Reply With Quote
o.k. but don't they want to ban certain type of h.s. cheerleader routines.? maybe that is a good idea ?
Every now and again, they do something right.
Metro | State
AIMYahooEmail this story Print this story
NEW: Senate votes to add 2,000 new border patrol agents
Web Posted: 03/17/2005 05:14 PM CST
Gary Martin
Express-News Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON – The Senate voted today to add 2,000 new border patrol agents to the $2.6 trillion budget for next year – reversing President Bush who sought funds for only 210 new agents in his proposal.
“Border states are the frontline of our nation's defense and have unique security burdens,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who along with Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, pushed the border patrol amendment.
About a dozen co-sponsors, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and other border state senators fought for the measure that passed the Senate on a voice vote.
“For too long the federal government has simply not lived up to its responsibilities to deal with border issues and has left that to local and state governments,” Cornyn said.
An intelligence bill passed by Congress last year called for 10,000 new border patrol agents – 2,000 a year for the next five years.
But in his budget blueprint for fiscal year 2006, which begins Oct. 1, Bush included funds for only 210 new agents.
The Hutchison amendment provides $352 million for 2,000 new agents in fiscal year 2006. Hutchison said those funds were coming from a transfer from international affairs accounts.
o.k. but don't they want to ban certain type of h.s. cheerleader routines.? maybe that is a good idea ?
Excellent! This is something I really think Bush screwed up on. By the way, did you hear about the giant fence they're building, I think it's just south of San Diego?
Last edited by desflood; 03-18-2005 at 11:11 AM.
Mexican president says border walls don't work
KEVIN SULLIVAN
The Washington Post
MEXICO CITY - Mexican President Vicente Fox on Wednesday said walls along the U.S.-Mexico border, such as one approved last month by the U.S. House of Representatives, "must be demolished" because they are "discriminatory" and "against freedom."
"No country that is proud of itself should build walls . . . it doesn't make any sense," Fox said in a news conference ahead of next week's meeting in Crawford, Texas, with President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. Border security and immigration will be main topics of the leaders' discussion, along with trade and commerce among the three North American nations.
Fox did not specifically mention last month's vote by the U.S. House to waive environmental regulations and allow completion of a fence, known in Mexico as the "Tortilla Wall," along the border south of San Diego. But asked about the fence, Fox said, "We are convinced that walls don't work."
Fox said he was encouraged by Bush's proposal to create a large new guest worker program, which would allow Mexicans to work legally in the United States for several years before returning home. That proposal is expected to be debated soon in the U.S. Congress, where it faces opposition from legislators who favor greater emphasis on border security in an age of terrorism.
In a recent interview, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security, said he believed Mexican officials were "if not encouraging, certainly acquiescing" to the massive flow of illegal immigrants. He noted that Mexicans in the United States sent home nearly $17 billion last year.
"It is unacceptable for them to turn a blind eye, or in some cases even encourage, their people to leave their country and immigrate illegally to the United States," said Cornyn. "They view immigration as an economic issue and we view it as a security issue, and we've got to find a way to reconcile those two views."
Fox, in an interview, said security along the border was "as high a priority for us as it is for the United States." He said Mexico had been "very cooperative" with U.S. officials on security measures to create an "orderly flow" of legal immigrants and commerce across the border.
"Mexico has been very responsible in security matters," he said, noting that his government has invested heavily in poor areas of Mexico, hoping that more job opportunities at home would help reduce the number of Mexicans going illegally to the United States to find work.
So, if our walls are "against freedom", does that mean that he is not running a free country?
IMHO, if border walls don't work..then maybe border bullets or border dogs will.
Time to take the gloves off and defend our borders.
But every time someone shoots a border crosser, they get sued.
the illegal immigrants coming from the south shouldn't be our main priority...
No, but closing off those borders should be. Where do you think a terrorist cell is most likely to gain entrance to America? Houston Hobby or by crossing the river?
Not only that, but what about possible weapons coming across?
No, those borders should have been much better patrolled a long ass time ago. National Defense starts at home, not in Iraq.
Bingo. Manny, we finally agree on something.
how did all the terrorists come in? with visas and passports...
"I agree we must protect our borders,
but I love my amigos!"
So you don't think this is a good national defense move? Don't you think the terrorists might adapt. And if some mexican farmer can get across, don't you think a syrian suicide bomber can as well?
i believe this is more of an attempt to keep out the ones coming across to work. a terrorist will not be walking across the desert. he will have better means to get in the u.s. he knows how easy it is to come across without having to die trying...
Yeah, terrorists hate the desert. I think it's a smart move, and next we can start patrolling our coast lines as well.
props to KB for this one. what's up with GW with regard to this? i just don't understand his logic on this issue......
Trying to save money and making cuts everywhere across the board knowing full well congress is going to override him.
It's a political game really, Bush presents a budget that is incredibly lower than what is actually going to be passed by Congress, but he gets the media attention of having a lower budget which works to his favor. Then congress goes in and does things like this, which make the lower budget figures BS, but the general public doesnt understand that.
I don't understand his logic on many issues...
Manny has it right..Bush wants to "appear" to be trying to cut the deficit.
but i think the mass majority of people in this country don't mind an extended budget with regards to THIS issue....his Presidential platform was safety of America...it just doesn't make sence that he wouldn't put more money into border security....i mean, of all the things to cut back on...
This will reduce the threat of terrorism like not at all.
I think it is good. More jobs is a good thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
