Posted on 07/01/2007 1:08:30 PM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON (CNN)–Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended his agency’s progress on border security this morning against attacks from Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter. On CNN’s Late Edition, Chertoff said, “fencing has a symbolic value, and it has usefulness in some parts of the border. And we’re going to use it where it is effective. But the idea that you are going to solve the problem simply by building a fence is undercut by the fact that yesterday we discovered a tunnel. So the idea that fencing alone is a solution I think is overly simplistic.”
In an appearance two weeks ago on Late Edition, Congressman Hunter (R – California) took on Chertoff, saying, “If you’re going to have more border enforcement, why do you cut the border fence in half and leave New Mexico and Texas wide open for people to come in?” Hunter added, “Mr. Chertoff is charged with securing the border. And the one thing he’s not doing — he’s appearing on lots of talk shows, he is not securing the border.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
REP. HUNTER HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE ON IMMIGRATION ISSUES JUNE 14, 2007
SPEAKER: REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, R-CALIF.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
HUNTER: And if it should make it through the U.S. Senate, once again, the people's house, the House of Representatives, hopefully will stop this bill.
QUESTION: I have a question on the funding, this $4.4 billion, the Kyl-Graham amendment that funds security at the border by using fines and fees gathered by illegals inside the country. Is that -- do you think that's maybe fuzzy math or...
HUNTER: Well, first I think it is fuzzy math because it obviously doesn't -- it obviously would not cover the cost of enforcing the border. But secondly, what those fees really are is amnesty fees. Those are the fees that are going to be extracted in the Senate bill from people who came in illegally who would be legalized, and they're legalization fees, for practical purposes. They're the fines that they pay and the processing fees that they pay as they go through the legalization or the amnesty process. We should not trade amnesty for border security. That shouldn't -- giving amnesty should not be a condition for border security. The American people have a right to have border security. They have a right to know who's coming into this country. They have a right to know that when people come in, they have to knock on their front door and they have to let us know who they are and what they're bringing with them. And the idea that we're not going to have a secure border unless we extract money from illegal aliens is not a valid position. And so that's my reaction to this statement that came from the White House where the president was reported, by Tony Snow, as being in support of this amendment that will pay for border security with money extracted from illegal aliens who are processing for amnesty.
QUESTION: Well, do you even think that it's possible to get 60 percent of these 12 million illegals to pay $500 to $1,000. If we don't even know where they are...
HUNTER: First, I think all -- I think it's highly unlikely. But secondly, I think that we don't -- from my perspective, it's not necessary to go to that -- to go to the point where we're trying to figure out what the math is on this thing, because the whole idea of extracting money from illegal aliens to have border security, the implication of which is we're not going to have border security unless illegal aliens pay for it, is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for the American people. We have a right, and the American people have a right, to have secure borders. That's the obligation of the federal government. There's no state that can do that. There's no individual who can do it. That's the obligation of the federal government.
And just as we are now developing port security -- that is, we're securing security at all the ports where American ships come in, we've developed airport security where aircraft come in from points external to the United States -- the American people have a right to have border security, so that the 2,000-mile southern border of the U.S. and the northern border of the U.S. are appropriately secured.
And that shouldn't be conditioned on anything. It shouldn't be conditioned on illegal aliens bringing in enough money to provide security.
So this -- and from my perspective, that's a non-starter. We need to secure the border. That means we need to build the border fence. And according to the Appropriations Committee yesterday, there's $864 million cash on hand in the Department of Homeland Security right now for building the border fence. Now, in seven months since the president signed this bill -- that's October 26 -- they've only built, according to the schedule we got yesterday, 13 miles of a single layer of this double fence. That means it's going to be more than 20 years to build the border fence. And that's not right.
And incidentally, the House and Senate passed -- at my urging and the urging of a number of other members -- we passed an empowerment to the Department of Homeland Security to waive every existing statute and regulation that would -- that the border fence construction would come into contact with so that we can get the -- we don't have to wait for years of environmental lawsuits.
We can simply waive those statutes and legislation with respect to the environment and we can build the border fence. That's how important this was to the Senate and the House. They were willing to push aside all regulations and get this thing built.
QUESTION: So why isn't it built...
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: You may be understanding now why the fence hasn't been built yet. You now have the White House basically saying, "We'll make a deal with you. If you pass the amnesty bill, we'll actually put enough money up against border enforcement that we can complete the fence."
The president's already signed the bill that mandates 854 miles of border fence. We've got almost $1 billion, cash on hand, right now to build that fence and they've only built a paltry 13 miles in seven months. Now, you've got individual ranchers in this country who have built more fence than the entire government of the United States of America.
HUNTER: So it shows that the administration is not interested in expeditious construction of that fence. They should be interested in expeditious construction of thefence.
You know we have 250,000 criminal aliens right now in federal, state and local penitentiaries and jails. Lots of criminals are moving back and forth across that international border, hurting Americans, damaging property. And the idea that the administration refuses to build a border fence unless they get some kind of a pay-off for it -- and the pay-off here is the amnesty bill -- that's not acceptable.
QUESTION: So you're saying that that was (OFF-MIKE)
HUNTER: I think one of the -- I'm trying to read between the lines. Because it's not explainable, why, when you have a border crisis and you have criminals coming across the border every day, narcotics coming across the border every day, thousands of people coming across the border illegally, why wouldn't you secure the border, especially when we had the law passed in October and the president signed the law October 26th? Why would they have built so little fence at this point? This is the government of the United States of America. They've built less fence than individual ranchers in this country have built in the same period of time.
Now, one school of thought is that they wanted to hold up on that so they could pair it up with the amnesty bill and march the two forth together, so that conservatives would accept the amnesty bill on the basis that they were getting the fence.
We already have a fence (bill). The American people spoke. The House of Representatives passed it overwhelmingly. The Senate passed it 80 to 19. If the Senate's looking for something they can agree on, this was one of them. They passed the fence 80 to 19. And the president signed it October 26th.
Let's build that border fence, and let's get it done, again, while we're all still young.
QUESTION: You say that's one school of thought. Is that your school of thought, the fence is being held hostage...
HUNTER: Well, I think that's indicated. I think the -- obviously, that's not just a guess at this point. Essentially, if what Tony Snow says is accurate, that the president's willing to support an amendment that will do what it takes to enforce the border out of the fines and the fees from amnesty processing, that pretty expressly links the two. Unless you get money from people who are being processed to have amnesty, you're not going to have any money to enforce the border. We should enforce the border, no matter what happens.
That shouldn't be a condition, or something that the president may or may not give us, depending on what kind of a bill the Senate comes up with.
The president has an obligation to enforce the border.
HUNTER: He signed a bill that mandates -- it doesn't suggest --it mandates the construction of the border fence. I wrote that bill. And we should build that fence. And when we built it in San Diego, we saw the crime rate drop precipitously in the city of San Diego, according to FBI statistics.
Right now, you have thousands of people coming across that border who are criminals, lots of people who come across with folks that want to get jobs. That pool of individuals coming across the border every month includes lots of people who come across not to get jobs but to hurt Americans.
And right now we have in federal penitentiaries 250,000 -- federal penitentiaries and local jails and prisons -- 250,000 criminal aliens -- that is, people who came in illegally to this country and have hurt people to the point where they've been convicted and sent to prison.
Some of those people their countries won't even take back, like MS-13 gang members, because they're so brutal. So the idea that we're going to leave this border open until the president gets his amnesty bill is not acceptable. We should enforce the border no matter what. We should do it right now. And we should enforce the border first.
QUESTION: So there's nothing more the president can offer in this negotiation to get you to support comprehensive immigration reform?
HUNTER: To support amnesty? No.
My point is, that's not a valid exchange. The idea that the administration's saying, "We'll enforce existing law if you'll give us amnesty," that's not a reasonable offer. You always enforce existing law.
When a law's been passed by the House and the Senate and the president's signed it, it's the law. We should enforce it.
QUESTION: Seems like a pretty serious charge, if you're saying that the president's kind of using the border fence as a bargaining chip in order to...
HUNTER: Well, I think that's clearly -- that's clearly the intent of the amendment. If I read it correctly, this is a Graham amendment which says, "We're going to enforce the border with $4.4 billion that we pull from the amnesty processing." Well, what that -- that obviously presupposes that if you don't have any amnesty, there's not going to be any $4.4 billion.
My point is, you have to enforce the border. You have an obligation to do that. We pass lots of appropriations bills in this House and Senate that we send to the president's desk. No member has given any indication, at least that I've seen -- no body of members -- that they will somehow starve the enforcement process. Everybody wants to see enforcement on the border.
Think of what the House and Senate did here. This is probably the only area of law in the United States where the House and Senate have waived environmental regulations, basically said, "We're tired of the lawsuits. Build the border fence."
We gave to the Department of Homeland Security the empowerment to just sweep aside all regulations that would stop this fence from being built. You had liberals and conservatives make that vote. You had people that care deeply about the environment make that vote because they think border security is so important.
So the idea now that we're now going to get enough money for border security out of the processing money from illegal aliens is just not acceptable.
HUNTER: You don't think it's acceptable do you? What's that?
QUESTION: Are our National Guard still down there helping to control...
HUNTER: We've got a few down there. Yes, we had the president send initially 6,000 down there, not in an enforcement capacity as you know. But there are some down there who have helped to -- are helping in what I would call peripheral duties to assist the border agencies.
QUESTION: But it's not the same number anymore?
HUNTER: I don't want to give you an exact number unless I've got it, so we'll try to get that for you, how many troops are still there.
Any questions? Excuse me.
OK, thank you. Many thanks.
END
Chertoff versus Hunter PING
Electrify the fence.
bump
ROFL! It’s striking.
Nobody’s climbing over the double fence with a border patrol road in between and electronic fence monitors.
But yeah, add 30,000 volts.
I am starting to lower my opinion of Chertoff as much as the other flakes in Washington.
With all due respect (barely), if the border fence is "overly simplistic" then I believe we, the people, should demand that the barriers in and around D.C. Capitol, the House, the Senate, the Courts and most especially the White House, come down.
Let THEM use the "non-overly simplistic" virtual fencing that Chertoff, the White House and other "experts" claim will protect our borders.
Let's also reduce the Capitol Police and Secret Service for THEM, to the same numbers of Border Guards per mile that they believe will be effective to control our invaders from the South!
Chertoff, if you stopped dragging your feet and started building, maybe you'd get a little goodwill from the effort. As it is, nobody trusts you.
BTW, folks, prepare yourself for a barage of hardluck stories, likely arranged by Chertoff/Bush Inc. to make the anti-amnesty crowd look like real meanies. There's already been one story about a military wife of a MIA facing deportation...I see Chertoff's fingerprints all over that.
When it happens, call them on it.
No one is suggesting building a fence will solve the entire problem. But along with cutting off the welfare freebies, heavily fining illegal-hiring employers, rescinding the anchor baby laws, and deportations, building an a border barrier is one of the essential elements to a multi-faceted plan.
But somehow that's not what I think Chertoff had in mind...
Wbo was the questioner? God bless Duncan Hunter. If he doesn’t have the answer, he doesn’t try to fake it. He says he’ll get the answer and pass the info on.
I did not like Chertoff from the get-go. I like him even less now. He is just a part of the machine behind GWB to bring the country to it’s knees in favor of one world government.
Chertoff is going to get us all killed.
bump
Wow, let's see how many people can get through a homemade tunnel versus how many can climb over a three-strand barbed-wire fence.
Gawd, IMPEACH THIS IDIOT!
Bush, Chertoff, Martinez, and Graham are acting like spoiled brats because they didn’t get their way on the amnesty bill. Whining and throwing tantrums in public.
All of them deserve an old-fashioned trip to the woodshet if they keep it up.
They don’t want a physical fence because it works. If they build a physical fence, as opposed to a “virtual” fence , it would drastically cut the flow of illegals and drugs . I think we all know why they don’t want to cut the influx of illegals and drugs ....
You’re doing one heck-of-a job Chertie.
bttt
Maybe we need to reinvent the fence and make it less simple.
There you go!
The open borders types HATE a good fence. You can add more BP agents but deploy them ineffectively and demoralize them by prosecuting acts of self-defense.
A virtual fence can be turned off or always have bugs.
But a real fence is always working, 24x365. It cannot be compromise by authorities. It cannot be switched off. It must be dealt with by those who seek to come to this country. It will slow down border crossers to where the BP has a better than 50-50 chance to catch them.
And we can't have that now, can we? Gotta get that lettuce picked on the cheap.
A fence is overly simplistic. A good moat full of crocodiles and 50 zillion amps of electricity would add just the right amount of nuance.
Double fence and land mines.
Occam's razor, dude.
Intersecting fields of fire for starters.
Yo Chertoff. Start with the simple stuff and work your way up from there big guy.
And if Chertoff refuses, Hunter should call for his impeachment and removal from office. This isn't the first display of abject incompetence from Cheroff - IMO he was the main culprit for delaying the federal response to Katrina.
Government officials in Israel wonder why anyone in this country would not want a fence, because it has SAVED LIVES in Israel!
The real fact is that the administration doesn't want to build the fence that was approved in October 2006. It was approved by the Senate 80-19 with Kennedy not voting. Obama, Hillary, Dodd, and Biden approved it along with McCain, Brownback, Kyl, Specter, and Martinez. So Chertoff, build it.
>All of them deserve an old fashioned trip to the woodshed if they keep it up.<
That’s the typical slap on the wrist for a child’s misdemeanor.
What is needed here, if not the impeachment of all - Bush, Chertoff, Martinez, Pelosi and Reid among others - at least some high official should look into what can Constitutionally be done to get rid of these liabilities to our Republic.
PING!
Whenever something is called “simplistic” by the liberal effete, it is usually the right thing to do.
He’s right. A border fence is too simplistic.
We need a border fence, an air-deployed smart border minefield, border sentry guns, and border tank/vehicle traps.
Unfortunately, I find myself sympathizing more and more with those cretin a-hole nutjobs who continually call GWB a “moron.”
I don’t like feeling this way, but keeping the American culture INTACT (border security) is my TOP TOP priority, even higher than the War on Islamo-terror.
After all, I cannot envision alQaeda armies swarming across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania anytime soon.
I CAN, however, envision the third world socialist/communist hoardes from Central and South America (and elsewhere) gaining enough electoral power inside the US to in effect launch a defacto coupe.
Consider: Hispanic socialists in California have already taken over many local town councils, and are in the process of enacting new laws favorable to MORE illegals streaming across our southern flank.
The time for action is NOW .... not when the anti-capitalism forces are so strong that hot confrontations will be more probable.
The law is the `Secure Borders Act'.
The bill is signed.
Now go to it!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
And the worst of it is that he could care less.
You betcha. Chertoff has no intention, nor has he ever had any intention, of stemming the flow of illegals. He talks and talks and talks, and has all the titular trappings, but he is nothing but an empty suit.
He opposes a physical barrier because that barrier could not be manipulated to not work. He wants a virtual this and that, and virtual employees, that he can control to preclude any enforcement.
This guy is even more worthless than your average Senator. About as American as phony former senators Hagel and Gramanesty.
He speaks like a mid level business manager which is what he really is when you look at who our govt works for.
I’ll give you three guesses as to why they act like spoiled brats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.