Tuesday, March 04, 2008

H. R. 5124 - Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008

I was listening to the words of that great journalist Geraldo Rivera discuss his thoughts on immigration, while promoting his new book, His Panic.

He was comparing the immigration issues of today with those of the 19th century -- the Irish, Italian, and other Europeans. He was talking about the social barriers they faced -- the persecution, the outright distaste many had for them.

Those people came to America legally. The persecution they faced was based, to a large degree, that the established groups were not.

The Hispanics that are in America illegally are net consumers, not producers. Certainly they do jobs that many Americans are unwilling to do at the fees they are willing to do them for. But that does not mean we turn a blind eye to their breaking of the law. They steal identities. They consume social services, at taxpayer expense. They fill the courts and prisons.

Geraldo said: "why isn't there a fence on the northern border?" It is because the border issue is concerned about less terrorism and more economics.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is leading the charge to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to provide for two-layered, 14-foot reinforced fencing along the southwest border.

H. R. 5124 or the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, is responsible legislation.
The recent failure of the highly touted "virtual fence" (that DHS spent more than $20 million developing) is a slap in the face to every citizen who has been demanding control of the borders. But DHS isn't committed to securing the borders. If they were, they would have followed the mandates of the Secure Fence Act, and duplicated the barrier built in San Diego. That 14-mile fence has been extremely effective in lowering illegal crossings and drug traffic. In fact, apprehensions have decreased due to fewer crossings. In simple language, the double-layered fence works.
The bill demands that 700 miles of double-layered fencing must be constructed within six months of the bill’s enactment.

If you'd like to see the legislation progress, sign the Grassfire petition.

Rounding up and deporting all the illegals is not prudent public policy. However, controlling the southern border, due to their corrupt and broken governments and economies, will help us enforce prudent immigration policies including deporting illegal immigrating criminals and discourage the out of control flow of humans.

1 comment:

NO BORDER WALL said...

No matter how you feel about controlling the influx of immigrants, the border wall is not the way to achieve anything. It does not work. In Hunter's San Diego district, where there have been double walls for a decade, the Border Patrol reported a 7% increase in crossings in fiscal 2007. Compare that to wall-less Texas. The Rio Grande Valley saw a 34% decrease, bringing crossings to a 15 year low. Del Rio sector saw a 45% decrease in crossings. So where Duncan's wall stands, more and more people are coming across. Where there is no wall, fewer and fewer people enter. The border wall is a complete failure, but building it will cost $46 billion according to the Congressional Research Service, and will lead to the bulldozing of homes, the destruction of farms and ranches, and the flattening of federal wildlife refuges. Hunter sees the wall as a political prop that looks good in the background of his campaign ads. He does not care about the US citizens who have to pay the price for his failure.