« | »

Senate Is Close To Border Security ‘Compromise’

From a cheering Associated Press:

Senators closing in on border security compromise

By ERICA WERNER and DAVID ESPO | June 20, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House-backed immigration legislation is gaining momentum in the Senate, where key lawmakers say they are closing in on a bipartisan compromise to spend tens of billions of dollars stiffening the bill’s border security requirements without delaying legalization for millions living in the country unlawfully.

Throwing more money at a problem always fixes it. Or, rather, promising to throw more money. 

"This is a key moment in the effort to pass this bill. This is sort of the defining 24 to 36 hours," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday night after a day of private talks.

Under the emerging compromise, the government would grant legal status to immigrants living in the United States unlawfully at the same time the additional security was being put into place. Green cards, which signify permanent residency status, would be withheld until the security steps were complete.

Where is the compromise? These illegal aliens are still getting immediate legalization. So the Democrat are getting everything they want and more, by just promising to spend more money on border security.

Officials described a so-called border surge that envisions doubling the size of the Border Patrol with 20,000 new agents, constructing hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico and purchasing new surveillance drones to track would-be illegal border crossers. The cost of the additional agents alone was put at $30 billion over a decade.

We have heard this song before. Lest we forget, the 2006 Border Fence Act required a double-layer fence to built across 700 miles of our Southern border. The next year, Congress watered this down to just ‘vehicle barriers,’ or single chain link fence, or no fence at all. And they made it all subject to the DHS’s discretion. Seven years later, we have only 36 miles of double-layer fence built.

Even a law requiring the tracking of visas has been on the books since 1996. It was even strengthened with the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. But is it being enforced? No.

Meanwhile, the Senate just voted against building the fence, enforcing E-verify, biometric visa tracking and even preventing illegals from instant access to welfare.

Other details were not immediately available, although it was expected that modifications to the bill would range far beyond border security provisions. The changes under consideration were the result of negotiations involving the bipartisan Gang of Eight who drafted the bill and Republicans seeking alterations before they would commit to voting for it.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

We are not even allowed to hear how we are being sold down the river.

If agreed to, the changes could clear the way for a strong bipartisan vote within a few days to pass the measure that sits atop President Barack Obama’s second-term domestic agenda

Precise details of the pending agreement in the Senate were unavailable, but Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said it involved a major increase of resources to the border, including more manpower, fencing and technology. The underlying legislation already envisions more border agents; additional fencing along the U.S-Mexico border; surveillance drones; a requirement for employers to verify the legal status of potential workers; and a biometric system to track foreigners who enter and leave the United States at air and seaports and by land.

It was unclear what other portions of the legislation might be changed. There is pressure from some Republicans to make sure no federal benefits go to immigrants who are in the country illegally, at least until they become citizens…

And never mind that all of their efforts have been repeatedly shot down.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the bill’s most prominent supporters, said discussions with Republicans "have been really productive. We’ve made a lot of progress in the last 24 hours."

How wonderful!

The estimate appeared to give added credibility to Republicans who have been pressing Democrats to toughen the border security provisions already written into the bill. Schumer and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., met at midday with Graham, Hoeven and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. The Democrats and Graham are part of Gang of Eight.

No it doesn’t.

If ratified, the compromise would mark concessions on both sides.

Some Republicans have been unwilling to support a bill that grants legal status to immigrants in the country illegally until the government certifies that the border security steps have achieved 90 percent effectiveness in stopping would-be border crossers.

On the other hand, Democrats have opposed Republican proposals to make legalization contingent on success in closing the border to illegal crossings. Under the legislation as drafted, legalization could begin as soon as a security plan was drafted, but a 10-year wait is required for a green card…

We don’t find any concessions from the Democrats. Except for the promise to spend more money on border security. A promise they can (and will) renege on. Just like they have so many other times in the past.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, June 20th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “Senate Is Close To Border Security ‘Compromise’”

  1. GetBackJack says:


    COMPROMISE, n. Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.

    h/t The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

    COMPROMISE, v. Such an adjustment of identical interests as gives both Republican elites and the Democrat mafia the satisfaction of sticking it to the American citizen, thereby eviscerating the Constitution of any value or due.

    h/t The Up To The Minute Dictionary of Political Malfeasance, John Connor

« Front Page | To Top
« | »