Thread: Illegal Immigration Tab: $44 Billion

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... L4I8S1.DTL

(09-13) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The federal government will spend $44 billion on immigration enforcement this year and next, including the creation of a mammoth new "virtual fence" along the Southwest border, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee for Homeland Security told Republican leaders Tuesday.

With pivotal November midterm elections just two months away, Republicans and Democrats vied to show they are tougher than the other party when it comes to illegal immigration. The results so far show that while a broad overhaul of immigration law is dead for the year, both parties retain a large appetite to spend heavily on tightening enforcement of current law.

Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., presented the border spending figures at an unusual "forum," in which House GOP committee chairmen reported their findings from nearly two dozen immigration hearings they held across the country this summer.

House Republican leaders vowed to push even more border-enforcement measures through Congress before adjourning, part of a broader drive to make national security their campaign theme this fall.

They find themselves in something of a political bind, however. After passing a border-enforcement-only bill in December that would build a 700-mile fence on the Mexican border and make illegal presence in the country a felony -- spawning nationwide protests by Latinos -- House Republicans rebuffed a bipartisan Senate bill backed by the Bush administration that would combine a border crackdown with broader avenues for people to enter the country legally.

That killed any chance for a broad overhaul of immigration law this year -- including the tougher border measures -- leaving House Republicans little to show voters in the way of results on an issue they have made the linchpin of their effort to retain their endangered House majority.

Democrats were not invited to Tuesday's forum, which they ridiculed as a sham. But far from feeling cornered into approving more measures to crack down on the border, they said they would be happy to vote for such things because they've been proposing many of them for years, only to see them rejected by Republicans.

"They're the ones on the spot," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "They're in control. For 12 years they've done nothing. Now with 12 days left (to adjournment) before voters decide whether or not they're going to remain in control, they're trying to look like they're doing something."

Lofgren said that if Republicans "propose the same things we propose, which is enhanced Border Patrol and the like, I'm sure we'll vote for it. We all already voted for it. Not only did we vote for it, we proposed it."

House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said GOP leaders may attach border measures piecemeal to various appropriations bills. That tactic has already been used in the Senate, which approved an amendment by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to add $1.8 million to the military appropriations bill to pay for 370 miles of triple fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers on the border.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois asked Rogers, the Homeland Security appropriations chairman, if it was possible to impose a "no-penetration policy" on the long U.S. land borders -- 2,000 miles with Mexico and 4,000 miles with Canada.

Rogers said such a project is feasible, though it would not be perfect. He also warned that one must consider 12,000 miles of coastline, including the Great Lakes, and the fact that as many as half of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now here enter the country legally but overstay their visas.

Rogers outlined an ambitious project to construct along the Mexican border an "electronic version" of the 14-mile fence at San Diego. The "Secure Border Initiative Net" is estimated to cost $5.5 billion, a figure Rogers said could go higher, and includes aerial drones and all manner of electronic surveillance.

Rogers called the new virtual fence project, which will soon go out to bid, a huge undertaking that aims to gain control of the border within five years.

E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

The money stays in the USA. Provides jobs for Americans. Its our tax money being spent the way we want to spend it.

I was very impressed with the topics brought forth during the hearings. I am also very distraught with many of the revelations that came out of yesterday's hearings/discussion. This country (particularly the border states) are in dire distress and it angers me that Bush is running around the country claiming we are safe. It was heartbreaking hearing how underfunded our border patrol has been and what they endure on a daily basis while Bush is blowing up billions of dollars in Iraq. The marijuana fields being cultivated and guarded by the Mexican druglords along the border is mindboggling. Our national monuments and parks are no longer safe. The Mexican drug addicts have turned them into garbage dumpsters where they discard used needles, wet clothes, backpacks and other trash while sneaking into our country.

It was also revealed that the brother of one of Alquaeda's top terrorist had gained entry into our country THROUGH THE SOUTHERN BORDER. In my mind it has never been a question of if we will be hit again. After the jawdropping revelations of yesterday I only wonder when and where.

How is an invisible fence suppose to stop anyone? Once again Congress wastes money on technology that is pure crap and won't work. It's simple, we need more BP agents, more enforcement and we need to build a real fence, one that keeps people from coming in. Once again Congress has it's head up it's a--.

Originally Posted by dman1200

How is an invisible fence suppose to stop anyone?

I guess it's supposed to stop the "virtual" illegal aliens.