to consider options for more autonomous rule for Texas. A document known as the Organic Law outlined the organization and functions of a new Provisional Government.

8 November 1835 -- The Grass Fight near San Antonio was won by the Texans under Jim Bowie and Ed Burleson. Instead of silver, however, the Texans gained a worthless bounty of grass.

11 December 1835 -- Mexicans under Gen. Cos surrendered San Antonio to the Texans following the Siege of Bexar. Ben Milam was killed during the extended siege.

2 March 1836 -- The Texas Declaration of Independence was signed by members of the Convention of 1836. An ad interim government was formed for the newly created Republic of Texas.

6 March 1836 -- Texans under Col. William B. Travis were overwhelmed by the Mexican army after a two-week siege at the Battle of the Alamo in San Antonio. The Runaway Scrape began.





November 1839 -- The Texas Congress first met in Austin, the frontier site selected for the capital of the Republic.




29 December 1842 -- Under orders of Sam Houston, officials arrived in Austin to remove the records of the Republic of Texas to the city of Houston, touching off the bloodless Archives War.


29 December 1845 -- U. S. President James Polk followed through on a campaign platform promising to annex Texas, and signed legislation making Texas the 28th state of the United States.

25 April 1846 -- The Mexican-American War ignited as a result of disputes over claims to Texas boundaries. The outcome of the war fixed Texas' southern boundary at the Rio Grande River.

25 November 1850 -- In a plan to settle boundary disputes and pay her public debt, Texas relinquished about one-third of her territory in the Compromise of 1850, in exchange for $10,000,000 from the United States.

.

29 April 1856 -- Backed by the US military, a shipment of 32 camels arrived at the port of Indianola. The resulting Texas Camel Experiment used the animals to transport supplies over the "Great American Desert."

1 February 1861 -- Texas seceded from the Federal Union following a 171 to 6 vote by the Secession Convention. Governor Sam Houston was one of a small minority opposed to secession.


13 May 1865 -- The last land engagement of the Civil War was fought at the Battle of Palmito Ranch in far south Texas, more than a month after Gen. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, VA.

1866 -- The abundance of longhorn cattle in south Texas and the return of Confederate soldiers to a poor reconstruction economy marked the beginning of the era of Texas trail drives to northern markets.

30 March 1870 -- The United States Congress readmitted Texas into the Union. Reconstruction continued, however, for another four years.


16 May 1888 -- The dedication of the present state capitol in Austin ended seven years of planning and construction. The building was funded with 3,000,000 acres of land in north Texas.



10 January 1901 -- The discovery of "black gold" at the Spindletop oil field near Beaumont launched Texas into a century of oil exploration, electronics, and manned space travel.
Reply

bobaloo
10-27-2006, 01:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
... I doubt if us Texas taxpayers want to foot the bill for it.

There is another bill that sets aside $1,000,000,000 for it. I'm not against LEGAL immigration. My parents were legal immigrants to the U.S. (Germany and Ukraine). But every country has the right and DUTY to know who is coming into its' country. Besides, illegal immigration cheats all the legal immigrants who do things the proper way. It's, more or less, jumping to the head of the line. It's just not fair.
Reply

Keltoi
10-27-2006, 02:02 AM
It is a common tactic among those opposed to border security to label those who support it as "right-wing" nutjobs, but of course the reality is far more complicated. There can be no true immigration reform unless border security comes with it, otherwise it is like lighting a candle in a hurricane. I support the construction of the fence, but I'm not naive enough to believe that will effectively stop the tide of illegals from entering the country. However, it is a good start.
Reply

bobaloo
10-27-2006, 02:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
...I have yet to understand why we don't have the same type of relations with Mexico that we have with Canada. Mexico is a favorite tourist spot for those of us in the US and many US citisens retire in Mexico.


Because Canadians aren't illegally entering the country by the millions. Also, in a little piece of hypocracy, Mexico has one of the harshes policies against illegal immigrants in the world. You can be jailed for up to three years. I go to Mexico at least once a year to dive.
Reply

Dahir
10-27-2006, 02:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bobaloo
Because Canadians aren't illegally entering the country by the millions. Also, in a little piece of hypocracy, Mexico has one of the harshes policies against illegal immigrants in the world. You can be jailed for up to three years. I go to Mexico at least once a year to dive.
So we are to Mexico, what Mexico is to small Central American banana republics. The irony..
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2006, 03:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bobaloo
Because Canadians aren't illegally entering the country by the millions. Also, in a little piece of hypocracy, Mexico has one of the harshes policies against illegal immigrants in the world. You can be jailed for up to three years. I go to Mexico at least once a year to dive.


Good points and I can not find any basis to disagree with them. I lived in Mexico for nearly 3 years. And you are right about the harshness towards immigrants. Fortunatly there are many US communities in the San Miguel Allende area and as long as they know you are either retired with an income or will go back to the USA there is no problem.
Reply

stannis
11-06-2006, 02:52 PM
Illegal aliens are called "illegal" for a reason. If all migrants were allowed to move without restriction into the US or Europe (or any part of the world, including Islamic countries) that would result in a meltdown of the welfare state, housing, community relations etc.

I think the border wall with Mexico is an expensive absurdity, but Americans should not have to accept uncontrolled immigration if they do not want it.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-07-2006, 03:37 PM
My question is why do this immigrants come into the US illegally anyways? I mean it isnt that hard to do it the right way, sure there is more paperwork, but as long as you dont mind paying taxes and dont have a criminal background then it isnt an issue anyways. The people that come to the US illegally come here to get free health care, social security, etc. They also drive without insurance and are proven to be violent and have no respect for our laws
Reply

Woodrow
11-07-2006, 05:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
My question is why do this immigrants come into the US illegally anyways? I mean it isnt that hard to do it the right way, sure there is more paperwork, but as long as you dont mind paying taxes and dont have a criminal background then it isnt an issue anyways. The people that come to the US illegally come here to get free health care, social security, etc. They also drive without insurance and are proven to be violent and have no respect for our laws
Many do come here legaly and for the right reason. they prove to be law-abiding productive citizens.

The ones that come illegaly do it for the reasons you mention. They don't want to pay taxes. they often do have criminal backgrounds. They don't want to buy car insurance, they have no respect for the law. I won't go as far to say they are proven to be violent. I think any violence comes about when they are caught and backed into a corner.

I do not see how any fence will keep any out who are determined to get in. It will only slow down the ones who sneak in out of ignorance and not as criminals. I only see it filtering out the least dangerous and making it more of attractive to the potentialy dangerous, so the ones who successful out manuever the fence will probably be the most undesired.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-07-2006, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Many do come here legaly and for the right reason. they prove to be law-abiding productive citizens.

The ones that come illegaly do it for the reasons you mention. They don't want to pay taxes. they often do have criminal backgrounds. They don't want to buy car insurance, they have no respect for the law. I won't go as far to say they are proven to be violent. I think any violence comes about when they are caught and backed into a corner.

I do not see how any fence will keep any out who are determined to get in. It will only slow down the ones who sneak in out of ignorance and not as criminals. I only see it filtering out the least dangerous and making it more of attractive to the potentialy dangerous, so the ones who successful out manuever the fence will probably be the most undesired.

i totally agree, the ones that come legally are good for this country as is any law abiding productive citizen from any country. I also agree with your theory of the fence with the most undesired. However the ones that may not be as dangerous may be a little more inclined to go through the process. I doubt there will ever be a real solution to this especially when Mexico does basically nothing to help out with it.
Who knows maybe one day everyone in the US will just move to mexico and we can switch countries, I mean they do have Cancun and cheap liquor!:happy:
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
11-07-2006, 11:58 PM
so let me get this straight

millions of americans are checked for explosives and other destabilizing things than can cause insecurity and mayhem every year when they fly from one US state to another but a person can walk in from another country without getting checked at all:?

homeland security?????
Reply

Dahir
11-08-2006, 12:03 AM
A little semi-off-topic, but, the term "illegal" is a bit inhumane and should be declared slander to all of humanity.

How can a human being be "illegal?" :offended:

I think a much-more politically-correct term that should be used more often is "Undocumented" -- it sounds better and it shows compassion and civility as opposed to the hate-filled and harsh term "illegal!"

Just an opinion...
Reply

GARY
11-08-2006, 12:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
A little semi-off-topic, but, the term "illegal" is a bit inhumane and should be declared slander to all of humanity.

How can a human being be "illegal?" :offended:

I think a much-more politically-correct term that should be used more often is "Undocumented" -- it sounds better and it shows compassion and civility as opposed to the hate-filled and harsh term "illegal!"

Just an opinion...
Just like short people should be called vertically challenged, and fat people should be called horizontially blessed.
Reply

Dahir
11-08-2006, 12:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by GARY
Just like short people should be called vertically challenged, and fat people should be called horizontially blessed.
Correct. :mmokay:

A bit stretched, your idea, but its on the right track! :thumbs_up
Reply

Woodrow
11-08-2006, 02:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AHMED_GUREY
so let me get this straight

millions of americans are checked for explosives and other destabilizing things than can cause insecurity and mayhem every year when they fly from one US state to another but a person can walk in from another country without getting checked at all:?

homeland security?????
It is only air travel that undergoes the tough scrutiny. Ground travel is little controled. There are no physical boundries or check points between states. So yes a person can walk into the country unchecked and unnoticed. The only time a person would be found out is when they attempt to get a job or apply for any type of license such as a drivers license, fishing lincense, or try to get a library card, credit card etc.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
11-08-2006, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is only air travel that undergoes the tough scrutiny. Ground travel is little controled. There are no physical boundries or check points between states. So yes a person can walk into the country unchecked and unnoticed. The only time a person would be found out is when they attempt to get a job or apply for any type of license such as a drivers license, fishing lincense, or try to get a library card, credit card etc.

isn't that dangerous

what if someone decided to walk in with a nerve gas bomb from Mexico and then detonates it in New york or something

have they considered this?

why spy on your own citizens and check every passenger on airports but for decades not secure the border ?
Reply

Woodrow
11-08-2006, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AHMED_GUREY
isn't that dangerous

what if someone decided to walk in with a nerve gas bomb from Mexico and then detonates it in New york or something

have they considered this?

why spy on your own citizens and check every passenger on airports but for decades not secure the border ?
There are many reasons it is not an option. The American people do not support wide spread spying on Americans. It is only with much reluctance that it is in place at airports.

Also the size of the US Borders is tremendous and it it impossible to fully secure. Texas alone has nearly a 2,000 mile border with Mexico and a Sea coast Border that is even longer. the total US Borders with the Sea and other nations is far in excess of 20,000 miles

As far as somebody walking in with a bomb, that is a possibility. However, there are no practical steps that can be taken to prevent it. We can only place our trust in our neighbors.
Reply

Woodrow
11-08-2006, 06:58 PM
More accuracy:

The official Boundreys for Texas are:

Texas' Boundary Lines

The boundary of Texas by segments, including only larger river bends and only the great arc of the coastline, is as follows:

Rio Grande 889.0 miles
Coastline 367.0 miles
Sabine River, Lake and Pass 180.0 miles
* Sabine River to Red River 106.5 miles
Red River 480.0 miles
* East Panhandle line 133.6 miles
* North Panhandle line 167.0 miles
* West Panhandle line 310.2 miles
* Along 32nd parallel 209.0 miles
Total 2,842.3 miles



Following the smaller meanderings of the rivers and the tidewater coastline, the following are the boundary measurements:

Rio Grande 1,254 miles
Coastline (tidewater) 624 miles
Sabine River, Lake and Pass 292 miles
Red River 726 miles
* The five unchanged line segments above 926 miles
Total (including segments marked *) 3,822 miles

Source: http://www.texasalmanac.com/environment/

The actual driving and road distances are considerably more. I was using the road milages in my post.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
11-08-2006, 09:44 PM
thanks for the info Woodrow it makes much more sense now

kinda like Indonesia and it's trillion islands (makes it difficult to secure Indonesian waters from hijackers)
Reply

blunderbus
11-10-2006, 06:11 PM
ALL COUNTRIES have a right to control their borders and who will enter the country. Having said that...The fence is mainly symbolic. It lets the Federal government look like it's doing something. The flow of illegal aliens (if you are in a country illegally that is what you are) will not stop until employers are fined at a level that will make hiring illegal aliens unprofitable. If the work dries up the numbers entering the country will diminish.

In just 40 years the population of the United States has grown by 100 million. That's a 1/3 increase in less than half a century. Most of those coming over the southern border are not well educated. There is little doubt that this drives down wages for the American born working and underclass (supply and demand in labor markets) and exacerbates the widending income gap and shrinking of the middle class. In the current system the winners are the employers who have lower labor costs. The losers are low skilled native born American workers.
Reply

Keltoi
11-10-2006, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by blunderbus
ALL COUNTRIES have a right to control their borders and who will enter the country. Having said that...The fence is mainly symbolic. It lets the Federal government look like it's doing something. The flow of illegal aliens (if you are in a country illegally that is what you are) will not stop until employers are fined at a level that will make hiring illegal aliens unprofitable. If the work dries up the numbers entering the country will diminish.

In just 40 years the population of the United States has grown by 100 million. That's a 1/3 increase in less than half a century. Most of those coming over the southern border are not well educated. There is little doubt that this drives down wages for the American born working and underclass (supply and demand in labor markets) and exacerbates the widending income gap and shrinking of the middle class. In the current system the winners are the employers who have lower labor costs. The losers are low skilled native born American workers.
Couldn't agree with you more
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-10-2010, 12:28 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 06:13 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 09:22 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-06-2007, 05:18 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-31-2007, 04:17 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!