Immigration Reform: Congress Is Ground Zero Tomorrow
The debate over immigration reform truly begins tomorrow with the debate and vote on the Sessions Amendment. Sen. Jeff Sessions wants an amendment to the immigration reform that the Congress is trying to hammer out. The Sessions Amendment calls for 375 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. According to Hugh Hewitt, there are confirmations through sources that the president IS in favor of such a measure:
I have confirmed with a senior White House source this morning that the president is for robust fencing in urban areas --as exists in El Paso and San Diego-- and for vehicle barriers in rural areas.
Hugh, then rightly asks the question of all questions after last night's speech ...
... Perhaps Assistant Secretary Myers didn't get the memo? Why? Because of the exchange between her, and Hugh last night. Go ahead and read the transcripts. You won't believe what you've read when you finish. I have read it (twice now), and I listened to the exchange last night. And that exchange occurred when word spread through the blogosphere of being incredibly underwhelmed. When the administration's talking heads went out to break it down, the messages were mixed. Why?
Because of this piece of the exchange:
HH: It's great to have you on. When the President said high tech fence, what was he talking about? How long will it be?
JM: Well, he is talking about, kind of thinking about a combination of surveillance and manpower and infrastructure, that the border patrol is seeking to do over a period of several years.
HH: But in terms of actual fencing fencing, how many miles are we talking about?
JM: Well, in terms of actual fencing, I think they're still looking at kind of what makes most sense in terms of surveillance and manpower and actual infrastructure.
Myers doesn't seem to get it. The country is shouting at Washington to build a fence, and she isn't getting it. And with her consistent repeat of those three things--surveillance, manpower, and infrastrutcture--are all well and good, it's not stopping the problem, and it's not slowing it down. And this applies to ANYONE coming here illegally. I don't care about the national origin. I care that the law is abided by, and if it is, the appropriate punishment is meted out.
The fence is an integral issue, and should be addressed, far and away, much quicker than it currently is. No one in Congress wants to address the issue, and those that do, like Senator Sessions, are instantly referred to as a racist, or a xenophobe. This isn't about that. Yes, of course we want to keep the bad people out, but more importantly we simply want our laws followed. If we have to follow the laws of other nations, then why don't they have to follow ours? I can't seem to grasp this, and many in Congress may also be wrestling with it.
By all means, call them: 202-225-3121. If you want the fence like we do, call them, and tell them to support the Sessions Amendment. Before we can work on the interior, Ms. Myers, we need control of the situation. And this, my friends, is why the blogosphere tried to stop her confirmation. We knew this would happen. The problem the White House seems to be facing these days is it's policy is being overridden on many levels.
State was the first problem, and removing much of the venomous bureaucracy that tried to undermine the president. CIA, the NSA, and FISA have caused their own shades of Hell. Now ICE is doing it. As James Lileks quipped last night after the interview with Myers on Hugh's show, "This definitely kills the idea of 'Karl Rove/super genius.'"
If she was his choice, you're not kidding James.
Now, contrast that exchange with this exchnge today with Hugh and Kevin Stevens, the Border Patrol's associate chief. They were discussing fences:
HH: Now focusing in on the urban and the rural, or the urban and the near urban, I'll call it, would 400 miles of double or triple fencing combined with technology significantly impact illegal immigration flow?
KS: It absolutely would.
HH: Do you endorse it?
KS: The double and triple fencing? To be able to cover those pieces?
HH: Yeah.
KS: Yes, because it would cover those urban areas, and those immediate flanking areas surrounding it. It's not a matter of wanting double and triple fencing and pedestrian barrier for 2,000 miles. And again, I hate to even talk about specific mileage at this point. But in general terms, those areas where it's appropriate, that the pedestrians would try to exploit. And then move to barriers in the more rural and remote areas that would prevent, for example, vehicles from crossing easily.
HH: Because later in the program, we'll talk with Senator Sessions, who's offering an amendment for 375 miles of urban fencing, and 500 miles of vehicle barrier fencing. That sounds like it's pretty much on the mark.
KS: I think that would be a significant enhancement to our operational capacity, and our ability to deter traffic, and mitigate the illegal flow, both in the urban and the remote and rural areas.
After reading that interview (We missed his first hour) I'm left wondering what the president was thinking when he put Myers at ICE. It's apparent that Mr. Stevens is far more savvy in this realm than she is. She stands on the premise of no fence, utilize the same-old, same-old, and hope for the best. That isn't the solution, and I hope Hugh's source is correct that the president stands in favor of a measure like the Sessions Amendment.
But we need to hit the phones. Call the monkeys in the Senate, and tell them to vote in favor of it.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: 5:47 p.m. Arizona Time
I liked Thomas' post today, but in typing it up, I think he missed something that is important to this topic. He cited pieces of the Julie Myers/Hugh Hewitt interview, but I think he missed the key piece--the one that makes his other citation extremely relevant:
HH: So I'm back to the fencing conversation. If fencing is the best way to stop them at the border, why don't we have a plan laid out for that?
JM: Well, you know, I don't think we think that fencing is the best way to stop them on the border. I think the President's called for...if you build a fence, they build a tunnel. We just saw that today. There was another tunnel destroyed, another, excuse me, another tunnel found over in the San Diego area. So you can't...given the kind of the layout of our land, I believe it's the President's view, it's the border patrol's view, that a fence alone is not enough. We need a layered approach that includes surveillance, personnel, technology. We are working with the military to make sure we have the best technology. And some places, a fence may be very effective, but some places, it's simply not.
HH: Assistant Secretary Myers, correct me if I'm wrong. I think you just walked the administration back from the fence.
JM: I...no, I said consistent with what the border patrol chief's been telling me all along, he's been telling me what he needs, the combination of all these things. You look at the particular location, the particular terrain, and you decide what's most effective. You don't want something people can scale in two minutes and then be in the desert, and then you just have put people on the other side of the fence.
Is this an insinuation that there is a division between the Border Patrol's chief and the deputy chief, Kevin Stevens? Mr. Stevens, in his interview with Hugh, stated that they were on the same page regarding the fencing, which is precisely in line with our way of thinking here at The Asylum. The fences need to be in the "urban" areas of the border. Surveillance, patrols, and technology can serve the other areas--ones with untennable terrain and features--just as well as the urban fence can.
And if there is not a division between the two head honchos of the Border Patrol, then maybe Ms. Myers has a problem understanding the English language. Of course, in her interview with Hugh, if you read it, you will see that this woman is greatly unprepared for the interview. Statement of fact: Her interview was a PR nightmare, and a disaster. That might be why many bloggers were willing to grant the president a mulligan on the speech to clarify his positions.
The speech itself, while appearing decent on the outside, lacked the punch that the public wanted. I know that many of the polls are showing favorable responses to the speech, but bloggers--yes, those nasty, nasty people who pay closer attention to the world of politics and current events--panned it. We knew it stunk because it didn't go far enough, and in an election season that could prove to be the GOP's Waterloo that was not what the president needed.
The Bunny ;)
The debate over immigration reform truly begins tomorrow with the debate and vote on the Sessions Amendment. Sen. Jeff Sessions wants an amendment to the immigration reform that the Congress is trying to hammer out. The Sessions Amendment calls for 375 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. According to Hugh Hewitt, there are confirmations through sources that the president IS in favor of such a measure:
I have confirmed with a senior White House source this morning that the president is for robust fencing in urban areas --as exists in El Paso and San Diego-- and for vehicle barriers in rural areas.
Hugh, then rightly asks the question of all questions after last night's speech ...
... Perhaps Assistant Secretary Myers didn't get the memo? Why? Because of the exchange between her, and Hugh last night. Go ahead and read the transcripts. You won't believe what you've read when you finish. I have read it (twice now), and I listened to the exchange last night. And that exchange occurred when word spread through the blogosphere of being incredibly underwhelmed. When the administration's talking heads went out to break it down, the messages were mixed. Why?
Because of this piece of the exchange:
HH: It's great to have you on. When the President said high tech fence, what was he talking about? How long will it be?
JM: Well, he is talking about, kind of thinking about a combination of surveillance and manpower and infrastructure, that the border patrol is seeking to do over a period of several years.
HH: But in terms of actual fencing fencing, how many miles are we talking about?
JM: Well, in terms of actual fencing, I think they're still looking at kind of what makes most sense in terms of surveillance and manpower and actual infrastructure.
Myers doesn't seem to get it. The country is shouting at Washington to build a fence, and she isn't getting it. And with her consistent repeat of those three things--surveillance, manpower, and infrastrutcture--are all well and good, it's not stopping the problem, and it's not slowing it down. And this applies to ANYONE coming here illegally. I don't care about the national origin. I care that the law is abided by, and if it is, the appropriate punishment is meted out.
The fence is an integral issue, and should be addressed, far and away, much quicker than it currently is. No one in Congress wants to address the issue, and those that do, like Senator Sessions, are instantly referred to as a racist, or a xenophobe. This isn't about that. Yes, of course we want to keep the bad people out, but more importantly we simply want our laws followed. If we have to follow the laws of other nations, then why don't they have to follow ours? I can't seem to grasp this, and many in Congress may also be wrestling with it.
By all means, call them: 202-225-3121. If you want the fence like we do, call them, and tell them to support the Sessions Amendment. Before we can work on the interior, Ms. Myers, we need control of the situation. And this, my friends, is why the blogosphere tried to stop her confirmation. We knew this would happen. The problem the White House seems to be facing these days is it's policy is being overridden on many levels.
State was the first problem, and removing much of the venomous bureaucracy that tried to undermine the president. CIA, the NSA, and FISA have caused their own shades of Hell. Now ICE is doing it. As James Lileks quipped last night after the interview with Myers on Hugh's show, "This definitely kills the idea of 'Karl Rove/super genius.'"
If she was his choice, you're not kidding James.
Now, contrast that exchange with this exchnge today with Hugh and Kevin Stevens, the Border Patrol's associate chief. They were discussing fences:
HH: Now focusing in on the urban and the rural, or the urban and the near urban, I'll call it, would 400 miles of double or triple fencing combined with technology significantly impact illegal immigration flow?
KS: It absolutely would.
HH: Do you endorse it?
KS: The double and triple fencing? To be able to cover those pieces?
HH: Yeah.
KS: Yes, because it would cover those urban areas, and those immediate flanking areas surrounding it. It's not a matter of wanting double and triple fencing and pedestrian barrier for 2,000 miles. And again, I hate to even talk about specific mileage at this point. But in general terms, those areas where it's appropriate, that the pedestrians would try to exploit. And then move to barriers in the more rural and remote areas that would prevent, for example, vehicles from crossing easily.
HH: Because later in the program, we'll talk with Senator Sessions, who's offering an amendment for 375 miles of urban fencing, and 500 miles of vehicle barrier fencing. That sounds like it's pretty much on the mark.
KS: I think that would be a significant enhancement to our operational capacity, and our ability to deter traffic, and mitigate the illegal flow, both in the urban and the remote and rural areas.
After reading that interview (We missed his first hour) I'm left wondering what the president was thinking when he put Myers at ICE. It's apparent that Mr. Stevens is far more savvy in this realm than she is. She stands on the premise of no fence, utilize the same-old, same-old, and hope for the best. That isn't the solution, and I hope Hugh's source is correct that the president stands in favor of a measure like the Sessions Amendment.
But we need to hit the phones. Call the monkeys in the Senate, and tell them to vote in favor of it.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: 5:47 p.m. Arizona Time
I liked Thomas' post today, but in typing it up, I think he missed something that is important to this topic. He cited pieces of the Julie Myers/Hugh Hewitt interview, but I think he missed the key piece--the one that makes his other citation extremely relevant:
HH: So I'm back to the fencing conversation. If fencing is the best way to stop them at the border, why don't we have a plan laid out for that?
JM: Well, you know, I don't think we think that fencing is the best way to stop them on the border. I think the President's called for...if you build a fence, they build a tunnel. We just saw that today. There was another tunnel destroyed, another, excuse me, another tunnel found over in the San Diego area. So you can't...given the kind of the layout of our land, I believe it's the President's view, it's the border patrol's view, that a fence alone is not enough. We need a layered approach that includes surveillance, personnel, technology. We are working with the military to make sure we have the best technology. And some places, a fence may be very effective, but some places, it's simply not.
HH: Assistant Secretary Myers, correct me if I'm wrong. I think you just walked the administration back from the fence.
JM: I...no, I said consistent with what the border patrol chief's been telling me all along, he's been telling me what he needs, the combination of all these things. You look at the particular location, the particular terrain, and you decide what's most effective. You don't want something people can scale in two minutes and then be in the desert, and then you just have put people on the other side of the fence.
Is this an insinuation that there is a division between the Border Patrol's chief and the deputy chief, Kevin Stevens? Mr. Stevens, in his interview with Hugh, stated that they were on the same page regarding the fencing, which is precisely in line with our way of thinking here at The Asylum. The fences need to be in the "urban" areas of the border. Surveillance, patrols, and technology can serve the other areas--ones with untennable terrain and features--just as well as the urban fence can.
And if there is not a division between the two head honchos of the Border Patrol, then maybe Ms. Myers has a problem understanding the English language. Of course, in her interview with Hugh, if you read it, you will see that this woman is greatly unprepared for the interview. Statement of fact: Her interview was a PR nightmare, and a disaster. That might be why many bloggers were willing to grant the president a mulligan on the speech to clarify his positions.
The speech itself, while appearing decent on the outside, lacked the punch that the public wanted. I know that many of the polls are showing favorable responses to the speech, but bloggers--yes, those nasty, nasty people who pay closer attention to the world of politics and current events--panned it. We knew it stunk because it didn't go far enough, and in an election season that could prove to be the GOP's Waterloo that was not what the president needed.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home