Showing posts with label border. Show all posts
Showing posts with label border. Show all posts

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Rep. Duncan Hunter Drops Out Of GOP Presidential Race - Politics News Story - KGTV San Diego

Because of the lack of media coverage of his campaign, the video embedded in the web page linked below will likely tell you more about Duncan Hunter and his campaign than you ever saw or heard while he was a candidate:
Rep. Duncan Hunter Drops Out Of GOP Presidential Race - Politics News Story - KGTV San Diego

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Duncan Hunter pulls out of the race

MEDIA ALERT

Congressman Duncan Hunter returns to San Diego tonight,
Saturday January 19, 2008
Media Opportunity at 8:00 PM (PST)
Broadway Pier at the end of Broadway St, San Diego

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 19, 2008

San Diego, Calif.

We started this campaign a year ago right here, in San Diego Harbor, against the backdrop of American Naval power. We launched a campaign emphasizing a strong national defense, enforceable borders and restoring the industrial base of America.
Today we end this campaign. The Nevada caucuses reflecting only 2% of the vote for me. I ran the campaign exactly the way I wanted to, and at this point not being able to gain traction in conservative states of Nevada and South Carolina, it's time to allow our volunteers and supporters to focus on the campaigns that remain viable.

It's time for me to gear up for 2008's defense bill that will be put together over the coming weeks. There is work to be done in the areas of troop protection and new capabilities to be deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over the horizon, the emergence of Communist China as a military super power will require a new emphasis on U.S. capabilities in undersea warfare, space, and long range air-power.

The best way to maintain a new era of peace is for the U.S. to remain strong. Over the coming year I will endeavor to help craft a defense bill that meets the new security challenges.

Since our campaign began over 200,000 additional manufacturing jobs have been lost. 1.8 million jobs have left the U.S. for China. This fracturing of the U.S. industrial base is a long term threat to America. I hope that the remaining candidates will recognize it and address it. As the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, I will seek to address it.

Only hours ago a border patrolman was killed in the California Desert. This tragedy emphasizes more than ever the compelling case for the completion of the border fence. Since I wrote the bill that mandates 854 miles of double border fence only a few miles have been constructed. Over the next year in Congress I will do everything in my power to get that fence built.

Finally, for Lynn and me, the campaign over the last year has shown us this: America is a wonderful country. Our people have great character and goodness, and the meeting of new friends has enriched our lives.

The failure of our campaign to gain traction is mine and mine alone. But we have driven the issues of national security, the border fence, the emergence of China and the need to reverse bad trade policy. Because of that, this campaign has been very worthwhile, and for the Hunter family, a lot of fun.

To our friends and supporters and volunteers: many thanks. And now it's time for me to focus on developing a 2008 defense bill that serves our troops and our nation.

Thanks, and God Bless America.

Duncan Hunter



Gary Becks
Hunter for President
Media Relations

Hunter for President, Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive
La Mesa, California 91941
United States

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Law Enforcement Works, Even In Immigration

Even when it comes to illegal immigration. All those who claim "we can't do anything about illegal immigration" are wrong.
Yes, we can -a zero-tolerance policy for border crossers in Laredo has cut border crossings:


A tactic to prosecute first-time illegal border crossers has cut down illicit crossings in the Laredo sector by as much as 36 percent, Customs and Border Protection said Friday.

"Word is spreading quickly that illegal entry has its consequences," Carlos X. Carrillo, chief patrol agent for the CBP Laredo sector, said in a news release touting the sector's first 45 days of Operation Streamline.

The zero-tolerance program drew national attention to Del Rio when courtrooms overflowed with immigrants who formerly would have been released at the border or given a notice to appear in court. Instead many never reappeared in court.

But the Border Patrol credited the program with deterring illegal immigration, which they said frees agents to spend more time intercepting smuggled drugs.

Statistics showed apprehensions in Del Rio dropped more than a third in the year since the program was implemented in December 2005. Marijuana seizures meanwhile jumped 125 percent and cocaine seizures spiked 3,828 percent.

The program was expanded a year later to the Border Patrol's Yuma, Ariz., sector, where apprehensions dropped 70 percent in the first eight months.

Streamline-Laredo began Oct. 31. Since then, anyone found coming into the U.S. illegally has been arrested, taken to court and subjected to penalties including fines and up to six months in prison. Between Oct. 31 and Dec. 15, 1,058 undocumented immigrants were prosecuted, with judges ordering jail sentences ranging from 10 days to six months.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Below is the body of an email I just received from Senator Hutchison regarding the amnesty for illegals bill that "We the People" defeated - the first such Email since Victory in DC Day:

Dear Mr. ,

Thank you for contacting me regarding comprehensive immigration reform. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Texas is a state that uniquely benefits from the contributions of legal immigrants, but it is also uniquely vulnerable to the dangers of illegal immigration. Since I was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1993, my principles have been clear and consistent: we must secure our borders while discouraging illegal behavior. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have worked to appropriate funds for border security, which includes new Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, detention officers, and detention beds. We have ended catch and release and accelerated the deportation process. I strongly supported provisions for an additional $1.9 billion in immediate funding for border security to cover the first 1,000 of 6,000 new Border Patrol agents hired this year and in 2008. These funds, as provided in the fiscal year 2006 Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill, will assist with the temporary deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops aiding the Border Patrol with surveillance and logistics. Yet, more needs to be done to secure our borders, and I continue to seek additional emergency spending to immediately address this national security issue.

On May 9, 2007, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada introduced
S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Initially, the bill consisted of the same language from S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, which the Senate considered last year. On May 19, 2007, Senators Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a substitute amendment, S. AMDT. 1150, to the bill. The amendment replaced the original text of the bill with new language to be considered. The new language was negotiated over several months between the Bush Administration and a small group of senators.

The legislation addressed several key issues of comprehensive immigration reform. First, the bill concentrated on border enforcement by mandating the hiring, training, and deployment of 20,000 border patrol and immigration enforcement agents; the construction of 370 miles of border fencing; the completion of 300 miles of vehicle barriers; and, the deployment of 4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The bill also would have provided for 105 operational ground-based radar and camera towers on the southern border and authorized that 31,500 detention beds must be available so that apprehended aliens can be detained. All other provisions of the bill were contingent upon these security provisions first being met.

Second, the bill sought to strengthen workforce enforcement through the use of an electronic employment verification system (EEVS). When the EEVS was in place, the Administration predicted that within 18 months, illegal aliens would find it extremely difficult to gain any legitimate employment. Under the bill, illegal workers would not only have been subject to removal from the country but would have been permanently barred from any U.S. immigration program, and employers who knowingly hired illegal workers would have faced stiff penalties.

The bill aimed to overhaul the current U.S. immigration system by enacting a merit-based immigration system or “point system.” Under such a system, immigrants to the U.S. would have garnered points through various characteristics they possess. Examples of these characteristics would have included, but were not limited to, job skills deemed helpful to the U.S. economy, level of educational attainment, and degree of English language proficiency. Once a hopeful immigrant reached a certain point threshold, they would have been eligible to enter the country with a visa, subject to numerical limitations, background checks, and public health screenings.

The fourth component of the bill was the enactment of a temporary worker program where individuals would have been able to come into the United States for a period of two years. At the end of the two-year period, the worker would have been required to return home for at least one year. Eligibility of such a worker for this program would have spanned a total of three cycles (totaling six working years within the U.S. with one year out of the country between each term). Proponents claim that Americans would have been given the first opportunity to fill the jobs, and market forces would have determined how many foreign workers were needed.

The final element of the bill attempted to address those who are currently in the United States illegally. Through the creation of a Z-visa category, current illegal immigrants would need to meet several criteria prior to being considered for legal status or U.S. citizenship. They would first have to pay a $1,000 fine, with an additional $500 fine per dependent. These individuals would also be subject to strict work requirements. All Z-visa holders would have to remain employed in order to prevent their deportation. After a period of eight years, non-immigrant workers would have been eligible to leave the country, pay an additional $4,000 fine, and apply for lawful permanent resident status in the United States, or they could opt to remain on the Z-visa indefinitely, subject to background checks.

Some of the beneficial features in S. 1348 included provisions to increase border security, which must be our number one goal. The bill sought to secure our borders by increasing border fencing, vehicle barriers at the Southern border, the size of the Border Patrol, and installing ground-based radar and camera towers along the Southern border. I believe that any legislation addressing immigration must first address the safety and security needs of the United States, and there were benchmarks that were finite for border security within the bill and were required to be reached before any temporary worker program, or dealing with the backlog of people who are in our country illegally, could begin. Nevertheless, I think the security provisions within the bill could have been made stronger through the amendment process. For this reason, I supported amendments to strengthen border security and remove illegal immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies from the United States.

In addition to border security measures, the bill also contained provisions for a temporary worker program. Temporary work visas play an important role in ensuring U.S. companies have the workers they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. A temporary worker program is also essential to border security. If we do not have a way for people to legally come into this country and fill the jobs where labor is in critical demand, then we will never be able to control our borders. By incorporating the use of an EEVS, we would greatly enhance the success of our efforts to hold companies accountable for employment activity, ensure fair treatment of temporary workers, and make certain those who legally enter our country abide by our laws. A tamper-proof biometric identification card should also be incorporated into any worker program.

While I supported many of the provisions of S. 1348, I also had serious concerns with some parts of the bill. I was very concerned at how this bill could affect the Social Security system, which we all know is on the brink of failure. In 2017, Social Security will start to pay out more than it receives. By 2041, the trust fund will be exhausted. I do not think it is fair to grant credits while illegally working in our country, especially when the solvency of Social Security is in question. To this end, I introduced an amendment that would have disallowed credits into our Social Security system for work performed by persons without lawful status. My amendment addressed both those who came into our country illegally and those who have overstayed their visa. My amendment, which would protect the integrity of the Social Security system, was agreed to by the Senate.

Another concern I had with the bill was found within Title VI of the legislation. Namely, I opposed the amnesty provisions that would have allowed people who came to this country illegally to never have to return to their home country. For this reason, I offered an amendment that would have required all adult illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. before they could apply for legal permanent status. I believe that granting citizenship or legal non-immigrant status to those who entered our country illegally would only encourage others to break our laws in the future. Unfortunately, my amendment was tabled by a 53-45 vote; thus, I could not support the bill as offered and voted against cloture. Ultimately, the cloture vote to end debate failed in a bipartisan 46-53 vote, and Majority Leader Reid pulled the bill from the Senate floor.

I believe an issue as important as immigration should be debated openly and freely and subjected to due consideration and review with time for senators to hear the concerns of their constituents. We have a broken immigration system that is not fair to those who are waiting to enter the country through the legal channels, or to the American people who live by the rule of law. It is the responsibility of the federal government to fix the broken immigration system and to secure the borders of our great nation. This is a duty that I take very seriously.

I have heard the concerns from my constituents regarding this issue, and you may be certain I will keep your views in mind as I continue to work to improve the flaws in our current immigration system.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

A Case of Mistaken Identity

I'm no reporter so I did not take any pictures or interview any attendees or protesters (the protesters outnumbered the attendees at least 4 to 1) and I am not unbiased. I do have some fading impressions about what I witnessed in GEO 2.324 on the UT Campus Tuesday night, from about 6:45 PM to 9:00 PM, so I better get this all down and posted before I forget. Please note that what I am relaying here is not an exhaustive account of what transpired, just some of my personal recollections and impressions.

Just who was I and the minority "friendly" crowd (sitting in what one of what the protesters termed the "lap dog seats up front") there to see? Mr. Chris Simcox—an evidently very personable, patient, gentle, articulate, meek (i.e. controlled strength), level headed, principled, law abiding man who has demonstrated through word and deed that he cares about the illegal immigration problem and the human beings who are being exploited by the status quo (both the illegal immigrants and legal residents of the US) much more than Congress and the President seem to, based on their own words and deeds.

I had heard Mr. Simcox speak before, at the Texas Republican Assemblies' Conservative Conference, held back in mid-February. At that time all I knew about him was what was in his bio in the Conference program:

Chris Simcox is founder and president of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen neighborhood watch and political action group that assists Border Patrol in better defending our border with Mexico. The Minutemen are preventing needless deaths in the desert and are demanding that the leaders of our country take care of an embarrassing and deadly problem – lawlessness and anarchy on a sovereign border of the United States. Drug dealers, gang bangers and other criminal foreign nationals are filtering through our porous borders creating havoc in communities and threatening public safety. What’s to keep the terrorists from similarly infiltrating our country? Minutemen are acting where government has abdicated its responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility in as much as it is endangered by the lack of enforcement of our borders.
Website (Simcox): http://minutemanhq.com/b2/index.php/simcox

I was too involved in the planning of that February conference to really get my mind around the things Mr. Simcox and his Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are doing along our borders to alleviate the suffering of all decent people who are caught in the middle of the porous border quagmire that the US is stuck in. But, Tuesday night the contrast between the man that showed up to speak and the straw man that the vitriolic, racist, anarchical protesters were there to knock down was obvious to all fair minded observers.

I was at this UT Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) sponsored event because I received a forwarded email from Liz Young, Chairman of the group, about 24 hrs prior. The email indicating that the event would be HEAVILY protested. Paul Gelencser sent the forwarded message and asked me to send an announcement to local Conservative clubs. All I could do under such short notice was to send one email to the CTRA elist. The reason for the expected turnout of the opposition was that the invitation for Chris to speak was on the same day of a pro-illegal immigration rally at the State Capitol. The leaders of the capitol rally heard about the Simcox speech and decided to take advantage of the opportunity. They hoped to bring 300-500 their own troops to stage a protest. Click here (the web domain is txcommie.wordpress.com) to read what the organizers of the protest were saying about Mr. Simcox. The majority of the protesters seem to be from an anarchist group and they demonstrated by their words and deeds that they were indeed anarchists. About 100 or so showed up in GEO 2.324.

My experience for the evening began as I drove up Congress Avenue around 5:45 PM and saw the pro-illegal immigration rally folks coming down the south bound lanes. I just looked at them wondering what the several small children (being citizens) would think when they grow up and learn about the illegal way their parents came to this country. I also made a mental note that there seemed to be no protesters squelching the free speech of the marchers. I wondered if that would be the same later at UT (NOT).

After dinner I located the Geology building and easily identified the meeting room from the UT Police and a few protesters hanging around outside. I went in, spoke briefly with Chris, and Liz and then chatted with a few of the members of the YCT (great kids—these are the same guys that brought us the ACLU Nativity Scene last Fall). Then, we all waited for the anarchists to arrive. Needless to say, we heard them coming before we saw them. When they entered the room it was obvious that there were a lot more of them than of us. They chanted such things as "out with the Racist" and we replied "out with the Racists" (the feeling was mutual). Two of them came down to the front, with one in sort of a defensive end stance, and tried to intimidate some of us "lap dogs" or perhaps Mr Simcox. I thought I recognized the guy in front (I later heard him tell a reporter his name was Jerry..). I thought I knew the guy so I laid my hand gently on his arm and said "Do I know you, I think I have seen you before?" He said "don't touch me" and then the guy behind him said, "[you saw him] coming out of your mama's room." I knew then not to worry for we seemed to be dealing with teenage brains (in much older bodies).

The protesters shouted "bring him out" and we pointed to Chris, who was standing in the middle of the room the whole time, and said "there he is, that is Chris Simcox." Chris tried to talk and the protesters shouted all manner of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and names, and otherwise verbally assaulted him. Chris stood calmly and tried to make a few points. The UT officials gave at least three verbal warnings to the protesters stating that this was a time for free speech and that if they would not let Mr. Simcox speak they would be removed from the auditorium and possibly arrested by UT police. Chris could hardly say anything for the first 20 minutes. The police began escorting and/or arresting people. Some of the first two to be removed were the defensive end (Jerry) and his teenybopper-brained sidekick (actually rearkick). As more folk got escorted out (some arrested) it got quieter and Chris had more opportunity to say something. Unfortunately he had to spend practically all his time dialoggingdialogue with the protesters. Needless to say, he did not get to give the speech he planned. He was not afforded the free speech that earlier the people at the rally and the march had been afforded.

Chris was accused by the protesters of being a racist, an immigrant hater, another Hitler, a White supremacists, a European, a vigilante, a Mexican hater, etc. He was accused of being in league with groups such as Ranch Rescue and the Minuteman Project (and maybe even El Diablo). He was accused of hate speech when someone quoted his own words from a press report out of context. He was accused of being a law breaker (by anarchists, no less). He was accused of talking out of both sides of his mouth when he criticized Bush (whom he termed the Emperor with no cloths on, vis-à-vis the immigration issue) and Congress for their failure regarding immigration, while at the same time saying he believed in the rule of law.

In response Chris Simcox never fliched, lost his temper, or mistreated any halfway reasonable person. He used reason and logic to expose the lack of the same in the diatribes of the protesters. He used facts to show that the arguments of his opponents were steeped in ignorance. He use peoples own words against them, very effectively I might add. More frequently he made note of points of agreement. When he heard things said by the protesters that he agreed with he told them so, not effecting what agreement normally effects, the establishment of common ground—the protesters did not seem to be interest in common ground, because it tended to negate the purpose of their protest. One example of this unclaimed common ground was the blaming of the whole border/immigration mess on the government. Simcox said, absolutely, he couldn't agree more—Congress and Bush are AWOL on the immigration problem as is the government of Mexico. Mr. Simcox urged everyone to come down to the border with him and see the problems in person. He also urged everyone to visit the borderlinks.org web site.

In summary the Chris Simcox that showed up in GEO 2.324 on the UT Campus Tuesday night was not the Chis Simcox that the anarchist protesters characterized. I think the whole thing is a case of mistaking identity (conscience or unconscious) on their part. I'm glad the protesters were wrong about Mr. Simcox' identity, but I'm a bit concerned about the protesters' collective identity. They seemed to BE who they were coming to protest—hate filled racists who don't care about the human trafficking, forced servitude, sex slavery, gang bangers, drug cartels, terrorist infiltration, and, perhaps, WMDs moving in, around, and through our porous borders.

There were a number of protesters who stayed to the very end and if fair minded probably came away with a more accurate understanding of who Chris Simcox and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are and fond common ground between them. If that is the case, it is a very good thing and worth all the harassment and persecution Chris and the attendees went through Tuesday night in GEO 2.324 on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin.

Hook 'em!