Congress Passes Border Fence Bill

[Frodo]

With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill;
Barrier Trumps Immigration Overhaul

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 30, 2006; Page A01

The Senate gave final approval last night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier.

The measure was pushed hard by House Republican leaders, who badly wanted to pass a piece of legislation that would make good on their promises to get tough on illegal immigrants, despite warnings from critics that a multibillion-dollar fence would do little to address the underlying economic, social and law enforcement problems, or to prevent others from slipping across the border. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) surprised many advocates of a more comprehensive approach to immigration problems when he took up the House bill last week.

But in Congress's rush to recess last night for the fall political campaigns, the fence bill passed easily, 80 to 19, with 26 Democrats joining 54 Republicans in support. One Republican, Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.); one independent, Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.); and 17 Democrats opposed the bill. The president has indicated that he will sign it.

[adam]

Good.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Beyond winning votes, what exactly is the point of this idea? Anyone who seriously thinks that building a fence (how much will it cost, btw?) will stop illegal immigration is a fool or is fooling themselves.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Stopping illegal immigration is not possible but reducing it so its not a problem IS possible.

[TomC]

I don't believe it could hurt, so yes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Beyond winning votes, what exactly is the point of this idea? Anyone who seriously thinks that building a fence (how much will it cost, btw?) will stop illegal immigration is a fool or is fooling themselves.

^^^^^^^^^^^

[Alcon]

Have there been studies done on:

1. Cost
2. How many illegal cross-overs this would actually prevent

I'd be more friendly to this idea if we didn't already have a huge amount of money invested in Iraq.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Republican -Nay!!!

[Colin]

Beyond winning votes, what exactly is the point of this idea? Anyone who seriously thinks that building a fence (how much will it cost, btw?) will stop illegal immigration is a fool or is fooling themselves.

My thoughts exactly Al.

For the record a strong nay.

[nclib]

Democrat-Nay. There are better ways to spend money.

[Conan]

Yes.

[Ebowed]

Waste of money.  Chafee proves himself to be a great freedom fighter once again.

[adam]

I see it this way, I highly doubt that the cost of building a fence along the border will trump the cost of providing welfare and public services to millions of illegals. As long as it is an adequete wall that is well gaurded, then I think it will be a worth while investment.

[The Dowager Mod]

Nay.

[WalterMitty]

no (r)

[Bdub]

Hopefully they make it an electric fence.

Seriously,  I dont really see a point in this unless they take my suggestion above.

[UK.USfan]

Hi

I just been reading with interest the result of this vote on the Senate web site. I see that a lone Republican Chafee(RI) voted Nay for this Bill. Any reason why he would buck the trend whilst all other Rep voted Yea?.

Also why did Ted Kennedy(D-MA) not vote?...is he being stubborn and sitting on the fence(no pun intended!!) or was he absent for some reason?...just curious :-)


Thanks

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYe (R)--I like the bold is your choice thingy on the new board format.

[Nym90]

Massive waste of money. I'd vote no.

Take the money that would've been spent on this and spend it instead on prosecuting those who hire illegal immigrants.

[MODU]

Nay.

While parts of the border will need to be fenced off at somepoint, the 700 mile bill did not actually fund the construction of a fence, but just that one could be built.  I'm more in line with the 300 mile bill that was passed (and funded), since it limits the fence to key hotspots yet doesn't waste tax revenue on a bigger fence that will just be breeched.  The money saved should be invested into placing US businesses in northern Mexico to help stem off the flow of otherwise law-abiding immigrants to keep them in their own country working jobs at higher salaries than they would find domestically, but at slightly lower wages than would be paid here in the US.

[Nym90]

.

Nay.

While parts of the border will need to be fenced off at somepoint, the 700 mile bill did not actually fund the construction of a fence, but just that one could be built.  I'm more in line with the 300 mile bill that was passed (and funded), since it limits the fence to key hotspots yet doesn't waste tax revenue on a bigger fence that will just be breeched.  The money saved should be invested into placing US businesses in northern Mexico to help stem off the flow of otherwise law-abiding immigrants to keep them in their own country working jobs at higher salaries than they would find domestically, but at slightly lower wages than would be paid here in the US.

I would strongly oppose government subsidies to businesses to get them to locate outside of the US, especially if the wages they were going to pay would be lower than here in the US. That's a double incentive to leave the country.

I want to end illegal immigration as much as the next guy, but why would taking away jobs in the US be the solution? That's the primary point of what we are trying to prevent.

I do very much agree that the only long term solution to the problem is to improve the economy of the countries that the immigrants are attempting to escape from, but subsidizing a US export of jobs is not the way to do that.

[MODU]

I would strongly oppose government subsidies to businesses to get them to locate outside of the US, especially if the wages they were going to pay would be lower than here in the US. That's a double incentive to leave the country.

I want to end illegal immigration as much as the next guy, but why would taking away jobs in the US be the solution? That's the primary point of what we are trying to prevent.

I do very much agree that the only long term solution to the problem is to improve the economy of the countries that the immigrants are attempting to escape from, but subsidizing a US export of jobs is not the way to do that.

Not really.  We're not talking about shutting down Ford and moving them to Mexico or sending other domestic jobs out of the country, but rather opening more Wal-marts, basic manufacturing, agriculture, lower admin positions, etc . . . jobs that do not require higher levels of education which would appeal to otherwise law abiding Mexicans/foreigners.  With them working at these places within their own country, they would make a higher wage compared to some of their domestic companies, the Mexican government would have increased tax revenues from their employment, and the US govt/companies would realize increased income as well (which would actually provide the government with revenue to fund additional fences and/or subsidies for more companies). 

This is the most logical solution for the problem at hand.  The problem isn't the illegals coming into America.  The problem is the economic conditions in the countries where these illegals are coming from.  By spending money we would waste on a wall that would be easily breeched and using it to not only increase a foreign nations economic condition but our own as well, it's a win-win for everyone.

[Nym90]

Well, if these truly were newly created jobs and no jobs were being lost in this country in the process, then sure, I'm all for it. I'm still definitely not sure about it being something the government should be subsidizing, however, as that could create an incentive to move jobs out of this country to Mexico. Any kind of government funds would have to be strictly tied to that. I'm just very suspicious that it could easily turn into corporate welfare subsidizing a loss of US jobs. The devil would definitely be in the details on this legislation.

As long as there is no loss of jobs in the US, it's an excellent strategy, and I agree that the only long term solution is improving the economy of countries like Mexico.

[MasterJedi]

Aye, need to also increase and fund the boarder patrol and national guard for the boarder as well.