Thread: Spending bill could alter border fence law

Dec. 17, 2007, 7:57PM
Spending bill could alter border fence law


By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A massive spending bill Congress is expected to pass this week provides at least $1.2 billion for construction of a border fence and border security equipment, but eases mandates on where fencing should be built, how it should look and how much to build.

The pending bill, scheduled for a House vote late Monday, would tweak a 2006 law mandating 700 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border that the Homeland Security Department has been racing to fulfill. The Senate was expected to consider the bill on Wednesday.

A provision sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, would modify the law that requires at least two layers of fencing and specifically spells out where that fencing should be built in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.

But Hutchison's measure says the Homeland Security secretary should build fencing on no less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing "would be most practical and effective."

It also requires the secretary to complete 370 miles, "or other mileage," of fencing as the secretary determines is needed by Dec. 31, 2008.

It allows the Homeland Security secretary to dispense with fencing, physical barriers, lighting, cameras and sensors at particular parts of the border where he determines those resources are not needed.

Hutchison wanted to ensure local officials, including local Border Patrol chiefs, were consulted in determining where the fence would go, but she is not trying to block fence construction, her spokesman Matt Mackowiak said.

"Senator Hutchison believes Customs and Border Protection can better make decisions about resource allocation along the border than members who have never been to the region," he said.

The bill would require the department to consult with the Interior Department and Agriculture secretaries, local governments, Indian tribes and property owners to reduce the impact of fencing on the environment, culture, commerce and quality of life for communities and local residents.

That provision was written by Hutchison and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, in response to protests from Texas business and city officials and residents who have demanded more input on the agency's fence-building plans in their communities. Money won't be released to the department for fencing and other border protection until the consultation takes place.

"We value the input of local officials and other stakeholders when it comes to border infrastructure, and we go to great lengths to listen to their perspective," Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said. "But we're ultimately going to rely on the Border Patrol to tell us what type of fencing, technology or other infrastructure they need and where they need it."

Hutchison voted for the fence law Congress passed just before the 2006 elections. She tried unsuccessfully to add a provision that required local input.

The proposed changes drew protests from fence backers. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the proposed measure "significantly alters" the law.

"By eliminating the double fence requirement, the Democratic Congress is going to make it easier for drug and human smugglers to cross our southern land border," Hunter said. "This goes against the interests of any family that has been touched by illegal drugs or any American who has seen their job taken by an illegal alien."

Congress also would require the Homeland Security secretary to submit a plan on the border fence to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which would withhold about $650 million until the plan is submitted and approved.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 85676.html

Bill guts border fence requirement
Would eliminate 854-mile barrier approved by Congress

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 17, 2007
10:02 p.m. Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Republican presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter is blasting a Democrat-sponsored bill that would eliminate the requirement passed by Congress to build a double-layered fence covering 854 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.

"By eliminating the double fence requirement, the Democratic Congress is going to make it easier for drug and human smugglers to cross our Southern land border," said Hunter. "This goes against the interests of any family that has been touched by illegal drugs or any American who has seen their job taken by an illegal alien."

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill would specifically eliminate the mandate of the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

As WND reported last week, an amendment submitted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and co-sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, for the Department of Homeland Security 2008 budget was aimed at gutting the already-approved Secure Fence Act, which was adopted with the promise hundreds of miles of physical fencing would help secure the U.S. border with Mexico.

The Hutchison amendment allows the secretary of homeland security to use discretion in deciding whether a fence was the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control along the border with Mexico.

DHS is on record as preferring in many instances the construction of "pedestrian fences" or "virtual fences" instead of double-layered barriers as required in the 2006 law.

"The Hutchison amendment gives DHS virtually total discretion over how and where the fence is built," said Steve Elliott, president of the activist group Grassfire.org.

He explained the DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location and the double-layer mandate would be "totally gone."

"I find it odd that such an important amendment which releases DHS from specific requirements of an existing law would be passed by a simple voice vote in the Senate and then buried in the massive omnibus bill," Elliott said.

"The American people reasonably expect that a double-layer fence will be built, but Congress has always had other plans," he argued. "This amendment should be stripped from the bill."

Hunter agreed.

"The success of the San Diego Border Fence demonstrates the overall effectiveness of the double-layered approach and the importance of extending this infrastructure across our southern land border," Hunter said.

"Pulling back from the double-fence mandate is a prescription for failure that will only allow more smugglers, criminals and illegal aliens to enter the United States through our land border with Mexico," the California congressman added.

"If enacted," Hunter concluded, "this legislation would represent a significant step backwards in the effort to secure our borders."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=59251

Has there been anything anywhere about how to allow people to go back if they want to self-deport themselves? I've read several articles about people are unsure how to go back. Afraid of getting caught.

Originally Posted by fedupinwaukegan

Has there been anything anywhere about how to allow people to go back if they want to self-deport themselves? I've read several articles about people are unsure how to go back. Afraid of getting caught.

There's nothing stopping anybody from going across that border in a southerly direction. Nobody stops you, nobody asks for passports or papers, you just go across the border.

At least that's how it was when I lived in San Diego.

Gotcha. Thanks! I read the article about up to one million going back to Mexico for Christmas and writing about guessing how many will stay. Another article implied they were afraid of going -but probably the reality is they are afraid they might not get back.

Thanks for the clarification. I really didn't know how the southern direction was handled...

"I find it odd that such an important amendment which releases DHS from specific requirements of an existing law would be passed by a simple voice vote in the Senate and then buried in the massive omnibus bill," Elliott said.

Isn't that how they usually subvert the 'will of the people' in DC?