RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The Minutemen (& other names guaranteed to NOT get you laid)

Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday joined other Democrats in a push to let all 12 million illegal aliens become citizens - but it was decisively defeated.

Only Democrats voted for the full-legalization measure, which lost 61-37 as the Senate struggled to hold a bipartisan coalition in favor of legalization for most - but not all - illegal aliens.

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Okay, so lemme get this straight: Illegal aliens are allowed to commit fraud and get off scott free...So if I renounce my American citizenship, then cross over to Mexico and come back again, illegaly, will I be given immunity from fraud charges?

---

Minutemen border watch volunteers began putting up new fencing Saturday on a cattle ranch along the southeastern Arizona border with Mexico, intent on building impediments to a flood of illegal immigration until the federal government takes up the task.

Ranchers Jack and John Ladd were hopeful, though hardly confident, that the fencing will spell some relief on their father-and-son spread from the illegal immigrants, drug runners and cattle meandering across from Mexico.

The Ladds' ranch stretches across more than 10 miles (16 kilometers) of the border with Mexico and they have struggled for years with those cut their fence — or just drive over it — to cross their land and enter the United States.

The Minuteman group plans to install fencing, including a combination of barbed wire, razor wire and in some spots steel rail barriers, along the bulk of the Ladds' property in the coming weeks. They hope it prompts the federal government to do the same along the entire Arizona border.

The contractor volunteering his time to help install the fence says the 10 mile (16 kilometers) stretch is just a start.

At least 200 volunteers gathered Saturday morning on the Ladds' ranch as they marked the kickoff of their fence-building effort. Most of the morning was dedicated to speeches from politicians and Minutemen leaders and celebrating large donations the Minutemen group has been receiving.

Among the Minuteman volunteers who made their way to this remote ranch Saturday was Quetzal Doty of Sun Lakes, Arizona, a retired U.S. diplomatic consular officer.

Doty said he's convinced the Minutemen and most Americans aren't anti-immigrant.

"They're just anti-illegal," said Doty, who came with his wife, Sandy. "The Minutemen walk the extra mile to avoid being anti-immigrant and that's what we like about the organization and what got us interested."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have raised some eyebrows with his unorthodox approach to illegal immigration in Maricopa County, Ariz., but his using a new state law to catch undocumented workers has won praise from sheriffs along the nation’s 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

Earlier this month, Arpaio used the new law — geared to capturing “coyotes,” or human smugglers — to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating local statutes. Charging the illegals with “conspiracy to smuggle themselves,” As of Tuesday, Arpaio and a posse of law enforcement officials and volunteers have detained 224 people.

Officers from California to Texas say they like Arpaio’s approach but aren't able to adopt it in their states, where understaffed departments, the reshuffling of Border Patrol agents and the lack of state immigration legislation prohibit them from tracking and capturing people crossing the border illegally.

Arpaio has interpreted the new Arizona coyote law to apply to the smuggled individuals. "I’m the elected sheriff and I'm going to do what I feel is right regardless of the controversy," Arpaio said.

Detainees in Maricopa County are housed in a tent city and forced to wear pink underwear and eat green bologna.

According to Maricopa County Sheriff's Lt. Paul Chagolla, one Arizona law-enforcement agency has contacted the department inquiring about how the county charges the undocumented workers under the new law.

The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it is a good bet the milestone baby — or immigrant — will be Hispanic.

No one will know for sure because the date and time will be just an estimate.

But both Latino immigrants and those born in the United States are driving the population growth, accounting for almost half the increase last year, more than any other ethnic or racial group.

White non-Hispanics, who make up about two-thirds of the population, accounted for less than one-fifth of the increase.

When the population reached 200 million in 1967, there was no accurate tally of U.S. Hispanics. The first effort to count Hispanics came in the 1970 census, and the results were dubious.

The Census Bureau counted about 9.6 million Latinos, a little less than 5 percent of the population, but the bureau acknowledged that figure was inflated.

In 1967, there were fewer than 10 million people in the U.S. who were born in other countries; that was not even one in 20.

Quote:

---

Bush refuses Bush Request for Border Troops


Concerned about overextending the state's National Guard forces, Schwarzenegger won't send 1,500 more soldiers to assist federal agents.
By Peter Nicholas, Times Staff Writer
June 24, 2006

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said Friday that he turned down a White House request to more than double the number of California National Guard troops that will be deployed to the border, fearing the commitment could leave the state vulnerable if an earthquake or wildfire erupts.

Three weeks ago, Schwarzenegger and the Bush administration worked out a written agreement in which the state would send 1,000 troops to the Mexican border as part of a 6,000-strong deployment aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, the Bush administration asked the governor's office for 1,500 more soldiers. The additional troops were to be sent to Arizona and New Mexico, according to a California National Guard official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Schwarzenegger took less than a day to give his answer: No.

"The governor did not feel that it was appropriate to send additional Guard out of state," said Adam Mendelsohn, the governor's communications director.

A White House spokesman suggested Friday night that Schwarzenegger's position could disrupt the Bush administration timetable for fortifying the border with National Guard troops.

Under that deadline, the 6,000 National Guard soldiers from different states are to be in place by Aug. 1, assisting federal Border Patrol agents.

"We are reviewing how this decision by California's governor may affect the overall deployment schedule of National Guard troops to the border as part of 'Operation Jump Start,' " said Blain Rethmeier, a White House spokesman.

Asked why the Bush administration wanted more troops from California, Rethmeier referred the question to National Guard officials in Washington, who were not immediately available Friday night for comment.

Soon after Bush announced a plan in May to use National Guard troops to shore up the border, Schwarzenegger made it plain that he was unhappy about the operation.

He said he would agree to dispatch soldiers only if certain conditions were met. He capped the number of troops to be sent and insisted on a two-year deadline for their return, predicting that any kind of open-ended commitment would stretch for years and possibly decades.

---

From Vermont to California and a host of unlikely places in between, many Republicans say they are convinced that tough immigration positions are what voters want to hear ahead of the November election, and, in fact, immigration could be the biggest issue of the year.

Senate Republicans are split over an immigration reform bill that includes a guest worker program sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and backed by President Bush. But most House Republicans support a law enforcement-centered bill, and many say their approach resonates with voters and will be a winner on the campaign trail.

Republican incumbents in competitive districts, even those far from America's borders, are talking tough. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., recently traveled to the U.S. Southwest to see for himself the problems with illegal immigration. Moderate Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who says he's been fielding more constituent questions about border security than ever, has advocated denying automatic citizenship to children born in the country to illegal immigrants.

House Republican leaders have scheduled no fewer than five hearings on the issue, including "field" hearings in places like Arizona, California and Texas where emotions are high over illegal border crossings.

Democrats have decried the GOP strategy of holding immigration reform captive to field hearings, and on Wednesday criticized Republicans for demagoguing the issue.

Eliot Peace, Republican strategist for Starboard Communications in South Carolina, said the issue is less political and more a genuine concern among voters, even in districts not typically associated with border problems. In the Southeast and Midwest, for instance, many migrant workers are employed on farms and by construction companies. Those communities are urging officials to address problems stemming from illegal immigration, he said.

As for what this issue does or doesn’t do for Democrats, Peace pointed out that Democrats in competitive districts in the Southeast are typically on the side of tough law enforcement. He said Georgia Democratic Reps. Jim Marshall and John Barrow are both in tight races with conservative Republicans who happen to be former members of Congress. All four have embraced the House bill.

For the third straight summer, some illegal immigrants who have been caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are being flown back home.

The flights, part of the Homeland Security Department's so-called repatriation program, aim to reduce the chances of migrants recrossing the porous Arizona border by flying them deep into the interior of Mexico.

The first repatriation flight this year carried 67 people to Mexico City on Friday. From there, they were to be bused to their home communities in central and southern Mexico, officials said.

The program targets immigrants deemed at physical risk if they tried to cross the border through the desert again, including those who are close to dehydration, are exhausted or in need of medical attention, said Russell Ahr, a spokesman in Phoenix for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It also targets women and children, particularly women who might be pregnant, Ahr said.

"Backers of illegal immigration at a rally near Los Angeles took down an American flag at a U.S. post office, stamped on it and replaced it with a Mexican flag as police looked on, according to witnesses and a video of the event.

Police officers in Maywood, Calif., Saturday eventually came to the pole to remove the flag but had bottles and rocks thrown at them..."

All of this occurred in what is ostensibly an American city, Maywood, CA, though one that prides itself for being a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants.

Sadly, as the pictures show, there were far more people willing to trample on the American flag, than there were to defend it. On the other hand, if anyone had defended our flag, they'd have probably been charged with a "hate crime."

President Bush signed a bill yesterday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they're tough on illegal immigration.

The centerpiece of Bush's immigration policy, a guest-worker program, remains stalled in Congress.

Its cost is not known, although a homeland-security spending measure the president signed earlier this month makes a $1.2 billion down payment on the project.

The money also can be used for access roads, vehicle barriers, lighting, high-tech equipment and other tools to secure the border.

Mexican officials have criticized the fence. Outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox, who has spent much of his six years in office lobbying for a new guest-worker program and a chance at citizenship for the millions of Mexicans working illegally in America, calls the fence "shameful" and compares it to the Berlin Wall.

Quote:

---

Bowing to anti-immigration hardliners in the House, President Bush today held a White House ceremony celebrating the signing of the “Secure Fence Act.” Bush told reporters, “The bill authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our southern border.”
Bush is right, the bill does “authorize” the constrution of a new fence. But that doesn’t mean the bill pays for it. As the Washington Post reported earlier this month:

No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.
… [S]hortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects — not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and “tactical infrastructure” to support the Department of Homeland Security’s preferred option of a “virtual fence.”
The “Secure Fence Act” has everything to do with motivating the right-wing base, and nothing to do with securing America’s borders or passing comprehensive immigration reform.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
You know, as soon as I moused over the URL and saw thinkprogress.org, I lost pretty much all motivation to read the actual article.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But Raw has a tendency to "spin" the articles it links to.

---

Quote:

---

dogbert said:
Might as well get in on the action here sooner or later...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_re_us/border_fence

Border fence plan worries Texas ranchers
By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago

MISSION, Texas - Jeff Reed offers outdoor dining on the Rio Grande at his restaurant, Pepe's on the River. But with the U.S. government planning to build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border, he has to wonder: Will his restaurant soon be "Pepe's on the Fence"?

Downriver in Brownsville, where the jalapeno and lima bean fields run down to the water's edge, farmer Fermin Leal is wondering whether the government intends to cut through his crops, run irrigation pipes under the fence, or buy him out.

"Most of our land goes up to what's supposed to be the border, and yes, we need access to river water," Leal said.

President Bush signed a law Thursday to erect more fences along the border to secure it against illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists. Republicans in Congress see it as their most significant accomplishment on immigration. The president called it "an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our borders."

But up and down Texas' watery boundary with Mexico, farmers, ranchers and business owners are worried a fence will endanger their livelihoods and encroach on their property.

Texas landowners — sick of illegal immigrants cutting their fences, stealing and trespassing, and tired of worrying about smugglers of humans and drugs endangering their families — have been demanding for years that Congress tighten the border.

But not, some say, with a double-layer, $6 billion fence cutting through their land and keeping them and their livestock from the river.

"It's not going to work in Texas," said Michael Vickers, who owns a cattle ranch on the border. "Who wants to close off the river to Mexico? The river is the lifeblood for a lot of cities."

Vickers said he worries that either his land will be cut off from the rest of the state and the country or he will lose access to 50 acres of water rights he has and can sell to area municipalities for up to $2,000 an acre.

"I'd be in a DMZ-type zone, in between two countries," Vickers said.

The exact route the fences will take is not yet clear. And it is not yet known what the fences will look like — how tall they will be, whether they will be solid walls, or bars.

Much of the land along the Texas side of the river is privately owned, some dating back to Spanish land grants. The government's $1.2 billion "down payment" on the fences is only a fraction of the estimated cost, which will also include the expense of compensating property owners for any land taken through eminent domain.

Environmentalists say the fence also would destroy decades of government work building up wildlife corridors to allow endangered species like ocelots and jaguarundi access to the river.

The legislation calls for one Texas section of fence stretching from Del Rio to Eagle Pass and a much larger piece along the 361 river-miles from Laredo to Brownsville, where much of the border population lives.

"I could see if they put the fence in desolate areas and isolated areas, but to come down here and interfere with businesses and stuff such as mine?" said Reed, the waterfront restaurant owner. "Nobody's crossing right here anyway, not with a lot of activity. We've got 500, 600 people sitting out here. They're not going to pull up a boatload and start unloading."

Mexican President
Vicente Fox has called the plan "an embarrassment for the United States" and said a fence would not stop millions of Mexicans from heading north in search of jobs.

Similarly, mayors of U.S. cities close to the river have spoken out against the economic and diplomatic effect of a fence in a region where Mexico and the United States interact fluidly.

"Here we are in the midst of an economic mega-boom and we're building fences," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas. "What ridiculous symbolism. Here we are tearing walls down around the world and we're putting up walls."

Mexican customers make up about 35 percent of the city of McAllen's retail trade and have been buying real estate and opening businesses in the city at a rapid pace.

A fence "sends the message that you're not wanted or you're not welcome. I know I would be insulted," said Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. And he questioned whether a fence would even work: "Human instinct is that if you have a 10-foot fence, you're going to find an 11-foot ladder."


I don't mind the government doing something about illegal immigration, but I've gotta wonder if this border fence is the best way to do it. It sounds like it's gonna hurt a bunch of Americans, and it might not even keep anyone out anyway.

Doing nothing isn't a solution, but sometimes it might be better than putting a ton of work into something that might not work properly.

Probably too late to do anything about it now, but just for the heck of it, how could the govt. have come up with a better idea?

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
You know, as soon as I moused over the URL and saw thinkprogress.org, I lost pretty much all motivation to read the actual article.

---

It's actually RAW linking to a Washington Post article. It just points out that this fence is kinda of a pretend one.

---

I want a pretend fence. It'd keep my imaginary friends from leaving.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

dogbert said:
Might as well get in on the action here sooner or later...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_re_us/border_fence

Border fence plan worries Texas ranchers
By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago

MISSION, Texas - Jeff Reed offers outdoor dining on the Rio Grande at his restaurant, Pepe's on the River. But with the U.S. government planning to build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border, he has to wonder: Will his restaurant soon be "Pepe's on the Fence"?

Downriver in Brownsville, where the jalapeno and lima bean fields run down to the water's edge, farmer Fermin Leal is wondering whether the government intends to cut through his crops, run irrigation pipes under the fence, or buy him out.

"Most of our land goes up to what's supposed to be the border, and yes, we need access to river water," Leal said.

President Bush signed a law Thursday to erect more fences along the border to secure it against illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists. Republicans in Congress see it as their most significant accomplishment on immigration. The president called it "an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our borders."

But up and down Texas' watery boundary with Mexico, farmers, ranchers and business owners are worried a fence will endanger their livelihoods and encroach on their property.

Texas landowners — sick of illegal immigrants cutting their fences, stealing and trespassing, and tired of worrying about smugglers of humans and drugs endangering their families — have been demanding for years that Congress tighten the border.

But not, some say, with a double-layer, $6 billion fence cutting through their land and keeping them and their livestock from the river.

"It's not going to work in Texas," said Michael Vickers, who owns a cattle ranch on the border. "Who wants to close off the river to Mexico? The river is the lifeblood for a lot of cities."

Vickers said he worries that either his land will be cut off from the rest of the state and the country or he will lose access to 50 acres of water rights he has and can sell to area municipalities for up to $2,000 an acre.

"I'd be in a DMZ-type zone, in between two countries," Vickers said.

The exact route the fences will take is not yet clear. And it is not yet known what the fences will look like — how tall they will be, whether they will be solid walls, or bars.

Much of the land along the Texas side of the river is privately owned, some dating back to Spanish land grants. The government's $1.2 billion "down payment" on the fences is only a fraction of the estimated cost, which will also include the expense of compensating property owners for any land taken through eminent domain.

Environmentalists say the fence also would destroy decades of government work building up wildlife corridors to allow endangered species like ocelots and jaguarundi access to the river.

The legislation calls for one Texas section of fence stretching from Del Rio to Eagle Pass and a much larger piece along the 361 river-miles from Laredo to Brownsville, where much of the border population lives.

"I could see if they put the fence in desolate areas and isolated areas, but to come down here and interfere with businesses and stuff such as mine?" said Reed, the waterfront restaurant owner. "Nobody's crossing right here anyway, not with a lot of activity. We've got 500, 600 people sitting out here. They're not going to pull up a boatload and start unloading."

Mexican President
Vicente Fox has called the plan "an embarrassment for the United States" and said a fence would not stop millions of Mexicans from heading north in search of jobs.

Similarly, mayors of U.S. cities close to the river have spoken out against the economic and diplomatic effect of a fence in a region where Mexico and the United States interact fluidly.

"Here we are in the midst of an economic mega-boom and we're building fences," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas. "What ridiculous symbolism. Here we are tearing walls down around the world and we're putting up walls."

Mexican customers make up about 35 percent of the city of McAllen's retail trade and have been buying real estate and opening businesses in the city at a rapid pace.

A fence "sends the message that you're not wanted or you're not welcome. I know I would be insulted," said Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. And he questioned whether a fence would even work: "Human instinct is that if you have a 10-foot fence, you're going to find an 11-foot ladder."


I don't mind the government doing something about illegal immigration, but I've gotta wonder if this border fence is the best way to do it. It sounds like it's gonna hurt a bunch of Americans, and it might not even keep anyone out anyway.

Doing nothing isn't a solution, but sometimes it might be better than putting a ton of work into something that might not work properly.

Probably too late to do anything about it now, but just for the heck of it, how could the govt. have come up with a better idea?

---

If ranchers are like some big farmers a lot of them probably use (if not exploit) illegals, so there may be an ulterior motive to their complaints beyond water rights.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

dogbert said:
Might as well get in on the action here sooner or later...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_re_us/border_fence

Border fence plan worries Texas ranchers
By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago

MISSION, Texas - Jeff Reed offers outdoor dining on the Rio Grande at his restaurant, Pepe's on the River. But with the U.S. government planning to build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border, he has to wonder: Will his restaurant soon be "Pepe's on the Fence"?

Downriver in Brownsville, where the jalapeno and lima bean fields run down to the water's edge, farmer Fermin Leal is wondering whether the government intends to cut through his crops, run irrigation pipes under the fence, or buy him out.

"Most of our land goes up to what's supposed to be the border, and yes, we need access to river water," Leal said.

President Bush signed a law Thursday to erect more fences along the border to secure it against illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists. Republicans in Congress see it as their most significant accomplishment on immigration. The president called it "an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our borders."

But up and down Texas' watery boundary with Mexico, farmers, ranchers and business owners are worried a fence will endanger their livelihoods and encroach on their property.

Texas landowners — sick of illegal immigrants cutting their fences, stealing and trespassing, and tired of worrying about smugglers of humans and drugs endangering their families — have been demanding for years that Congress tighten the border.

But not, some say, with a double-layer, $6 billion fence cutting through their land and keeping them and their livestock from the river.

"It's not going to work in Texas," said Michael Vickers, who owns a cattle ranch on the border. "Who wants to close off the river to Mexico? The river is the lifeblood for a lot of cities."

Vickers said he worries that either his land will be cut off from the rest of the state and the country or he will lose access to 50 acres of water rights he has and can sell to area municipalities for up to $2,000 an acre.

"I'd be in a DMZ-type zone, in between two countries," Vickers said.

The exact route the fences will take is not yet clear. And it is not yet known what the fences will look like — how tall they will be, whether they will be solid walls, or bars.

Much of the land along the Texas side of the river is privately owned, some dating back to Spanish land grants. The government's $1.2 billion "down payment" on the fences is only a fraction of the estimated cost, which will also include the expense of compensating property owners for any land taken through eminent domain.

Environmentalists say the fence also would destroy decades of government work building up wildlife corridors to allow endangered species like ocelots and jaguarundi access to the river.

The legislation calls for one Texas section of fence stretching from Del Rio to Eagle Pass and a much larger piece along the 361 river-miles from Laredo to Brownsville, where much of the border population lives.

"I could see if they put the fence in desolate areas and isolated areas, but to come down here and interfere with businesses and stuff such as mine?" said Reed, the waterfront restaurant owner. "Nobody's crossing right here anyway, not with a lot of activity. We've got 500, 600 people sitting out here. They're not going to pull up a boatload and start unloading."

Mexican President
Vicente Fox has called the plan "an embarrassment for the United States" and said a fence would not stop millions of Mexicans from heading north in search of jobs.

Similarly, mayors of U.S. cities close to the river have spoken out against the economic and diplomatic effect of a fence in a region where Mexico and the United States interact fluidly.

"Here we are in the midst of an economic mega-boom and we're building fences," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas. "What ridiculous symbolism. Here we are tearing walls down around the world and we're putting up walls."

Mexican customers make up about 35 percent of the city of McAllen's retail trade and have been buying real estate and opening businesses in the city at a rapid pace.

A fence "sends the message that you're not wanted or you're not welcome. I know I would be insulted," said Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. And he questioned whether a fence would even work: "Human instinct is that if you have a 10-foot fence, you're going to find an 11-foot ladder."


I don't mind the government doing something about illegal immigration, but I've gotta wonder if this border fence is the best way to do it. It sounds like it's gonna hurt a bunch of Americans, and it might not even keep anyone out anyway.

Doing nothing isn't a solution, but sometimes it might be better than putting a ton of work into something that might not work properly.

Probably too late to do anything about it now, but just for the heck of it, how could the govt. have come up with a better idea?

---

If ranchers are like some big farmers a lot of them probably use (if not exploit) illegals, so there may be an ulterior motive to their complaints beyond water rights.

---

mmigration officials booted a record 187,000 illegal aliens from the country last year while stepping up patrols on the border, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced yesterday.

Chertoff boasted that the feds had deported 2,300 violent gang members this year and more than 3,700 over two years.

Chertoff also claimed a "significant turnaround" on the border. This year, about 1 million people were caught trying to enter the United States illegally, about 100,000 less than last year.

He said the drop proved that the feds' enforcement was having a "deterrent effect."

Price called it "bumper-sticker legislation."

The new fence is just an authorization, with no money attached. Price's committee would have to pay for the thing.

Asked about funding the fence, Price paused to consider.

"I don't know," he said.

For now, Price hopes Congress will come up with what he would consider a better approach to securing the border.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Change in leadership of course means change in chairmen for committees, subcommittees, etc. One of those new leaders is almost certain to be North Carolina Rep. David Price, who is expected to head the House Appropriations subcommittee that deals with homeland security. He was asked about the fate of the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border [and] Price called it "bumper-sticker legislation."

Brush on your Spanish folks, and get ready for amnesty and even more illegal immigrants.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Change in leadership of course means change in chairmen for committees, subcommittees, etc. One of those new leaders is almost certain to be North Carolina Rep. David Price, who is expected to head the House Appropriations subcommittee that deals with homeland security. He was asked about the fate of the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border [and] Price called it "bumper-sticker legislation."

Brush on your Spanish folks, and get ready for amnesty and even more illegal immigrants.

---

More evidence the new congress is going to surrender in the war against illegal immigration:

The incoming U.S. Congress will review the law mandating 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and may seek to scrap the plan altogether.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters this week that he expected to "re-visit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress, which has a Democratic Party majority.

---

Democrats in both chambers say they will start with some form of legislation first drafted by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, which was the basis for the bill that was approved earlier this year by the Senate.

More than 900 illegal immigrants have been identified and placed in deportation proceedings since April, when the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office launched a federal program to check the status of those arrested.

Now sheriff's officials want to hire more deputies to keep up with the caseload.

Of the 930 illegal immigrants identified in Mecklenburg County, 450 would have been released were it not for the program. At least 128 already have been deported. They were arrested most commonly on driving while impaired or traffic violations.

"That success, frankly, has triggered interest throughout the country," Julie Myers, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said Monday. She was joined by Sheriff Jim Pendergraph and Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., of Charlotte, who provided updates on the program.

Trouble is, as Pendergraph explained, even though this tremendously effective program exists already, it carries the same problems that overall failed illegal immigration enforcement suffers: Lack of resources.

“The Removal and Detention Division of ICE is overwhelmed by the numbers we are generating for removal in Mecklenburg County alone,” Pendergraph said in August.

Unfortunately, little can be done without the financing to make 287(g) work on a broad basis. President Bush has shown to have a weak stomach for the enforcement issue, and now has a Congress coming in January that is balking at funding for 700 miles of border fence that was authorized earlier this year.

That adds to the problem, as Pendergraph says he regularly sees repeat offenders who have been deported in the past. Suspects can return easily because they agree to voluntary removal in exchange for law enforcement dropping charges against them.

“This, in effect, wipes the slate clean for a criminal, gives him/her a free ride home at taxpayer expense to visit family, and then begin the journey back to the United States to victimize other U.S. citizens,” Pendergraph said.

The sheriff’s experience clearly points to a multi-pronged problem that only a comprehensive, determined approach will resolve. Naysayers claim a border fence won’t work, you can’t round up all those illegals, etc. They basically are changing the subject by ignoring the need for a broad solution.

Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.

The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.

Two Texas Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug runner in the backside while on duty turned themselves in to U.S. Marshals Wednesday.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for the February 2005 non-fatal shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

Several groups, including Friends of the Border Patrol, The Minutemen and Grassfire.org, have been trying through petitions to keep the agents out of prison — either by a motion to allow them to remain free on bond during an appeal or through a presidential pardon.

"This ruling by Judge Cardone is the most disgraceful act that I have ever heard of in the history of our great nation and both she and the prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves for taking the word of a drug smuggler, caught in the act, while ignoring the facts," Friends of the Border Patrol Chairman Andy Ramirez wrote in a statement.

"Evidence that would have severely damaged the credibility of the known drug smuggler, and exonerated Compean & Ramos was sealed and suppressed and the attorneys were prevented from mounting a proper defense."

Ramirez said El Paso Border Patrol chiefs Robert Gilbert and Luis Barker and Robert Gilbert have hung their agents out to dry.

"I must remind the public that narcotic traffickers and human smugglers laugh at law enforcement as they know that the Johnny Sutton's of DOJ will not prosecute them, and instead will prosecute officers who do their job and keep that poison off our streets and out of our schools, parks, and neighborhoods," Ramirez wrote.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Fox News is reporting that President Bush is considering pardoning the jailed Border Patrol Officers.

Good. I hope he does.

---

Cute as a button, but dumb as a post is the best way to describe Kyrsten Sinema, a former Green Party member turned Democrat, who has introduced HB2286, which states in part:

"Domestic terrorism; classification...An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon."

While Rep Sinema's intended target is clearly the Minutemen, other groups, including Neighborhood Watch could just as easily be interpreted as domestic terrorist.

What crime exactly is the Minuteman Project and Neighborhood Watch guilty of? Why, informing local and federal law enforcement agencies when they detect illegal activity of course.