From the New York Times:
Officials Still Seek Ways to Assess Border Security
By JULIA PRESTON
More than two years after Homeland Security officials told Congress that they would produce new, more accurate standards to assess security at the nation’s borders, senior officials from the department acknowledged this week that they had not completed the new measurements and were not likely to in coming months, as the debate proceeds about overhauling the immigration system.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers were taken aback at a hearing on Wednesday in the House of Representatives when Mark Borkowski, a senior Homeland Security official, said he had no progress to report on a broad measure of border conditions the department had been working on since 2010. The lawmakers warned that failure by the Obama administration to devise a reliable method of border evaluation could imperil passage of immigration legislation. ...
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, a Democrat and strong a supporter of President Obama’s immigration proposals, was more blunt. “I would say to the department, you’ve got to get in the game,” she said.
Amid contentious discussions in Congress over immigration, one point of wide agreement is that an evaluation of border security will be a central piece of any comprehensive bill. A bipartisan group in the Senate is working to write legislation that includes a “trigger,” which would make the path to citizenship for more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the country contingent on measurable advances in security at the borders.
Lawmakers have been pressing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to devise a measure they can use to judge if the Obama administration’s claims of significant progress in border enforcement are justified. Republican senators in the bipartisan group have said a border standard is pivotal to their efforts.
“We need to have a measurement,” Senator John McCain of Arizona insisted at a hearing in the Senate last week. ...
Obama administration officials said on Thursday that they had resisted producing a single measure to assess the border because the president did not want any hurdles placed on the pathway to eventual citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.
This shouldn't be terribly shocking. The President is a loyal member of his party and tries, when he can, to act in the long term interest of his party, which is to have the government elect a new people.
Can the same intelligent partisanship be attributed to the Republican grandees?
Posts
50 comments:
I don't think it has anything to do with democratic politicians wanting to get more democratic voters. It has everything to do with corporate donors who give $ to politicians and then wanting more cheap labor. And it has a lot to do with politicians wanting to attract media attention from a media that make its living off of corporations that buys advertising in that same media. And it has a lot to do with corporations wanting cheap labor and more consumers for america that tell the politicians that they will be targeted in the future by political action committees if they vote against immigration. And it has a lot to do with politicians wanting to set themselves up after politics with a career as a corporate lobbyist or future speaking/appearance fees, those lobbyist job salaries and speaking fees being paid by rich people who want more cheap labor and consumers for america.
Democratic and GOP politicians care a lot more about themselves personally than they do about the well being of their own political parties in some distant future. Illegal aliens might vote for the democratic party...when? decades in the future? And you think democratic politicians are promoting immigration because they are so loyal to their parties that they are thinking about more Democratic voters decades from now? LOL....
Colt_Python_Femme: "I don't think it has anything to do with democratic politicians wanting to get more democratic voters. It has everything to do with corporate donors who give $ to politicians and then wanting more cheap labor."
do you think the mexican cartels are narcofunding NGOs and certain border state politicians to keep borders unsecure and open?
shorter question: do you think obama got donations from the cartels?
Big bureaucracy is given a task and funding.
Does nothing.
Is given even more money.
Does nothing.
Politician says, 'we need this done'.
A few years later, no progress.
(And this is in areas where the people in charge really do want something done.)
>>Can the same intelligent partisanship be attributed to the Republican grandees?<<
That depends on what the Republican Party is for. It's not for opposing the Democratic Party, which is foolish and impossible. The purpose of the Republican Party is to make the best deal it can in any given instance for business interests. It can do this because it controls a large block of voters- not a majority, but a very large minority- hostile to system control on social and cultural issues, although not necessarily on economic ones.
Conservatives like to say it's dumb for poor blacks to vote Democratic because the Democrats do nothing for them. But the Democrats deliver a lot more for poor blacks than the Republicans do for working class whites. It's not a matter of false consciousness so much as having no alternative and hoping things won't get worse.
What the Republicans are saying is "we need a little cover here to not look like complete tools." Ms. Jackson Lee is graciously helping out.
Of course the issue is not actual border security, but standards for measuring border security. Somebody is getting paid a lot of money for this.
"This shouldn't be terribly shocking. The President is a loyal member of his party and tries, when he can, to act in the long term interest of his party, which is to have the government elect a new people.
Can the same intelligent partisanship be attributed to the Republican grandees?"
Not quite. Open borders may not be good for blacks or masses of Democratic voters. Obama is acting in the interest of himself since the powers-that-be shower him with support and prizes for his open borders policy.
Republican pols are acting in the same interest which is self-interest. They care more about gaining support from the powers-that-be than doing what is good for the party as a whole.
True, also the Mexican govrnment which gets 23 billion wants there people here, what's new and we get oil from there country.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/21/hail-to-the-hipster/
A national ID would solve the problem. Guess they don't want to go there. Chuck Schumer was talking e-verify up a couple of years ago, but even that limited ID verification program seems off the table now.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/mar/15/rivalry-god-beyond-hills/
I a wealthy, white, long-term Democrat, and my greatest goal for America is that we will continue to lead in industry and education AND to have a robust welfare state into the distant future. The part about the welfare state makes me a more loyal Democrat than the president. If we keep Obama's high rate if immigration from low-achieving groups, this is will damage our long-term ability to sustain a significant welfare state.
The leaders of my party still officially claim to stand for greater social equality, but their actions on immigration belie their commitment to the defining feature the Democratic party. There is too much evidence that the families of Mexican immigrants diminish the capacity of our welfare state: disproportionately they become its beneficiaries, not its benefactors.
Of course, Democratic party leaders argue that they pursue all-kinds of equality, and immigration of Latinos ensures things like greater a greater voice for an important minority. But here I agree with Marx who said somewhere something like: "Economics equality must precede all other kinds of equality in order to lift up the working masses."
I don't think it has anything to do with democratic politicians wanting to get more democratic voters. It has everything to do with corporate donors who give $ to politicians and then wanting more cheap labor.
Why can't it be both? Republicans want the cheap labor for big money donors. Democrats want cheap labor for their big money donors, and voters.
No, they aren't thinking about more Democratic voters decades from now. They're thinking about more Democratic voters next year. Why do you think it would take decades for those 11+ million new citizens to start voting?
CPF said: Illegal aliens might vote for the democratic party...when? decades in the future?
Hunsdon: Next cycle?
Colt_Python_Femme,
Way too amateurish and doesn't work. This act is so bad that it's insulting, frankly. I know, I know, we get shills by the dozen when Steve utters words such as "Democratic" and "Obama", but like I said...
Steve said,
"Can the same intelligent partisanship be attributed to the Republican grandees?"
Yes, if you think of elite business interests as their only clients. Who's the latest in a long line to come out for "gay" marriage? Who has spoken out against the wage-depressing effects of immigration? Against imperialism? Corruption at the top levels of every institution (military, education, medical, etc.)?
I get the impression we're a giant embarrassment for the Republican party. It's a wonder they put up with us.
A national ID would solve the problem.
An ID only helps if the people in charge use it, which the current ones would not.
Right now, an illegal immigrant can get arrested for drunk driving and using a fake driver's license, and still not get deported. The problem isn't that they aren't able to ID him; they know who he is and that he's illegal. If they won't deport that guy, they're not going to deport someone who can't produce a national ID at a routine traffic stop.
On the employment end, again, employers can be required to ask for a social security number or some other form of ID that already exists. Let's not kid around: employers know when they're hiring illegals. The illegals aren't fooling them into thinking they're citizens. Citizens would demand higher wages and/or better conditions; that's the whole point of hiring illegals!
Even if the illegal produces some fake ID, the employer knows that's what it is, and he should be dealt with accordingly.
If you own a stereo store and you buy used stereos from people, and you find yourself buying a lot of suspiciously cheap ones, you're not going to be off the hook when the cops show up to arrest you for dealing in stolen goods. Not even if the people coming in with the stereos had faked-up receipts. Our laws expect people to do some due diligence to avoid criminal acts, and an employer who just happens to have a workforce that's 50% illegal shouldn't be exempt from that.
"The president is a loyal member of his party and tries, when he can, to act in the long term interest of his party, which is to have the government elect a new people."
Just like Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals in Canada. Or Tony Blair and Labour in Great Britain. Sell out your country to get cheap ethnic votes. Never mind the ruinous consequences for the nation.
“We need to have a measurement,” Senator John McCain of Arizona insisted at a hearing in the Senate last week.
“We need to assure the American people that we have effective control of the border and we have made advances to achieve that,” he said. “I need to have something to assure people they are not going to live in fear.”
What if the benchmark shows that the border is not secure and we haven't made advances to achieve that, Senator? Will you then cease backing comprehensive immigration reform entirely? Or will you still try to sell it to the rubes and claim you're "working with the Obama administration" on border security?
McCain doesn't care that much about whether the border is secure. What he cares about is assuaging American's fears about an unsecure border. Our fears are the problem to him, not mass illegal immigration.
OT
Harry Reems has died.
- An icon of America's 'golden age' of the early 70s, (to go with polaroid cameras, Nixon, Vietnam, big sideburns, Mark Spitz, kipper ties, David Cassidy,Apollo moonshots, colour TV, and all he other nostalgic delights you can muster etc etc) has gone to the great water-bed in the sky.
RIP.
Obama and Republican politicians are all doing it for the same reason: self-interest. It's just that in Obama's case, the interest tends to coincide with the interest of the party.
Maybe what cons should do is play dual-party-politics. Instead of just sticking to Repubs, maybe cons should join BOTH parties and work both sides. Join the Democratic party and exploit divisions within it. Unite the masses against the elites made up of gays and Jews.
Just as a stunt, how about 100,000 cons illegally cross over into Mexico and take over a community and Anglo-ize it. See how the Mexican government reacts.
do you think the mexican cartels are narcofunding NGOs and certain border state politicians to keep borders unsecure and open?
shorter question: do you think obama got donations from the cartels?
wouldn't surprise me
"I don't think it has anything to do with democratic politicians wanting to get more democratic voters."
of course not. it is actually all about improving the selection of mexican restaurants available in american towns.
this is the real reason why obama sued arizona. not to force them to allow themselves to be invaded. not to smash any silly notions white americans had about them even having a country anymore. and definitely not to set the precedent that no state will lay a finger on invaders, that this is the federal government's sole jurisdiction, and if washington DC doesn't feel like doing their job, uppity whites certainly have no business whatsoever protecting themselves from invaders.
obama just wanted some better dining options in pheonix when the campaigned through there in 2012. that's what it was about. he couldn't get a good chimichanga in 2008, and that's something he wanted to address going forward. it's a shame that stupid, surly whites in arizona had to cause so much trouble over something so trivial and easily fixed.
The republican party has been hoodwinked by the neocon con job. The republican establishment really believes that the failure to pander to illegals rather than the disastrous Iraq war is the cause of Republican troubles.
Never mind securing the border, the federal government won't even "assess" or "evaluate" how porous it currently is!
Is today's Colt_Python_Femme yesterday's 'Desert Lady'?
The article that you link to says that Obama's done more to secure the border than any other president. But because of a little bureaucratic laziness, Sailer takes it as evidence that Obama is trying to "elect a new people."
I want to be able to send people to this site. I refrain from doing so not because of the "racism," but because the bad logic combined with the snark is embarrassing. If you're going to be a smart aleck all the time, at least try to make some sense.
I'm sure a lot of the pro-Mexican immigrant sentiment is due to big business, but a lot of it is due to the bleeding hearts who think not letting these people in is racist or "xenophobic."
I actually know a girl who is desperately trying to get a job with refugee placement agencies. If she knew how I really felt, I doubt she would talk to me again.
"Open borders may not be good for blacks or masses of Democratic voters."
Yeah but they're not thinking like that. I know many blacks, and not once have I heard them complaining about immigration. I don't think it's really on their radar, unless there are sentiments of which I'm unaware. Most democrats who advocate amnesty are bleeding hearts who don't want to be labeled racist.
Baby Trayvon was no baby, but if this story is true, this seems like a real baby victim.
Oops, the story in question:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297392/Sherry-West-tells-robbers-shot-sleeping-baby-Antonio-dead-Brunswick.html
"Harry Reems has died."
You mean that wasn't Geraldo?
HAR said: I want to be able to send people to this site. I refrain from doing so not because of the "racism," but because the bad logic combined with the snark is embarrassing.
Hunsdon: We're not racist enough for you? (Sad face.)
The article that you link to says that Obama's done more to secure the border than any other president.
And if we can't believe the New York Times on such questions, who can we believe?
Hardy har HAR.
The article that you link to says that Obama's done more to secure the border than any other president.
I read the article a couple of times. No, it does not say any such thing.
"The article that you link to says that Obama's done more to secure the border than any other president."
Even if this is true, it's just a hook. In order to push amnesty, Obama is trying to fool us that the borders are now all secure and there's nothing more to worry about in regards to illegal immigration.
Btw, I think the real reason why the tide from Mexico slowed is because US economy, especially in construction, hasn't been so robust in the last few yrs.
@colt_python_femme: Men posing as women on blogs are creepy. Yes, that word is overused but here it applies.
"Is today's Colt_Python_Femme yesterday's 'Desert Lady'?"
My first thoughts too. Attractive female avatar grafted on to obvious male prose, writing that covers similar talking points.
Glad most people here see through it.
I a wealthy, white, long-term Democrat, and my greatest goal for America is that we will continue to lead in industry and education AND to have a robust welfare state into the distant future. The part about the welfare state makes me a more loyal Democrat than the president. If we keep Obama's high rate if immigration from low-achieving groups, this is will damage our long-term ability to sustain a significant welfare state.
Mr. wealthy democrat, I welcome your skepticism about our insane immigration policy and can only hope you have some influence in spreading the word to your fellow travelers. I assume you envy the welfare states of Norway, Finland and other boutique nations, but have now realized that those systems cannot be replicated if the demographics are not there.
Pat Buchanan has written that increasing diversity increases inequality. Unfortunately like most things Pat Buchanan has been saying for the past 20 plus years, this has been ignored.
Sadly I think it might be too late for the US. But if we can prevent this amnesty, maybe there might be something left to salvage, or at least there will be a postponement of our impending fate. I really hope more white democrats like yourself can come around on this issue. I think if you would contact your representatives you might be able to help the cause
"And if we can't believe the New York Times on such questions, who can we believe?"
Except that you're glad to believe what it says when it confirms your pre-existing beliefs. Just like Steve did here, while ignoring the part that was more relevant to his point but that he did not want to believe.
Jesus says- "Let my children become citizens!"
Or so this would have you believe...
Even if this is true, it's just a hook. In order to push amnesty, Obama is trying to fool us that the borders are now all secure and there's nothing more to worry about in regards to illegal immigration.
So what's the alternative? Another GWB clone who pretends to care about border security but in the meanwhile does everything he can to sabotage immigration enforcement? That's exactly what Mitt Romney would have done.
I'm no Democrat, but the Republicans have been absolutely awful for the American middle class.
The sooner we dispense with the Republican party the better. It's time for a new party that actually represents ordinary white Americans' interests. These Republicans are worthless unless you're a fruit grower, meatpacking plant owner or defense contractor.
It's just unbelievable to see Paul Ryan and Rand Paul selling us out like this. But hey, they're "libertarian." Just like cheap chalupas Tyler Cowen.
Just like Steve did here, while ignoring the part that was more relevant to his point but that he did not want to believe.
I ask again, which part was that? Because I did not see any part of it which supported what you want to believe about Obama securing the border.
A few years ago, while travelling for Christmas, I was stuck in line at an airline ticket counter. Holding us all up was a young Mexican fellow communicating to the ticket agent through an interpreter. I noticed that the poor guy's luggage was a cardboard box held together with some packing tape, and felt guilty for even noticing these details.
All Americans in line politely waited, likely not wanting to judge by our own privileged standards, giving the guy benefit of the doubt, and so on.
This poor guy had no passport or acceptable ID but wanted to fly home for the holidays.
Finally, in exasperation, the ticket agent wondered aloud "how did he ever get here?!"
Uncomfortable pause. Then the interpreter impatiently blurt out: "How do you think he got here?!"
Then it fully, finally struck me that our country had really changed. What would have happened if my father's family had pulled that crap when they got off of the ship in New York? They would never have dreamed of sneaking in, violating our laws, taking advantage.
Being able to live here legally, to become a citizen, was once such a great privilege, but now it doesn't seem to mean much. Sorry, I know I'm preaching to the choir. Pisses me off, really.
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned. So be it ;)
"'By every available measure, the border is far more secure today than it has ever been,' said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who specializes in immigration."
For Democrats and Republicans both, it all comes down to money. For that matter, that's pretty much what it comes down to in every Western country where the elites have sold out the people ion behalf of the wealthy.
Think of it this way: 30, 50, 100 years ago, what was the wealth gap between a typical politician with a bachelor's degree and possibly a graduate degree, like a JD, and a similarly qualified person who'd gone into private industry, instead, and done moderately well? Not all that much, really.
The wealth/income of the top 1% - or the top 0.1% - has skyrocketed. The starting income for being in the top 0.1% is $2 million. And congressmen associate with these people - a lot. And they want to be in their clique. And they want their approval. And they want their campaign contributions. And they want, for their children or themselves, to be employed by these people when they leave office.
There is too much money to be made, and politicians want to get their hands on it, and to do that they'll do anything the billionaire/business lobby wants.
***"'By every available measure, the border is far more secure today than it has ever been,' said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who specializes in immigration."***
Oh, well, I guess that settles it then! It's not like these CFR drones don't have a reason to lie to us, and in fact have been lying to us, for decades upon decades now. But no, HAR believes it, so it must be true.
Well, actually Mexicans now make up 53 percent of grade school kids in Califoria while whites make up 25 percent. The best thing is to cut your loses and prevent the worst thing which is growth but the Gallup poll only shown 5 milion Mexicans interested in the states which means intersted has dropped a lot while China goes up. Both the Hispanics and Asians could be use against each other on immirgation.
This what I have against Pat Buchanan is he spent too much on trade. Even with the jobs going overseas,there were construcation jobs during the housing boom that could have went to blue collar whites or other native born. Also, Walmart has reduce the pay of retail there use to be good paying grocerty store jobs but Pat spent a lot of time on the smoke stack jobs going overseas instead of making the jobs remaining in retail like unionized grocery stores from facing competition from Walmart or talking about construcation wages being driven down by illegals.
"Oh, well, I guess that settles it then! It's not like these CFR drones don't have a reason to lie to us, and in fact have been lying to us, for decades upon decades now. But no, HAR believes it, so it must be true."
My friend, the basis of Steve's entire post was stuff that the governent was saying,as reported by the Times. Explaining this to you any further would probably not be a good use of my time.
Sadly, Heard Jeff Sessions bill to cut off government medical mmoney for illegals lost according to Numbers USA which is not good, folks.
Let me try to kill this entire "Obama has more deportations than anyone EVER" lie.
As someone who works in border enforcement, I see first hand the local processing facilities at the station level filled with illegal aliens, so no, the border is not 'secure', since we're only catching around 10% of what makes it through.
What Obama's DHS has done is simply massage the numbers in two ways.
1) What they're counting as "deportations" are actually something called a "voluntary return", which means they admit to being here illegally, and they promise to never do it again. Usually after the fifth or sixth time they got caught there's finally a penalty, but it is not a true deportation. Until this Administration, they didn't count these as deportations because you're catching them while they've crossed the border some time in the near past.
When most people think of deportations, they think of some guy who's been here for five years getting sacked up and sent back to Mexico. This RARELY happens for a few reasons. One, the Border Patrol ceded its ability to go into the interior (INA 235 gives BP Agents 50 state law enforcement authority) to ICE/HSI... And now they don't do anything with it, because they'd rather go after purse counterfeiters.
Two, whenever they do sack up a bad guy, the pro-criminal La Raza types go into media overdrive and start making sure their crying kids are in front of the cameras and genrally ICE shoves it up the chain for "further review". ICE/HSI also counts any deportation proceedings as deportations, even when the end result is, more often than not, the illegal alien gets to stay.
2) The Border Patrol's management stopped counting "getaways", and instead either lumped them into a stat known as "turned back south", or TBS for short, which makes it sound like they're doing a great job. Or, in several cases, they simply ignored them. Years ago, the Chief Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector fell on his sword to protect then Chief David Aguilar from a perjury charge after he got caught lying to Congress under oath about what a great job they were doing down there.
Sorry HAR, but its not confirmation bias. The idea that we're doing anything is just a big lie that liberals love to parrot and falls under the heading of "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
Post a Comment