Senator Hutchison and the Border Fence
January 11, 2008The conservative airwaves are still ripe with talk about border security and it’s surely going to be one of the top campaign issues of 2008.
The biggest talk involving the border is down South, here in McAllen, TX, where I reside. The talk surrounds the border wall.
The San Antonio Express News Reports:
Some conservatives are labeling U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a traitor after she slipped an amendment into the federal budget bill passed last month that some say effectively kills the border fence.The conservative radio world and blogosphere has been buzzing with outcry that the amendment — which removed the requirement under the Secure Fence Act for a double-layered fence and gave Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff flexibility in its placement — did just that.
Nationally syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin decried the “incredible shrinking border fence.” Others called Hutchison “Benedict Arnold” and said the Texas Republican used the “cover of Christmas” to ram the measure through.
I’m a fan of Michelle Malkin, but I live by the border and I know what it’s like here. I know that a fence will not secure the nation, but is just a piece of feel good legislation that wastes money, takes private land away in Texas and shuts up talk radio and the blogosphere for a while.
Hutchison defends her position:
“Border patrol agents reported that coyotes and drug-runners were altering their routes as fencing was deployed, so the amendment gives our agents discretion to locate the fence where necessary to achieve operational control of our border,” she said.
We need a secure border, but not in such an inefficient manner as the border wall.
Hutchison’s amendment issue:
“… nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”
As a Texan first and a conservative second, I commend Senator Hutchison for fighting the border fence. She clearly understands her constituents, the land in Texas and the issue of border security.
I hope 2008′s border security talk shifts the focus to ALL borders, not just the one I live by here in deep South Texas.
In 2008, vote for a candidate who will secure your nation, but not at the blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility and private ownership in this nation.
To agree with Kay Bailey Hutchison and call yourself a conservitive and a Texan is just soooo wrong. If you were a TRUE Texan, you would want the fence. You obviously know NOTHING about this great state. Do just a little bit more homework and see what the illegal immigrants are costing us here in Texas.
http://www.gohunter08.com
I say that a fence like the one Congressman Hunter had built in San Diego, along with border agents patrolling that fence will work.
I also believe the executive branch enforcing the existing laws will help us deport the illegals in a timely manner.
I believe in America and I know what America can accomplish.
What a shame. Again, I hear the same excuse for an argument that “…a fence will not secure…” This is really an EMPTY argument. You may as well state that a fence will not secure your home! Why bother building fences around our homes, or our private lands for that matter. Why spend money for those fences? Fences are deterrants, they are the first line of defense against intruders. The level of security it affords depends on its placement, size, structure, and technological design. An extended fence may change in design in accordance to the environment such as urban and rural areas.
Also, every time I hear the arguments against a Fence, those arguments are never followed by significant alternative security measures other than the usual lighting, cameras, sensors and increased Border Patrol. In other words, just more of the same. We don’t need more of the same; we need more and improved fence. Fences and barriers have been a part of human history. The great wall of China (not completed on time) and Hadrian’s Wall are some examples. And, most European cities (not nations) had walls and fences to secure them. Let us not forget, that a single wooden fence saved the Union at the Battle of Gettysburg.
[I probably owe my life to a fence in Vietnam. Yes, it was just a Single Wire fence that stood between the enemy and my surrounded unit. The fence was my first line of defence. After that, it was just me. It worked.]
If Coyotes and Drug-runners are altering their routes as the fence is deployed, then THE FENCE IS WORKING. And, if it is working, then it also represents money well spent (Fiscal Responsibility).
Also, there is no disregard for private ownership. The fence does not require much land and owners do receive “just compensation.” By the way, The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution “…prohibits government from taking private property without just compensation…” That is Law.
The Fence is not meant to suppress legal immigration. Hey, we travel by and enter through fences on a daily basis such as Domestic fences, Business fences and Government fences. Law abiding Citizens are not intimidated by them. Only potential law breakers are intimidated by fences.
The Fence is simply a start to controlling our border.