Border security...

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
Why is it that this admin refuses to see our borders as a priority for Homeland Security? I feel the 'Making America Safer' slogan that is spewed so often couldn't be more wrong. I must be missing something, I consider the joke that is airport and seaport security combined with open borders to be somewhat counterproductive in a time of war.

Anyone?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I think borders are being patrolled very well. Do you have evidence that they are not?
When you have a government the size of the US's, you can afford to do many things at once and just because something doesnt get a lot of press doesnt mean it's not working.
I know of a lot of canadians, especially my persian friends who have had one hell of a time getting to the US and whatnot.
Security is high, and i suspect that mexico's is even worse than here.

I don't understand where you are getting this "open border" concept from :p
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: kage69
Why is it that this admin refuses to see our borders as a priority for Homeland Security? I feel the 'Making America Safer' slogan that is spewed so often couldn't be more wrong. I must be missing something, I consider the joke that is airport and seaport security combined with open borders to be somewhat counterproductive in a time of war.

Anyone?

What exactly do you mean? Do you think that there are just 8-lane highways of traffic rushing across the borders without nary an inspection or stop? I assure you that's not the case.

What more so you want? Do you want to prevent *all* foreign nationists from entering the country? Close all international airports? Station armored tanks at the border crossings?

I thought the Dems here disliked Bush for his isolationist views? I thought there was outrage at every airport search that caused someone a bit of inconvenience?

I know *I* don't feel unsafe because of our "open border" policy. Why do you?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
Keep in mind the normal points of legal entry into the country aren't the only options for would-be-terrorists and spies. Even if that wasn't the case, I doubt any terrorist with experience or good training would be hard pressed to circumvent the efforts of say, the TSA (don't even get me started on them!)
I'm aware of the push for biometrics to be utilized in airports and such, as well as some attempts by the State Dept. to get Mexico and Canada to beef up their border security (appears to have worked pretty good with Canada, Mexico however is another story).
Regardless, I think we can agree that terrorists infiltrating our borders is the foremost worry. In light of not possessing advanced delievery systems for weapons, simply walking in would be the most practical and cost effective way to attack the US.


I think borders are being patrolled very well. Do you have evidence that they are not?

I don't consider thousands of illegal aliens crossing our borders in a time of war to be a very good indication of security.
Some disturbing figures...



An interesting read...


 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Not too difficult to get a boat/yacht up, say, Chesapeake Bay or New York Harbor that's loaded up with explosives.

But, how would you guard against that? Search every ship entering U.S. waters? That's pretty much impossible w/o a huge amount of manpower and the costs related to that.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
The Guest Worker Program is a great way to realize border security as well! Keep pushing for it Bush!!! Cuz we just know that after 3,6 years, they are just willingly going to return to Mexico.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
What exactly do you mean? Do you think that there are just 8-lane highways of traffic rushing across the borders without nary an inspection or stop? I assure you that's not the case.

Gee, thanks. I feel so much better now.

What more so you want? Do you want to prevent *all* foreign nationists from entering the country? Close all international airports? Station armored tanks at the border crossings?

Prevent? No. Screen and enforce use of legal ports-of-access, absolutely. Why would I want to close all international airports? Armored tanks? As opposed to the unarmored kind? I applaud your attempts at thought provoking input, but all you're doing here is exaggerating over assumptions.

I thought the Dems here disliked Bush for his isolationist views? I thought there was outrage at every airport search that caused someone a bit of inconvenience?

I wouldn't know about that, I'm not a dem and my beef with Bush focuses more on his idealogical agenda and lack of honesty and integrity. I was one of the people applauding airport security taking it's job seriously and was telling the others to stop bitching about tardiness when it's vastly preferable to death.

I know *I* don't feel unsafe because of our "open border" policy. Why do you?

Because I know our borders are anything but secure and don't buy the 'making America safer' mantra. I'm sorry you take exception to my phrasing the border as 'open,' but the 24million illegals (and 6000-10000 arriving every day) already here point to it being anything but closed or judiciously monitored.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
The Guest Worker Program is a great way to realize border security as well! Keep pushing for it Bush!!! Cuz we just know that after 3,6 years, they are just willingly going to return to Mexico.

Hilarious isn't it?
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: kage69
What exactly do you mean? Do you think that there are just 8-lane highways of traffic rushing across the borders without nary an inspection or stop? I assure you that's not the case.

Gee, thanks. I feel so much better now.

What more so you want? Do you want to prevent *all* foreign nationists from entering the country? Close all international airports? Station armored tanks at the border crossings?

Prevent? No. Screen and enforce use of legal ports-of-access, absolutely. Why would I want to close all international airports? Armored tanks? As opposed to the unarmored kind? I applaud your attempts at thought provoking input, but all you're doing here is exaggerating over assumptions.

I thought the Dems here disliked Bush for his isolationist views? I thought there was outrage at every airport search that caused someone a bit of inconvenience?

I wouldn't know about that, I'm not a dem and my beef with Bush focuses more on his idealogical agenda and lack of honesty and integrity. I was one of the people applauding airport security taking it's job seriously and was telling the others to stop bitching about tardiness when it's vastly preferable to death.

I know *I* don't feel unsafe because of our "open border" policy. Why do you?

Because I know our borders are anything but secure and don't buy the 'making America safer' mantra.

*sigh* If you just want to make a circle-jerk thread for everyone to come in and agree with you, go to OT or something. I assumed you posted this here for discussion and debate. Perhaps it was the "Anyone?" at the end of your post that lead me to that conclusion..

Regardless. You still haven't really made any suggestions. You seem to think there is some gaping holes in our border security (that you consider a "joke,") but not everyone sees it that way. I read your links (ignoring the first one) and didn't see anything that supported your fears regarding safety.

Are there lots of illegal immigrants coming up from south of the border? Yep, looks like it. What do you want to do? If even you took the entire budget spent on the Iraq war and tripled it, you're still not going to be able to secure the damn thing. It's a fool-hardy idea to even try.

Can something be done to stem the flow? Sure, lots of things can be done. But what is this going to gain us? You'll just make it such that the only people who can sneak into the US are those who are very determined to do so. So what did you accomplish? You prevented those people who are poor and are looking for a better life for themselves and their families from entering the country, that's it. It's like gun control. Some think it will make everyone safer, when in reality, it only prevents the "good guys' from owning guns and doesn't affect the criminals much at all. Those with tons of cash and little regard for the possibility of loss of life will still find a way around. Sorry, that doesn't *me* feel a whole lot safer.

I'm sure you've heard Franklin's quote many times..

  • "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security,"
.. but it still rings true today. Not all of us are gung-ho about having our military walking our own streets, harrasing everyone in the name of "security." If anything, I feel that the current balance between liberty and safety is tilted a bit too far towards safety. I'd much rather see some of the freedom-limiting statutes disappear, even if it means there might exist the possiblity of some "bad guys" getting into the country.

I love my family and want to protect them. Because of this, I may lock my doors at night, but I'm not going to install bars on my windows and an electrified fence around my yard.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
*sigh* If you just want to make a circle-jerk thread for everyone to come in and agree with you, go to OT or something.

:cookie:

I assumed you posted this here for discussion and debate. Perhaps it was the "Anyone?" at the end of your post that lead me to that conclusion..

..but that didn't stop you from posting assumptions, exaggerations, and speculation now did it? Sounds like you're the one that should be prancing off to OT...

Regardless. You still haven't really made any suggestions.

Is that what you want? Suggestions? Then make a thread for it. I wasn't offering suggestions, I was asking a question. No one is forcing you to answer it, but if you're going to try at least give it some effort instead of trying to change the subject.

You seem to think there is some gaping holes in our border security (that you consider a "joke,") but not everyone sees it that way. I read your links (ignoring the first one) and didn't see anything that supported your fears regarding safety.

Do I really need to draw you a picture? I refuse to believe you are this dense.

Are there lots of illegal immigrants coming up from south of the border? Yep, looks like it. What do you want to do? If even you took the entire budget spent on the Iraq war and tripled it, you're still not going to be able to secure the damn thing. It's a fool-hardy idea to even try.

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the issue, you'd know that it's not solely job-seeking Mexicans running the gauntlet down there. On top of that, you're avoiding the question and trying to change it. But I'll indulge you anyways - we have unmanned recon drones able to loiter over huge areas for days, is it really a stretch to expect the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet to use them towards it's own domestic security? You're the fool for suggesting it's impossible - these are our own borders we're talking about, not a manned mission to Jupiter!

Can something be done to stem the flow? Sure, lots of things can be done. But what is this going to gain us?

Security. Preservation of the status of citizenship. Reduced costs in auto insurance. Satisfaction of living up to our own immigration laws. Pick one.

You'll just make it such that the only people who can sneak into the US are those who are very determined to do so.

Objection, abject speculation your Honor...
Iinterestingly enough, this faulty reasoning can apply to our current modes of security as well - by that rational why bother attempting to secure the country at all?

You prevented those people who are poor and are looking for a better life for themselves and their families from entering the country, that's it.

People are more than welcome to pursue a better life here in the States, provided they do so through the proper legal channels. Is the phrase "ILLEGAL alien" completely lost upon you? Seems so.

It's like gun control.

Sorry, but I won't be pulled into debating your straw man. Completely different issue.

I'm sure you've heard Franklin's quote many times..

It is not the job of the USA to afford liberty or security to foreigners, period. Seems you should find a better quote.

Not all of us are gung-ho about having our military walking our own streets, harrasing everyone in the name of "security." If anything, I feel that the current balance between liberty and safety is tilted a bit too far towards safety. I'd much rather see some of the freedom-limiting statutes disappear, even if it means there might exist the possiblity of some "bad guys" getting into the country.

Another strawman. Or maybe I missed where I was advocating the need for the military to patrol our streets...

I love my family and want to protect them. Because of this, I may lock my doors at night, but I'm not going to install bars on my windows and an electrified fence around my yard.

I believe you, although I fail to see how this is relevent.

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I think the border is well protected. I can see if you showed that the aliens are terrorizing the US, but this is not the case.
The border, northern at the very least is well maintained and has been for years, especially considering 9/11.

With a declining birth rate, the US and the rest of the 1st world will be relying on immigrants to continue to grow. This is what the US itself has projected it will do. In 50 years they hope to take the population from 300 to 450 million.

I wouldn't worry bout the aliens, i don't think they will hurt you ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Nobody wants to tackle this real program because immigrants vote. Probably vote in higher numbers as a % than established voters.

Our border security still needs some work. When you have 3 million a year circumventing it then we have a major problem.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
I wouldn't worry bout the aliens, i don't think they will hurt you

It seems despite my attempts to emphasize terrorism as my source of worry (facilitated by our porous borders) you are bent on making this an issue of immigration status.

Let me be clear, things like this are what get me.

From link: "As part of the GAO investigation, agents from the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), attempted to enter the United States at air, land, and sea ports of entry using fictitious identities and counterfeit documents. From October 2002 through January 2003, the agents entered various points of entry across the U.S. without ever having the authenticity of their counterfeit documents questions. In addition, on two occasions, no identification documents were requested upon entry."

I'd like to think preventing say, a dirty bomb from going off in our own country is more important than appealing to the sensitivities of those who used to be, or are related to, people living in our country illegally, but hey, that's just me. I hope this clears it up a little stunt.



From the 9/11 Commission:


Terrorist Travel
More than 500 million people annually cross U.S. borders at legal entry points, about 330 million of them noncitizens. Another 500,000 or more enter illegally without inspection across America's thousands of miles of land borders or remain in the country past the expiration of their permitted stay. The challenge for national security in an age of terrorism is to prevent the very few people who may pose overwhelming risks from entering or remaining in the United States undetected.31

In the decade before September 11, 2001, border security-encompassing travel, entry, and immigration-was not seen as a national security matter. Public figures voiced concern about the "war on drugs," the right level and kind of immigration, problems along the southwest border, migration crises originating in the Caribbean and elsewhere, or the growing criminal traffic in humans. The immigration system as a whole was widely viewed as increasingly dysfunctional and badly in need of reform. In national security circles, however, only smuggling of weapons of mass destruction carried weight, not the entry of terrorists who might use such weapons or the presence of associated foreign-born terrorists.

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.

In their travels, terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas, specific travel methods and routes, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, supportive travel agencies, and immigration and identity fraud. These can sometimes be detected.

Before 9/11, no agency of the U.S. government systematically analyzed terrorists' travel strategies. Had they done so, they could have discovered the ways in which the terrorist predecessors to al Qaeda had been systematically but detectably exploiting weaknesses in our border security since the early 1990s.

We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U.S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers.32

Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda's planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.33

Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.

Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.


 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: kage69

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the issue, you'd know that it's not solely job-seeking Mexicans running the gauntlet down there. On top of that, you're avoiding the question and trying to change it. But I'll indulge you anyways - we have unmanned recon drones able to loiter over huge areas for days, is it really a stretch to expect the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet to use them towards it's own domestic security? You're the fool for suggesting it's impossible - these are our own borders we're talking about, not a manned mission to Jupiter!

So you want to employ multi-billion dollar anti-terrorists spy aircraft to patrol the Mexican border for illegal aliens crossing over? That doesn't seem a bit like overkill to you? Hell, I work for a company that *makes* UAVs for the military, and even I can't support this waste of money/equipment for such a trivial issue.


Can something be done to stem the flow? Sure, lots of things can be done. But what is this going to gain us?

Security. Preservation of the status of citizenship. Reduced costs in auto insurance. Satisfaction of living up to our own immigration laws. Pick one.

What security are you gaining? You refuse to answer this with each post. Do these illegal Mexican immigrants have direct ties to Al Queda or something? Preservation of citizenship and lower auto insurance rates? That's what makes you feel safer? That's what the current administration and the DoHS should be concerned about? :confused:

I'm sure you've heard Franklin's quote many times..

It is not the job of the USA to afford liberty or security to foreigners, period. Seems you should find a better quote.
[/quote]

This quote is saying that the cost/benefit ratio for feeling "safer" is rarely worth the the loss of freedoms needed to obtain this false sense of security. Neither I nor Franklin are talking about those darn "foreigners," but rather the citizens of the US.



Now, here's a little exercise. I whittled out the valid points in your last post, dropping the insults and such. I will now freely admit that you are a better person than me, your penis is bigger than mine, your breath smells better, and your dog is smarter than mine, if you will just *please* address my points with valid counterpoints, and leave the macho internet-rage and insults out of your posts. If you can't do that, I'll just find a new thread to debate in and drop this pointlessness, no hard feelings.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I love it when people who don't know what the hell they are talking about discuss security. Look at our borders. The VAST majority of people using them (ground, sea and air) are legal and have a good reason to be coming into the country. The number of actual attackers is very, very low.

As far as screening goes, we have two choices on a scale. Either we get a lot of false positives (otherwise known as making the system much slower and more of a hassle for regular people) or we get false negatives (letting the bad guys through). Now it's a sliding scale, BUT the problem of percentages comes in again. Even a system that is 99% accurate at identifying the bad guys would delay many thousands of good guys for every bad guy it caught. "Magic" systems are proposed all the time, the latest buzzword being "biometric". Except that the same problem still applies, a system that catches all the bad guys will slow down the whole process...and beyond a certain point it is actually more harmful to slow traffic to a crawl than it is to let some bad people through.

So it's a trade-off. You put in place a good balance of speed and security. People arguing for perfect security are missing the point of the systems. How do we get perfect airport security? Screeners unpacking your luggage, examining every item in minute detail, and repacking it. You would be made to disrobe and your clothes would be searched in the same way. Full body cavity searches as well. Perfect, nobody could get a weapon through screening. And it would make the air travel system uselessly slow. So it's not "perfect" because it causes problems far in excess of what it was trying to solve.

Now maybe border security could find a better balance of speed and security, more security without slowing things down, right? What is your basis for thinking that? Sure, maybe 9/11 could have been prevented if we could have somehow identified those 15 out of 19 hijackers out of the 10s of millions of people who used the same systems they did without making the whole system too slow to be useful. And yet I don't think our security people are that dumb, if it was possible I think they would have done it already.

Edit: I suggest reading the excellent intro book to thinking about security, "Beyond Fear". It makes a lot of good points about the basic ideas of security that a lot of people really should take a little more time to consider.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
Why is it that this admin refuses to see our borders as a priority for Homeland Security? I feel the 'Making America Safer' slogan that is spewed so often couldn't be more wrong. I must be missing something, I consider the joke that is airport and seaport security combined with open borders to be somewhat counterproductive in a time of war.

Anyone?

I think you've been watching Lou Dobbs too much :p

But seriously, our borders do need more security.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,444
47,818
136
So you want to employ multi-billion dollar anti-terrorists spy aircraft to patrol the Mexican border for illegal aliens crossing over? That doesn't seem a bit like overkill to you? Hell, I work for a company that *makes* UAVs for the military, and even I can't support this waste of money/equipment for such a trivial issue.

Ok, one more time - the illegal alien problem is an indicator that our border security sucks. There is little preventing Iranian agents or al Qaeda terrorists from accessing the country in the exact same manner - I don't think I can spell it out any easier for you. And I've got news for you, our unmanned drones come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and prices. A simple drone capable of day and nightime recon along our own borders wouldn't cost as much as these "multi-billion dollar aircraft" This job doesn't call for a Hellfire equipped Predator, so stop playing dumb. And I used the UAVs as an example, help watching our borders could come in the form of ground-sensors or satellite imaging. These are just ideas, for all I know they are in the works, I don't know - hence me asking the original question. I've yet to see anything from you beyond 'Well I feel safe enough, why don't you?'

What security are you gaining?

Hopefully fewer foreign nationals of questionable backgrounds! The added benefit would be a dramatic reduction in the normal Mexicans here illegally.

Do these illegal Mexican immigrants have direct ties to Al Queda or something?

STOP BEING A MORON! If a Mexican can stroll across the border, a terrorist in Mexico can do the same!

This quote is saying that the cost/benefit ratio for feeling "safer" is rarely worth the the loss of freedoms needed to obtain this false sense of security. Neither I nor Franklin are talking about those darn "foreigners," but rather the citizens of the US.

So am I. What essential liberty of yours would be infringed upon by our borders being closed to illegals?

Now, here's a little exercise. I whittled out the valid points in your last post, dropping the insults and such. I will now freely admit that you are a better person than me, your penis is bigger than mine, your breath smells better, and your dog is smarter than mine, if you will just *please* address my points with valid counterpoints, and leave the macho internet-rage and insults out of your posts.

When I insult you, you'll know it. I've answered your questions just fine, whether you choose to accept them is another matter it seems. From post #1, you've done little besides appeal to your own assumptions, put up a few strawmen, go upon generalizations, and rely on speculation. Why is it you can't address MY points? Why is it you seem so bent on being purposefully obtuse? It's like you're convinced that there are only Mexicans in Mexico, amazing...

If you can't do that, I'll just find a new thread to debate in and drop this pointlessness, no hard feelings.

Well, I've already pretty much given up on waiting for something of merit from you, so you leaving won't exactly destroy the thread. Yes, go find a new thread, no hard feelings.






I think you've been watching Lou Dobbs too much


:laugh: I can honestly say I've never even watched him once. Sorry.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
What about areas in the borders where there is very little screening? or possibly none at all?

Why not have a National ID card system :D
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
1. The War on Terror is a farce, distracting from the need for natural resources beyond OPEC's control.
2. The dept. of Homeland Security has had more than a few quitters; giving people immense goals, and not giving them the power and responsibility to get them done.
3. The drug trade/war and good Mexican relations both rely on an undefended and open border.
4. The task would be difficult at best, but impossible without bringing a lot of people back to the US to do the job, thus cutting down on corporate colonialism.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: kage69
Why is it that this admin refuses to see our borders as a priority for Homeland Security? I feel the 'Making America Safer' slogan that is spewed so often couldn't be more wrong. I must be missing something, I consider the joke that is airport and seaport security combined with open borders to be somewhat counterproductive in a time of war.

Anyone?



The borders are an issue and current policy is broken. As long as the economy is mexico is broken, we are going to immagration problems from the south. We either need build walls and man them with snipers, or try to document the flood coming across.

Since we are nation of immigrants, I dont beleive walls and snipers are the answer.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: kage69
Why is it that this admin refuses to see our borders as a priority for Homeland Security? I feel the 'Making America Safer' slogan that is spewed so often couldn't be more wrong. I must be missing something, I consider the joke that is airport and seaport security combined with open borders to be somewhat counterproductive in a time of war.

Anyone?



The borders are an issue and current policy is broken. As long as the economy is mexico is broken, we are going to immagration problems from the south. We either need build walls and man them with snipers, or try to document the flood coming across.

Since we are nation of immigrants, I dont beleive walls and snipers are the answer.


How about quicksand
or moats with alligators :D



 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Well, our country is going to have to do with 10,000 fewer border agents:


Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...cle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL
Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."

Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.

"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."

Some Republicans also were displeased.

"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."

The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes.
I really feel so much safer now! :D
 

MIDIman

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
3,594
0
0
I haven't read everything in this discussion yet, but did anyone here listen to Chris Core this evening? He had this crazy idea about building a 50' wall across the 1000 miles or so Mexican border. The topic was in relation to this article on Washington Times. He's actually still talking about it now if you want to listen to it.

A bit far-fetched in my opinion, but really, if its a given fact by all of our agencies that they WILL come over the Mexican border with WMD (as seen in the article above), how do we stop them from doing it?