The Hell With Border Security

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Grassley was pushing for an up-or-down vote by the Senate on his amendment, which would have required the border to be secured for six full months before any legalization of illegal immigrants in America began.

I.e., the Twelfth of Never. Of course Reid blocked it, you idiot, just as he should have.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Only if he's trying to kill the bill, you naive dunce.

No, he's trying to kill a "poison pill" amendment, a fact you refuse to acknowledge.

You really are one stupid son of a bitch.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

The measure failed 57 to 43

 

[about_average]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ent?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Grassley was pushing for an up-or-down vote by the Senate on his amendment, which would have required the border to be secured for six full months before any legalization of illegal immigrants in America began.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/12/Cornyn-Releases-Text-of-Border-Security-Amendment

(i) the Secretary has achieved and maintained full situational awareness of the Southern border for the 12-month period immediately preceding such certification;

(ii) the Secretary has achieved and maintained operational control of the Southern border for the 12-month period immediately preceding such certification;

(iii) the Secretary has implemented the mandatory employment verification system required by section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a), as amended by section 3101 of this Act, for use by all employers to prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining employment in the United States; and

(iv) the Secretary has implemented a biometric entry and exit data system at all airports and seaports at which U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel were deployed on the date of the enactment of this Act, and in accordance with the requirements set forth in section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b)

breitbart.com needs to get their story straight.

I also don't find anything defining what "operational control" is exactly so I'm curious how Cornyn expected something to meet a particular certification without defining the parameters.
Also, would the people backing the amendment provide funding to "secure" the border, or would it be an unfunded mandate?

 

[KingOrfeo]

From The Nation:

House GOP Revolt Against Immigration Reform Begins

George Zornick on June 13, 2013 - 3:38 PM ET

The headline-grabbing debate over immigration reform is happening in the Senate this week, as the entire body debates a series of amendments to the comprehensive legislation passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. There is a very real chance that reform could die there—if, for example, Senator John Cornyn’s border security amendment passes, the bill might become unsupportable for many Democrats.

But lurking in the background is an even more difficult fight in the House, where the Republican caucus is much more hostile to reform. House members are beholden to smaller, more conservative districts, and there are no leaders calling for reform analogous to Republicans Marco Rubio and John McCain in the Senate.

This week began with some promising signs from the office of House Speaker John Boehner. For months, he said virtually nothing about his strategy for passing immigration reform—not even whether one existed—but Politico reported Monday that “privately, the Ohio Republican is beginning to sketch out a road map to try to pass some version of an overhaul in his chamber.” The next morning, during an ABC News interview, Boehner hinted that he might allow an immigration bill to pass the House with a majority of Democratic votes, thereby abandoning the so-called “Hastert rule.”

Without question, that was tremendous news for proponents of immigration reform. But don’t think conservatives opposed to any legislation didn’t notice—and the first unified effort by anti-immigration House members might have now begun.

Thursday morning, Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze had the exclusive news that seventy members of the House GOP “are planning a politically risky showdown” with Boehner. Led by Representatives Steve King, Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, the group is demanding two things from Boehner: (1) a special Republican conference meeting about immigration, and (2) a promise to be true to the Hastert Rule.

The caucus meeting could be perilous for Boehner—his strategy of keeping the House at a very low temperature and mollifying, at least for now, the hardline anti-immigration members couldn’t survive a head-to-head confrontation. Boehner would have to address their Hastert rule request directly. (Note, too, that conservative activists also began pressuring Boehner on the Hastert rule this week—the heads of the Club for Growth, Heritage Action, the American Conservative Union and the Family Research Council sent Boehner a letter on Tuesday demanding he never stray from the Hastert rule again.)

Boehner could of course ignore their request for a meeting, but that’s a somewhat unattractive option as well. [UPDATE: Boehner announced late Thursday that on July 10, there will be a caucus-wide meeting on immigration. It’s not immediately clear if he was acting in response to the conservative push, nor whether they will insist on meeting sooner.] The Blaze report said the letter will arrive in Boehner’s office on Friday.

What’s striking—and potentially catastrophic for the GOP, politically—is how direct the leaders of the looming House revolt are about opposing immigration reform. This is in contrast to say John Cornyn, who is at least claiming to support reform but pushing for stronger border security requirements.

Representative King, for example, not long after the Blaze story broke, characterized undocumented students who came to his Capitol Hill office thusly:

Steve King
@SteveKingIA

20 brazen self professed illegal aliens have just invaded my DC office. Obama's lawless order gives them de facto immunity to U.S. law.

11:42 a.m. - 13 Jun 2013

Bachmann just gave an interview to World Net Daily this week that depicted "amnesty" as a master plan to create a permanent “progressive class.” The Blaze included that interview in its exclusive on the new Bachmann-King-Gohmert strategy:


“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands,” Bachmann said.

She also said that if it passes, the bill would create a permanent progressive class.

“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important,” Bachmann said.

And Beck was quick to do his part. Within an hour of The Blaze’s story, Beck appeared on his web television show to herald the House GOP revolt and described it as a potential Waterloo for the entire Tea Party:

These seventy [members] are standing up and saying, ‘Take away all of our power.’ They know that if they lose, they lose. The Tea Party has—this is putting all of the chips on the table. You’ve been asking for it, you’ve been asking for people with a spine.

This one is not going to be easy. They’re going to be called racist, they’re going to be called every name under the sun, and so will you. You have to know why you are for it, why you say… I am not a racist. I am not violent. But I am not going to be silent any more. We have been silent far too long.

You may have noticed Beck’s slight intimation of violence there. As his fifteen-minute rant on the House GOP pushback escalated, he called for both civil disobedience and, apparently, violent struggle:

Is there anything worth losing your life over, more important than this? Is there anything more important than standing up for human dignity? For the rights of all mankind? They are going to try to make this into a civil rights case, and it is not. It is an affront to anyone who understands civil rights. Martin Luther King Jr. was not saying, ‘We’re all breaking the law here.’ Unless the law is unjust, you cannot eat at that supermarket counter. The hell I can’t.

No, I’m not quite sure what that means either. But the point is that Beck wants his audience to see the immigration battle as a must-win, where the entire Tea Party movement is at stake. Seventy House GOP members, including several Tea Party stars, are ready to being the battle. While this was, at some point, inevitable, it's bad news for Boehner, and much more importantly, bad news for immigration reform.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

eh... no matter what, they'll find a way.

 

[eyer]

I live on a stretch of the Texas-Mexico border where the nearest manned Border Patrol stations along that border are over 300 miles apart; there are no "security" walls whatsoever along this 300+ mile stretch, either...

...there are, however, hundreds and hundreds of heavily-armed BPAs, and even more armed citizens.

I hate to bust utopian bubbles, but our roughly 2,000-mile long border with Mexico can never be truly "secure", no matter how militarized the partisan hacks of both parties might ever agree to.

Anyone even suggesting such disingenuous "secure" malarkey should be immediately and totally discounted...

...for they know not what they speak of (thank God for political office so these same people may be employable, at least).

What's truly hilarious is still hearing so many insist on locking the door...

...after millions of foxes are already in the hen house.

 

[landslider2000]

Most incarnations of the proposal also mandate E-Verify only for new employees, thus leaving an unknown-but-likely-massive quantity of illegal aliens.

There are nuances, but for the most part the proposal is amnesty now, security later (translation: never).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Harry Reid really gives a shit about securing the border:

REID BLOCKS SENATE VOTE ON BORDER SECURITY AMENDMENT TO IMMIGRATION BILL

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ent?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

How stupid do Rubio and Coulter look now?

 

[mercury14]

I live on a stretch of the Texas-Mexico border where the nearest manned Border Patrol stations along that border are over 300 miles apart; there are no "security" walls whatsoever along this 300+ mile stretch, either...

...there are, however, hundreds and hundreds of heavily-armed BPAs, and even more armed citizens.

I hate to bust utopian bubbles, but our roughly 2,000-mile long border with Mexico can never be truly "secure", no matter how militarized the partisan hacks of both parties might ever agree to.

Anyone even suggesting such disingenuous "secure" malarkey should be immediately and totally discounted...

...for they know not what they speak of (thank God for political office so these same people may be employable, at least).

What's truly hilarious is still hearing so many insist on locking the door...

...after millions of foxes are already in the hen house.

Vette lives kinda near the border and he says otherwise. Which of you should us nonborder people believe? I mean the border is only the distance my my finger to my thumb on the map, how long can it be????

 

[CandiCame]

I don't even understand why we care about illegal aliens at all. But if we do, then why are we concentrating on a boarder? The vast majority of illegal aliens came into the country legally on visas and then didn't leave when they expired. So that would do... nothing. Boarder security would do nothing. Boarder security isn't about illegal aliens, it's about drug busts. And you already know how I feel about drugs.

 

[CandiCame]

I live on a stretch of the Texas-Mexico border where the nearest manned Border Patrol stations along that border are over 300 miles apart; there are no "security" walls whatsoever along this 300+ mile stretch, either...

...there are, however, hundreds and hundreds of heavily-armed BPAs, and even more armed citizens.

I hate to bust utopian bubbles, but our roughly 2,000-mile long border with Mexico can never be truly "secure", no matter how militarized the partisan hacks of both parties might ever agree to.

Anyone even suggesting such disingenuous "secure" malarkey should be immediately and totally discounted...

...for they know not what they speak of (thank God for political office so these same people may be employable, at least).

What's truly hilarious is still hearing so many insist on locking the door...

...after millions of foxes are already in the hen house.

Isn't it more like foxes in a fox den?

I completely don't understand why we don't want immigrants. What is the problem?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't even understand why we care about illegal aliens at all. But if we do, then why are we concentrating on a boarder? The vast majority of illegal aliens came into the country legally on visas and then didn't leave when they expired. So that would do... nothing. Boarder security would do nothing. Boarder security isn't about illegal aliens, it's about drug busts. And you already know how I feel about drugs.

It is border.

The thing is that they are not willing to assimilate and the Left is willing to embark upon the Babylonization (Balkanization for the younger generation) of the nation in order to grant them reunification of the SW with the old Spanish Empire in the New World.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't think Coulter is supporting the bill. Rubio is naive or just plain stupid.

Naïve and wound up in altruism just like the Left.

They really have all become peas inna pod. I am voting nothing but Libertarian from now on out.

 

[CandiCame]

It is border.

The thing is that they are not willing to assimilate and the Left is willing to embark upon the Babylonization (Balkanization for the younger generation) of the nation in order to grant them reunification of the SW with the old Spanish Empire in the New World.

Assimilate to what? They're coming to the states, the great melting pot. We absorb, not assimilate.

And what does immigration have to do with splitting up territory?

None of that clarifies anything.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We just captured a border bunny who comes to America to kill for the Mexican drug cartels. He says he's killed 30 people so far.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I am voting nothing but Libertarian from now on out.

You do that, Chief. The glibertarian philosophy ("One from column A, one from column B, max rules for thee, max freedom for meeeeee!") seems especially well-suited for your incoherent pastiche of personal beliefs.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't think Coulter is supporting the bill. Rubio is naive or just plain stupid.

Rubio is bought and paid for is what is up with Rubio. He looks like a young curate buts he's an old hack.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Assimilate to what? They're coming to the states, the great melting pot. We absorb, not assimilate.

And what does immigration have to do with splitting up territory?

None of that clarifies anything.

You are not grasping the full effect of what has gone on in the waves of immigration from Mexico.

It is the same reason that Sweden's cars are burning...

Paris too...

The Mexicans do not wish to become United States Citizens, they wish to be Mexicans living in Mexico prior to its defeat at the hands of the United States (when it used to be a Colonial Power and property of Spain). They want to speak Spanish, not English. They do not believe in the principles of the Founding Fathers, they seem to prefer an Oligarchical and Paternalistic rule of government (the former in sync with our Democrats, the latter definitely out of sync with the Democrats in much the same way as Islam fulfills their need to control+.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He says now if Leahy's gay marriage amendment remains in the bill he's pulling his support. What the fuck is a gay marriage amendment doing in an immigration bill in the first place.

Mexicans and Islamists are strong proponents of the militant homosexual agenda.

It fits in perfectly.