October 25, 2006
Mexico: "Don't Fence Me In"
A frequent reader of this blog, fellow Texan, all around good guy and a friend sent me the following email:
The Secure Fence Act is something I support because I believe we need to get better control over our borders. I think this is important for our country and it's also a local issue for me as a West Texan.Frankly I'd like to see a good fence from Brownsville, Tx to San Diego, Ca. though I'm not sure it would do as much good as supporters think it will. As the Russians found out with the Berlin Wall, maintaining a fence of any length and keeping it secure is a very difficult and expensive job. That said, Mexico is not willing to police it's own borders so we must. It is interesting too, I think, that the Mexican Govt is planning to protest the fence at the UN, not mentioning the groundswell movement among their own people to build a fence on their southern border to keep out Central and South American "riff-raff."There is something that interests me about one small aspect of this subject that I want to share with you and see what you think. Let me start with some background. As you probably know, President Bush claims Midland and West Texas as his home although he hasn't lived there in over 20 years. Nevertheless, I think he has kept in touch with many Midland friends over the years including a former accounting employee, Michael Conaway. Conaway's web page here.
Mr. Conaway is currently Congressman Conaway representing 36 Texas counties (including Midland) in Texas-11 in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is his district here The district was specially created to benefit Midland during Tom Craddick's redistricting a few years ago and it was generally accepted that Conaway was the front-runner since he came in second to Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock in the prior election for Texas-19, the district that Midland was in prior to redistricting..
Now to the point of this email, the Secure Fence Act (HR 6061). President Bush will apparently sign the Secure Fence Act on Thursday in what Mickey Kaus says will be a subdued ceremony. Kaus previously speculated that President Bush might even exercise a pocket veto on this legislation. We know President Bush was originally reluctant to support a fence without some sort of amnesty or amnesty-like provisions, so it's probably safe to say that he's not a big supporter of this legislation.
Nor, apparently, is Michael Conaway. If find that surprising, to say the least, since Midlanders and most of West Texans are known for their conservative views. Why, then, did Congressman Conaway join Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Jack Murtha, Barney Frank, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and approximately 130 other Democrats to vote against the Secure Fence Act? In fact, Conaway was one of only 5 Republicans to vote against the Secure Fence Act, and 3 of those were from Alaska and Puerto Rico - not exactly hotbeds of illegal immigration. Here's a link that shows the House vote on HR 6061, the Secure Fence Act.
If not for Conaway's ties to President Bush, this would be of interest only to Texas-11 residents. However, I can't help but wonder if Conaway's opposition is related to or reflects President Bush's antipathy to this legislation. Perhaps it was simply Conaway's attempt to support his old boss, the President. It's true that Conaway has consistently supported President Bush's views on immigration as evidenced by this op-ed from April 2006, and this op-ed from late 2005. Conaway also wrote about visiting the border with President Bush here: http://www.conawayblog.com/?p=22. Interestingly enough, I can't find any reference to or explanation of his vote on the Secure Fence Act at Conaway's website or on his blog.
Frankly, I'm not sure if it matters but it intrigues me and I wondered what you thought.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I doubt if the PC police with their charges of racism, etc. have any better answer than a fence. I am concerned, as an American National, about the children born in this country to illegals. Those children are in fact, and due to our own laws, citizens of this country. I do believe that we need to change that law as soon as possible. In the mean time, how do we handle deporting parent's and not deporting citizens (the children) who through no fault of their own are now pawns in this game? This is an issue that no one wants to talk about, and I can see why, it is fraught with difficulty and the angst of the familys involved is both real and palpable.
What do you think dear readers?
"This is an issue that no one wants to talk about, and I can see why, it is fraught with difficulty and the angst of the familys involved is both real and palpable."
No it isn't. Those parents broke our laws to have an "anchor baby" - a little U.S. citizen. The laws need to be changed such that any birth of a child in this country, from parents illegally here, is not to be considered a U.S. Citizen. Period. The solution - deport them all back to their country of origin and let them go to the end of the line behind all of those waiting to enter the country legally.
Posted by Vulgorilla at October 25, 2006 08:30 AM
I think it's debateable whether or not babies born to illegal immigrants are citizens. I heard a discussion of the law recently which highlighted the clause "under sovereign power" (or something like that). The example given was the wife of a German diplomat who had her baby in a US hospital (not at the embassy, and so on US soil.) Their baby is a German citizen, not a US citizen, because both parents swear allegience to Germany (to use an archaic-sounding phrase). If a mother is here illegally, still considering herself a citizen of her home country, why should her child get US citizenship? I say, it shouldn't. If we started enforcing this law then many fewer pregnant women would make last-minute border crossings to get citizenship for their babies. If you're a legal citizen, your children are also legal citizens, but if you're not, they're not. Makes perfect sense to me, and the law doesn't even need to be changed -- just enforced.
(It could be that discussion I heard was wrong -- I haven't had a chance to follow it up with my own research.)
Posted by Joan at October 25, 2006 08:50 AM
I don't know the West Texas politics of this, so I can't comment intelligently on that part. I agree that a fence won't solve everything. But so long as we only expect it to solve part of the problem, that should be fine.
Illegal immigration irks us. We like people to play by the rules, and harbor deep suspicions of folks who start out their stay here by breaking laws. Also, illegal immigration tends to impose costs on people in selected areas - usually right across the border, but several cities much further north have considerable problems as well. The costs of legal immigrants are distributed across the whole country.
That said, we have been able to successfully absorb immigrants of virtually any description at about half the current rate for over a century. I don't mean just economically absorb, but culturally blend as well. There is a level of immigration at which newcomers influence the receiving culture without overwhelming it or having to separate out in pockets for more than a generation. We are over that level.
If we solve even 50% of the problem in the next few years, however, the remaining problem, irritating as it is, may not be worth spending billions of dollars to fix. It might be easier to just shrug it off. Being ticked off is a fair exchange for less government spending. Build the fence. Evaluate how much it helps. Don't decide anything else until then.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 25, 2006 10:38 AM
Bush is reluctant to enforce all immigration laws as well as to build the fence because it will all be moot if his SPP ambitions are realized, projected to reach fruition by 2010 -- SPP is a less polarizing term than NAU (North American Union), but it amounts to the same thing.
A key element of the SPP will be moving our security perimeter to Mexico's shores and southern border while issuing passports like the EU cards Europeans carry, so Mexicans will be able to traffic as freely into and around the U.S. and Canada as we do Mexico.
The SPP is a strong ongoing project of the Committee On Foreign Relations, who are keeping these activities quiet, for obvious reasons, one of which is the fact that in order for the SPP to "work", a generous amount of U.S. sovereignty will necessarily have to be forfeit -- therefore, the entire thing is intended to be sprung on us rather than placed on the table ahead of time for our perusal. Congress has not been consulted and the media are kept out of the loop, but the evidence is out there.
I posted on this with some good links the other day, after hearing murmurs for some time.
IMO, that is also why those 2 Border Patrol agents were made examples of -- to keep the rest from doing jobs that will be eliminated in a few years , anyway.
In short, don't expect Bush to do any sort of about face on his present immigration stance.
Posted by Seth at October 25, 2006 11:08 AM
Who's going to guard the guards? A fence helps, but less so when enforcers let crooks slip through.
Bribery of federal and local officials by Mexican smugglers is rising sharply, and with it the fear that a culture of corruption is taking hold along the 2,000-mile border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego. ...Perhaps the most revealing example of smugglers' savvy was their cultivation of the highest-ranking FBI official in El Paso, Special Agent in Charge Hardrick Crawford.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003321602_border25.html
Posted by Woody at October 25, 2006 12:38 PM
Apparently China builds fences a lot faster than we do:
"China has put up a massive concrete and barbed wire fence along parts of its border with North Korea to block a possible influx of refugees as strong international sanctions are enacted in response to Pyongyang's program to develop nuclear weapons.
In addition, China's People's Liberation Army recently conducted military exercises and deployed additional troops near the North Korean border.
South Korean media reports quoted border residents who said the 20-kilometer-long fence was erected immediately after North Korea announced its nuclear test. China has also stepped up patrols and inspections along the border with the North, they said. "
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2454034.086111111.html
Posted by DRJ at October 25, 2006 01:12 PM
GM,
I am concerned, as an American National, about the children born in this country to illegals. Those children are in fact, and due to our own laws, citizens of this country.
You might find THIS and THIS worth your consideration.
Posted by Always On Watch at October 25, 2006 03:20 PM
Also, Chinese border soldiers shoot Tibetans trekking through the Himalayas to see the Dalai Lama.
Posted by Jeremayakovka at October 25, 2006 05:44 PM
J, if the Democrats were in charge, they would hire the Chinese, just as Panama did, to provide security at our border.
Posted by Woody at October 25, 2006 06:46 PM
I am all for building an intense, damn-near enormous, towering fence WITH A MOAT along the entire Mexican border. 75% for security concerns and 25% for immigration reforms.
I am worried about violent criminals coming to America AND I am also worried about unchecked, shadowy immigrants coming to America and failing to assimilate because of legal and administrative loops they bypassed.
We should make it relatively easier to get into the country LEGALLY while simultaneously doing all we can to cut off illegal immigration from Mexico. Immigrants are good for America - they come here to make more money...and America likes making money. If GM and Ford are going to get better margins and start making money it will probably be on the backs of cheap labor to replace all the expensive, unionized labor they are jettisoning right now. Sucks for union workers, but good for those willing to work for less. I think I'm ranting...
Long story short, I love immigrants. Hell, almost every Mexican immigrant I talked to seems to work 18 hours a day! That's frikkin' good work ethic and serious determination!!! And their TV channels seem to have absolutely hot chicks on all the damn time!! That's absolutely AMERICAN! That's the kind of blatant sexuality that makes al-Qaeda-type islam-o-nazis wake up late at night in a cold sweat!
Let them in! Hey, I'll admit...WE ALREADY ARE LETTING THEM IN...IN DROVES!!!!
I want a huge, barbed-wire, electric fence, though. And crocodiles in that moat.
So I'm not complaining about the administration really, no president in a long time has been doing much about the Mexican border. But I hope Bush signs this bill. We shouldn't have a problem with the Mexicans coming to America to earn money and to raise their families in a safe, healthy, democratic, and respectable country which fosters hard work, freedom, and individuality. As long as they come correct. If I was mexican, I WOULD WANT TO COME TO AMERICA, TOO!
America is a party that i think everyone should be invited to. Rock on, immigrants!!!! Just rock legally!!!
And pay taxes ;-)
Posted by Quickrob at October 25, 2006 07:51 PM
did I stink up the joint?
Posted by QuickRob at October 26, 2006 10:20 AM
Actually, QuickRob, I thought your comment was close to perfect and you can't beat perfection.
Posted by DRJ at October 26, 2006 11:43 AM
I BLUSH! ;-)
Posted by QuickRob at October 27, 2006 03:36 PM
