2006 October 07 Saturday
Congress Want To Betray Voters On 700 Mile Border Fence

Our Congressional representative are trying to deceive us.

But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."

The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said.

"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.).

Our biggest problem in getting a fence built is that Republicans may lose control of the House of Representatives.

They think we are not paying much attention.

In this case, it also reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government -- oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.

I think we can keep the pressure on and get a fence built along the entire 1951 mile length of the border. People are not suddenly going to become less angry about illegal immigration. I expect the opposite in fact. Public demands for a cutback in immigration will continue to grow. The elites have failed to persuade the public to go along with their replacement by a new population.

We can not afford any complacency. Our elites will do our bidding against their own desires only if we keep on the pressure and even increase it.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 October 07 10:38 AM  Immigration Border Barrier


Comments
Bob Badour said at October 7, 2006 12:35 PM:

I suggest the people of America should look to Palestine for what is effective. Congress has started to make a small concession, and now is the time to turn up the heat in a big way. Mass demonstrations and 'immigration restriction' rallies at political campaigning events sound like an excellent idea.

Turn every stop a campaigning politician makes into an opportunity to explain his position on immigration.

Dave said at October 8, 2006 7:26 AM:

I was watching Fox news last night, the majority on the show that was on seemed to be very much in favour of mass immigration. It started off by saying something like: The American population is just about to reach 300 million and this is because of a healthy birth-rate compared to Europeans (which isn't saying much) a rapidly increasing life expectancy of the baby boomers and of course large scale immigration and I can't understand why people complain about it because its coming just at the perfect time to pay the baby boomers pensions.
blah blah blah.

This is also the main justification used in Europe, we need the young workers the baby boomers cry, we'll get no pensions otherwise... Its a kind of emotional blackmail to try to shutdown the debate.

Randall Parker said at October 8, 2006 7:38 AM:

Dave,

People who have low incomes, low IQs, low skills, and higher rates of criminality will not pay for anyone else's pensions. They may pay some Social Security taxes. But they'll take far more for their own health care, for their kids' health care, and so on. A majority of babies born today in the United States of America have their hospital birth costs paid by Medicaid. That's going to get worse.

Kurt said at October 9, 2006 2:49 PM:

Randall,

Dave is simply repeating the same rubbish we hear over and over again about how immigrants are needed to pay for the boomer retirements. He is saying it in a manner that he clearly does not agree with it any more than you and I.

There is never any mention about the QUALITY of the people we are getting by the pro-immigration crowd. This is the one issue where I really do part company with the libertarians. I actually do not understand how the libertarians can believe that an open-immigration policy is good, without regard to the kind of people we are getting.

Amy Chua and Richard Lynn have made it very clear that there are significant differences in the peoples of the world. Clearly, a libertarian society is possible with a populace composed only of people who are self-reliant, self starter types (i.e. Amy Chua's "market minorities"). This is the reason why I feel that immigration skepticism is entirely compatible with libertarianism.

It is to be expected that congress will try to weasel out of actually building the border fence. Even though many rank and file Americans support it, all of the vocal special interest groups oppose it. Also, building the fence is considered highly politically incorrect because it is suggestive that some people are "better" than others, and this is especially taboo for the politicos to consider.

The other thing that the pro-immigration idiots also don't get is that the recent influx of the latino immigrants are largely leftist in their political orrientation. This will translate into more leftist (i.e. redistributive) economic policies as well as increased regulation that will kill both the free-market economic opportunities and access to low cost housing that "middle-class" young people ("middle-class" defined as people who actually believe in doing the personal financial planning before having kids) consider essential to having kids. The results of our idiotic immigration policy are entirely predictable. Fewer and fewer educated middle-class people will have kids whereas the underclass (defined as people who don't a rat's arse about anything) will continue to have more and more kids, because they could care less about stuff like education and decent upbringing. Again, discussing this issue in this manner is also consider PC taboo. Afterall, we are all equal, all alike and the same, aren't we?

Kurt said at October 9, 2006 2:56 PM:

The thing to keep in mind is that this current wave of immigrants is the first time we have had a large number of "son's of the soil" types come to the U.S. All of the previous wave of immigrants, including the East Asians that worked on the railroads, have all been "market minority" types.

Randall,

I noticed in your posting that the Philippine-Americans have even higher mean income than the Chinese-Americans. As you may or may not know, a significant percentage (10-15%) of the population of the Philippines is ethnic Chinese (overseas Chinese), the rest being ethnic Malays (your typical sexy brown skinned philipina is ethnic Malay).

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the Philippine-Americans are actually ethnically Chinese. Maybe "half-sigma" can find this out for us.

Dave said at October 11, 2006 9:20 PM:

ty Kurt yes I don't agree with mass-immigration and especially not if its based on using the state to force immigrant children to pay for the pensions of people who couldn't be bother to have children of their own, once they become big enough and see what is going on they will refuse to pay anyway.

At first I thought it was odd that libertarians support mass immigration for a lot of practical reasons, they normally seem a common sense bunch on most issues, but after questioning a libertarian site often I now realise libertarians are the biggest blank slaters in the world its at the core of the ideology. They want to believe any two people should be able to enter into a 'contract' without state interference, and to believe that they also want to believe that there is a level playing field that makes regulation of what is fair and what is not unnecessary. Most fair minded people do want to see at least a small amount of regulations to stop clever tricksters manipulating people who are hard-working yet not the brightest.
Randell opened the can of worms when he some months ago suggested that just as children can't legally enter into a contract there should also be differing levels of responsibility for different types of humans once more is known about genetics and also possibly genetic engineering takes place. The libertarian types were commenting on that post trying desperately to square the circle. I commented that Spain was trying to give 'human rights' to Apes, I wonder what the libertarians think about that and their ineffable property rights.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright