Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/29/congressman-says-borders-secure/


Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. (AP)



A California congressman known for edgy sarcasm mocked an opponent of illegal immigration during a town hall meeting last week, asking, "Who are you going to kill today?" before the constituent, a self-identified Minuteman, posed his question.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government's lack of activity on border security.

"We can't get enough Minutemen armed. We'd like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here," Stark said.

Eventually, members of the audience urged Stark to offer a serious answer.

"If you knew anything about our borders, you would know that's not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you," Stark said, drawing jeers.

Stark resumed his hostile act, asking the Minuteman what he would do to secure the border.

"I would send about about 25,000 troops for one thing and build a wall down so vehicles could not pass," the Minuteman said.

"How high and long would it be?" Stark asked.

"As high and as long as it takes," the Minuteman said, elicting cheers.

Stark said he would start a ladder company with the Minuteman if he designed the wall and doesn't shoot the people coming over.

"But I've got to know how high the wall is and I'll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come," Stark said.

"This is a very serious matter and you're sitting there making fun of it," the Minuteman responded.

"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.

Stark made the comment last week at a town hall audience that included Steve Kemp, a member of the Golden State Minutemen, a group that opposes illegal immigrants.Kemp recorded the confrontation.

The clash came as the national spotlight focuses on Arizona tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants and the protests it is drawing across the country, including a legal challenge from the federal


The tea potty/ minutemen folks sure are funny..

[LnGrrrR]

"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.

Bwahahah!

[boutons_deux]

AlterNet

The Border Is More Secure Today Than Ever Before -- Now What?

By Michele Waslin, Immigration Impact
Posted on June 29, 2010, Printed on June 29, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147371/

In response to repeated calls for “securing the border,” the Center for American Progress sponsored a panel discussion and released a new report, Brick by Brick: A Half-Decade of Immigration Enforcement and the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The panelists made it clear that “securing the border first” is an empty demand because the border is more secure than ever, immigration enforcement has increased dramatically, and what’s needed now to further secure the border is comprehensive immigration reform. It is also clear that restrictionists and others on the “enforcement first” bandwagon have not been paying attention.

The paper’s author, Former DHS Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy Stewart Verdery and panelist DHS Principal Deputy General Counsel David Martin pointed out that the federal government has spent billions of dollars on border and interior enforcement over the last several years, and that “the enforcement capabilities and resources now available to law enforcement are considerably stronger than during the intense debates of the last decade.”

The failed 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill included enforcement “benchmarks” that DHS would have to reach before other elements of the bill could be enacted. These benchmarks included:

* Establishing operational control of the Mexican border
* Expanding Border Patrol staffing
* Constructing strong physical and electronic border barriers
* Implementing a “catch and return” policy
* Deploying workplace enforcement tools

Verdery and the other panelists systematically listed all of the enforcement enhancements that have been put in place since then and demonstrated that all of these benchmarks have been met.

* The Secretary of DHS has established and demonstrated operational control; CBP’s budget and personnel has increased; apprehensions along the border have decreased.

* The Border Patrol has 20,000 full-time agents.

* At least 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, and 105 ground-based radar and camera towers have been installed, and four unmanned aerial vehicles are in operation.

* DHS is detaining all removable immigrants apprehended at the border, except in certain humanitarian circumstances.

* The E-Verify system has grown exponentially, and employer audits have led to 2,069 audits targeting employers for hiring unauthorized workers.

Verdery also pointed to US-VISIT, the 287(g) conference, the Visa Security Program, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and other enforcement initiatives that have expanded DHS’s immigration enforcement efforts and resources in the years since CIR failed.

The panelists concluded that it is imperative that we move forward with CIR; there are no more excuses. Panelist Ted Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations stated that “reform is being held hostage to an idea of border security that isn’t defined.” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has said that those opposed to CIR keep “moving the goalposts.” David Martin stated, “It is artificial to separate out border security and make it a condition for reform.”

Once again, those who call for “enforcement first” have been put on the spot. Will any amount of enforcement ever be enough to move them to the next step? Will they continue to move the goalposts? Or will they finally recognize that comprehensive immigration reform is ultimately about securing our borders?

Michele Waslin is Senior Policy Analyst with the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Council and a writer for their Immigration Impact blog.
© 2010 Immigration Impact All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147371/

===========

Whatever Magic Negro comes up with as CIR, the Repugs will object.

[George Gervin's Afro]

State & Local
Brewer Slams Administration Over Smuggler Warning Signs in Arizona Desert


Published June 29, 2010
| FOXNews.com

Print Email Share Comments (61) Text Size


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is shown next to a warning sign in the desert in a campaign ad. (Governor Jan Brewer 2010)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is slamming the Obama administration over government signs posted in the Arizona desert warning visitors to beware of illegal smugglers, saying the signs are hardly the kind of border security plan her state needs.

"This is an outrage," Brewer said in a new reelection campaign ad.

The ad shows the governor standing next to one of the warning signs in the middle of the Arizona desert, 80 miles from the border and, according to the ad, 30 miles from Phoenix. The signs have in recent weeks drawn attention from border-state lawmakers who say they demonstrate how unsafe the region has become. In the ad, Brewer noted that she recently met with President Obama, who "promised that we would get word" on the administration's border security plan.

"Well, we finally got the message -- these signs. These signs, calling our desert an active drug and human smuggling area. These signs warning people of danger and telling them to stay away," Brewer said in the ad. "Washington says our border is as safe as it has ever been. Does this look safe to you?"

The ad ended with a confrontational message: "Washington is broken, Mr. President. Do your job. Secure our borders. Arizona and the nation are waiting."

One of the signs warns visitors that "smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area." Another says "travel not recommended" due to "active drug and human smuggling" routes.

Though warning signs have been placed in certain areas of Arizona, broad swaths of federal land are considered dangerous because of the smuggling routes.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., brought up the signs on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Calling for stepped-up border security, he said "the rise of violence and the influence of the drug cartels and the human smugglers" compelled the government to put up the signs.

After the Obama administration met with border-state governors Monday to detail plans to deploy 1,200 National Guard to the region, Brewer told reporters that the influx of more than 500 National Guard troops to her state would not be enough.

Brewer has said she wants 3,000 National Guard troops sent to her state and 6,000 total sent to the border. The Obama administration has also faced criticism for planning to assign the National Guard to surveillance and support positions, as opposed to in-the-field work.

Obama has asked Congress, however, to approve $600 million in new spending for more Border Patrol, immigration officers and drones.

Is Brewer running against Obama this November? Boy Arizonians must be stupid to elect this fool.

[DarrinS]

The tea potty/ minutemen folks sure are funny..



Mr. Stark sounds like he really won the crowd over.

:lmao


Good luck in November.

:lmao

[DarrinS]

Yeah, this guy is really winning hearts and minds.

Nfhn5OsKQoI

[Bender]

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government's lack of activity on border security.


"Our borders are quite secure, thank you,"
how can idiots like this even get elected? No wonder the country's in the toilet.

[EmptyMan]

Says some phaggot politician

[jack sommerset]

Good luck in November.



:toast

LOL@ the border is secure!!!! 15-20 million illegals.....BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[DarkReign]

The man speaks like idiots do in some random sports forum's political section.

Not exactly enviable.

[CosmicCowboy]

bzDlN7VLmXQ

[doobs]

I guess he figures he can be a dismissive prick since he's in a safe district.

[Veterinarian]

Tbh I've never been sure why many liberals are so pro illegal immigration.

[boutons_deux]

TBH I've never been sure why so many Repugs are so anti-illegal immigration (but NEVER do anything about it, like from 2000-2008).

TB really H, exploitation of underpaid/unpaid illegal immigrants is fundamental to many Repug businessmen's profits.

[elbamba]

TBH I've never been sure why so many Repugs are so anti-illegal immigration (but NEVER do anything about it, like from 2000-2008).


Thats easy. They are not.

[Veterinarian]

TBH I've never been sure why so many Repugs are so anti-illegal immigration (but NEVER do anything about it, like from 2000-2008).

TB really H, exploitation of underpaid/unpaid illegal immigrants is fundamental to many Repug businessmen's profits.

I'm not a republican: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4449669#post4449669

[Stringer_Bell]

I'm not a republican: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4449669#post4449669

I don't think B_D was accusing you of being Republican, you used the word Liberal so he expressed an opinion that the GOP are guilty of the same things.

Projection!!! *points very loudly*