Aye????????? On building a fence on the border?

[TayTay]

Why do we want to build a 370 mile fence on the US Mexico border? (And 500 miles of 'vehicle barriers' whatever those are.) Why would Sen. Kerry vote Aye to this?

[Mass]

1. Dont know? Way too many Dems voted yes for my taste!

Sorry to say, but it seems pandering to me. At least, Feingold and Reed voted NO and a handful of others voted NO.

A fence will do nothing.

karin and all others that live in NJ: congratulations, your two senators voted NO.

[Inuca]

3. Something is going on...

I just heard Obama change from yes to no

[demdiva]

71. Interesting ...

[Inuca]

2. ???

I am listening/watching while finishing my grading. I had the feeling that (most) democrats were voting NO on this, but things seem to have changed while I went outside for a smoke. It's a ridiculous suggestion, IMHO. But I keep hearing lots of AYES, one just came from Levin. Lautenberg & Menendez NO.

[Inuca]

4. Pathetic

83 (I think) AYEs

[Mass]

5. Now this is giving me a headache. Lieberman voted NO and Kerry YES!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00126

Here are the NAY

NAYs ---16
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

[TayTay]

7. I'm going to write and ask that office what's up with this?

Why vote for this provision? It strikes me as 'unenforceable.' (Ahm, Teddy didn't vote for it. Okay, don't hit me. I know they're not joined at the hip, but still.)

[sandnsea]

12. Who is he supporting for AZ Senate??

Pederson, is that the guy? Against Kyl? Maybe that's got something to do with it. Post below, Napolitano supports this stuff so maybe he's trying to lend a hand to local Dems. Plus, it looks to me like this is mostly reenforcement of fences already in place anyway.

[saracat]

21. Napolitano does NOT support a wall. Neither does Pederson.

Just for the record!

[sandnsea]

24. Not what she said on Hardball

GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO (D), ARIZONA: "We‘ve actually had National Guard at the border since 1988. We use them in a support capacity, for drug interdiction. We use them for engineering, building and maintaining fences, lighting and so forth. And I‘ve been asking for more federal funds for more guard on the border for quite some time now. I‘m looking very much forward to the president‘s speech."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12817625/

[saracat]

25. She supports theNational Guard on the border, not a WALL.

She wants to strengthen Border Security and she believes the Feds have an obligation to the border states.

[sandnsea]

27. They're repairing the walls that are there

It's right in that quote. That's what this vote was for, money to repair those exact same walls. If she doesn't support them, you'd think she'd have had them torn down and not referred to them on national tv.

I'm not saying she supports a wall clean across the entire border, but that isn't what this vote was about.

[Mass]

29. No, the vote of the amendment was to ADD fences and barriers.

Read what MH1 posted on the amendment and what it adds to what was already existing in the bill.

[sandnsea]

35. My point is that Napolitano supports fences

Partial fences. If she didn't, she wouldn't have said she's been asking for money to repair fences. It's clear from what she said, and her demeanor when she said it, that she supports these measures.

The bill isn't for a full fence, it's for a continuation of the partial fencing program that is already in place. Whether it's additional partial fencing or not. The bill isn't for a full fence on the border.

I don't support fencing, but fences have been down there for years, we see people filmed climbing over them all the time. I'm not sure why this fence amendment is so surprising to people.

[saracat]

43. Okay. I thought you meant that she supported a "GreatWall of Mexico" or so

or something. Repairs to existing "fences and walls , I don't have a problem with.We should be enforcing border security.

[sandnsea]

45. No I didn't mean that

I didn't see this amendment as building the Great Wall of Mexico, lol. But I did read a bit about some corporate contracting for all this high tech fencing and it sounds kind of creepy too. It's a difficult situation, there really is no question about that. My son in law is a contractor and he worries about competition and that sort of thing himself. We don't have much illegal immigration right here in my little town, but over in central Oregon about 60 miles from here, there's lots. My oldest son said about half the fire crews are probably illegal, which bothered him only because they couldn't speak english and he thought that was asking for trouble in a dangerous situation. So I get the problems. I just wish we'd pay more attention to the disparity in global economies as the solution.

[saracat]

47. I wish this money could go toward establishing a decent Mexican economy

so that they wouldn't have to "jump the fence'. I still think Fox's feet ought tobe held to the fire, and the NAFTA companies. This is their responsibility not the American taxpayers! JMHO.

[sandnsea]

48. They're our #1 source of oil

There's no excuse for there not being a better economy in Mexico. I agree with you, it's their government and the NAFTA companies, and our government for not putting tougher requirements in NAFTA.

Here's what really gets me right this second. So all the usual suspects are supposed to get these contracts for all this border security stuff. If it goes like Katrina, it really will be foreign workers, undocumented or guest worker, putting in vehicle barriers and such, to keep the undocumented out. And it won't stop the wage depression problem or the low income pressure on social services and schools problem, because that revolving door guest worker problem isn't going to guarantee that they make enough money to live without social services. And if they succeed in stripping the citizenship part out of any immigration bill, welcome to the Mariana Island "petri dish".

Millions more misspent dollars that won't solve the basic problem of global labor exploitation. When people work, they should make enough money so they don't need social services.

[saracat]

49. I agree sandnsea. But as long as we have no control of Congress, there is

nothing to be done about this.My guess is that fact has a lot to do with this vote. JMHO.

[MH1]

6. Text of amendment

SA 3979. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2611, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


Strike section 106, and insert the following:

SEC. 106. CONSTRUCTION OF STRATEGIC BORDER FENCING AND VEHICLE BARRIERS.

(a) Tucson Sector.--The Secretary shall--

(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary fencing in the Tucson Sector located proximate to population centers in Douglas, Nogales, Naco, and Lukeville, Arizona with double- or triple-layered fencing running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico;

(2) extend the double- or triple-layered fencing for a distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban areas, except that the double- or triple-layered fence shall extend west of Naco, Arizona, for a distance of 10 miles; and

(3) construct not less than 150 miles of vehicle barriers and all-weather roads in the Tucson Sector running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico in areas that are known transit points for illegal cross-border traffic.

(b) Yuma Sector.--The Secretary shall--

(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary fencing in the Yuma Sector located proximate to population centers in Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis, Arizona with double- or triple-layered fencing running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico;

GPO's PDF

(2) extend the double- or triple-layered fencing for a distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban areas in the Yuma Sector; and

(3) construct not less than 50 miles of vehicle barriers and all-weather roads in the Yuma Sector running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico in areas that are known transit points for illegal cross-border traffic.

(c) Other High Trafficked Areas.--The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego, Tucson and Yuma Sectors and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States.

(d) Construction Deadline.--The Secretary shall immediately commence construction of the fencing, barriers, and roads described in subsections (a), (b), and (c) and shall complete such construction not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives that describes the progress that has been made in constructing the fencing, barriers, and roads described in subsections (a), (b), and (c).

(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

[MH1]

9. Section 106 - to be replaced - what it says this moment

SEC. 106. CONSTRUCTION OF STRATEGIC BORDER FENCING AND VEHICLE BARRIERS.

(a) Tucson Sector- The Secretary shall--

(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary fencing in the Tucson Sector located proximate to population centers in Douglas, Nogales, Naco, and Lukeville, Arizona with double- or triple-layered fencing running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico;

(2) extend the double- or triple-layered fencing for a distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban areas, except that the double- or triple-layered fence shall extend west of Naco, Arizona, for a distance of 10 miles; and

(3) construct not less than 150 miles of vehicle barriers and all-weather roads in the Tucson Sector running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico in areas that are known transit points for illegal cross-border traffic.

(b) Yuma Sector- The Secretary shall--

(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary fencing in the Yuma Sector located proximate to population centers in Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis, Arizona with double- or triple-layered fencing running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico;

(2) extend the double- or triple-layered fencing for a distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban areas in the Yuma Sector; and

(3) construct not less than 50 miles of vehicle barriers and all-weather roads in the Yuma Sector running parallel to the international border between the United States and Mexico in areas that are known transit points for illegal cross-border traffic.

(c) Construction Deadline- The Secretary shall immediately commence construction of the fencing, barriers, and roads described in subsections (a) and (b), and shall complete such construction not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Report- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives that describes the progress that has been made in constructing the fencing, barriers, and roads described in subsections (a) and (b).

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

Edit to note the change:

Amendment inserts new section (c) :

(c) Other High Trafficked Areas.--The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego, Tucson and Yuma Sectors and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States.

[Mass]

10. Add the following (c) and changes (c) to (d) and (d) to (e)

(c) Other High Trafficked Areas.--The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego, Tucson and Yuma Sectors and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States.

So the amendment adds 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers (whatever it is) compared to the previous version. The question is why vote for that.

[MH1]

8. What did the affected governors want? nt

[sandnsea]

11. Napolitano supports this stuff

I saw her on Hardball the other day and she supports these fence type measures and she also supports the national guard on the border. I've got no idea whether it's conviction or politics, but there it is.

[saracat]

26. We live in a state that is being overrun and we can't afford it.

Janet is also for cracking down on the employers who only want to abuse the illegals. I met with the AFLCIO political Director this week and they also support these measures, mostly because of the abuse of the people. You might not believe that but it is true.Also many Hispanic Gruops want a crackdown on illegal Immigration. BTW the AFLCIO rep IS Hispanic.
Janet has conviction, and it is to do what is best for Arizona.

[TayTay]

30. Thanks for writing this.

Your state shares a border with Mexico. This problem is more immediate than it is in mine. That is simply true. My perspective on this is not as good as yours. Thanks for writing this.
It put another point of view out there.

In your opinion, was this a good vote for Kerry?

[sandnsea]

37. Well now I'm confused

Because first I explain that she supports these measures which may be why Kerry supported her, and get told that's wrong. Now I'm told your state is being overrun which is why she supports these measures. Well okaaay.

And no politician ever took a position because they had no other choice based on the political views of those in their state. Another, well okaaay.

Crazy thread. I'm out.

[globalvillage]

13. I heard him vote while I was working.

I almost fell off my chair. Seriously, I'm sitting there mumbling about what kind of good is a freaking 370 mile fence going to do, and a few other things that were less than kind, when JK votes yes.
I'm going to assume there's more to this than what it appears, but it was truly a WTF moment.
There has to be a good reason.

[JohnKleeb]

14. Hey GV not to change the subject

but did you hear what our boy J Peezy plans to do when the Steelers visit the White House? He's planning on giving Bush quite a talk.

[globalvillage]

15. I didn't hear that.

Was there an interview? I need to check it out.

[JohnKleeb]

16. Believe it was a Post Gazate article

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06135/690263-66.stm
I am gonna post it as its own thread because not everyone will see this.

[_dynamicdems]

17. It is surprising that they voted for a fence in Arizona and not Texas.

There is a severe problem down on the Texas/Mexico border that is not getting reported on the MSM. It is like the Wild West and there are shootings and killings every day. It isn't only an issue of illegal immigrants but of drug smuggling and the murders of law enforcement and border patrol. People down there live in constant fear and is far worse than anything you see on television or read about when it is covered.

I don't know if this has anything to do with border violence or if this fence with the addition of extra border security will do anything to stop the violence. This hasn't been widely covered. It has been kinda hush-hush.

A relative of mine lives down there and he's told me that it's like nothing you would believe.

[_dynamicdems]

18. Interesting: A group called the Minutemen has plans to build their own

private fence.

Minutemen dismiss Bush's plan; intend to build border fence
May 17, 2006, 07:13 AM
A civilian border watch group considers President Bush's crackdown plan on illegal immigration insufficient and is sticking to plans to start putting up a short border security fence on private land along the Mexican border.


On Monday, the president announced his intent to temporarily deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to support the U.S. Border Patrol, but not conduct patrols themselves, as part of an effort to gain control of the porous southwestern border with Mexico.

snip

Chris Simcox, the head of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said last month that unless military reserves or the National Guard were deployed to the border and the White House endorsed more secure fencing, his group would begin constructing fencing on private land along the border.

rest of article and lots more information from AZ news site

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4916611

[JohnKleeb]

19. It's the same minutemen thats leader ran for Congress

They have a local chapter in my town so they're not just about literal border patrol because I don't live anythwere near the Mexican border. They sprang up because of a controversy regarding our day labor site in one part of town. It certainly has been interesting since our mayor and three members of our city council got booted out because of it. Unfortunely I could not vote because I don't live in the town boundaries.

[_dynamicdems]

20. Citizens groups like this make me nervous because they easily

turn vigilante and take the law into their own hands. Maybe that is part of why the government is stepping in and fixing the fences. Sounds like a mess whichever way you look at it. Reading the articles on the AZ site was eye-opening. It seems there is a lot of anger down there about the border.

What is your take on these Minutemen?

[JohnKleeb]

33. I don't like them

I think they encourage xenophobia and feel they are viligantes. I think that could be a possiblity why the government may be doing something about the fences.

[_dynamicdems]

36. It sounds like a powder keg.

I've heard how bad things are on the Texas border but this was a surprise. So, apparently this fence has already been in existence and they want it repaired by the government or else they will take matters into their own hands. Is that accurate? If so, this might be a measure to diffuse a border war.

Most Democrats voted for this and I don't think Senator Kerry would have done so unless he had good and compelling evidence why it was necessary. I'd like to learn more before I condemn the vote out-of-hand as purely political.

[beachmom]

22. I don't agree with that vote either.

And you know, there may not be any explanation. We all may just simply disagree with the Senator -- it may be related to his Port Security/Border Security ideas from the campaign -- was building a fence in that plan? But, to me, it seems expensive and most likely ineffective.

Sorry, Senator -- agree to disagree on this one.

[TayTay]

23. Me too! I was thinking about this on the ride home

I know Sen. Kerry was very serious about border security and he has specifically and frequently mentioned beefing up border patrols. However, I never heard anything that indicated that he thought a big series of fences were a good idea.

Agree to disagree. I don't like the fence idea.

[globalvillage]

32. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

On it's face, it doesn't seem like a very good idea. OTOH, I've come to learn there's usually a good reason. So, either there's more to the story, or it's just not a very good vote (IMO).
It might even be possible that he's not perfect.
I agree with you, though, I don't like the fence. His amendment yesterday was awesome, though.

[_dynamicdems]

38. Thank you.

On the surface it sounds puzzling, but there is a lot going on down there on the borders between the US and Mexico. I don't know enough about the issue to make a call on this, but I've respected Senator Kerry's judgement long enough that I'm also giving him the benefit of doubt. One thing we know: he doesn't pander. He does everything with careful thought after reviewing all the data and the implications with great scrutiny.

I'm waiting to hear more before I jump to any conclusions.

[Mass]

40. You know, I think it is a very useless measure, but may be it will

make some people feel better (even if it does not work) and allow a decent immigration bill to be passed.

The fence cannot hurt, except for the dollars that will be spent on it. On the contrary, a bill that would not allow people who have been in this country for a long time to stay legally would be a terrible injustice.

If the fence is the price for this injustice not to happen, so be it, but I cant see how the fence in itself can be useful. It is $$ thrown away.

All I wish is that they add really severe penalties for people who hire illegals. What is in the bill is not enough to be really a deterrent.

[_dynamicdems]

68. There is a lot going on on the borders and the people are

very angry and frustrated. The fact that a citizen's militia-type group was going to erect their own fence might well be part of the reason the government has stepped in.

I'm not that familiar with the situation down there, but have been reading up on it and trying to get an appreciation for what's actually happening. Maybe the fence and barriers are a placebo.

What I do know is that there is a near border war in certain areas of Texas and the media has been complicit in suppressing the severity of the situation. I've got a relative who lives there and he calls it the "wild west" because everyone is running around with guns and the violence is out of control.

[sandnsea]

28. It's not for a full fence

It's for fencing that is already in place. See #24 and the Hardball link with Napolitano's remarks. It's to repair Arizona fencing that is already there.

I don't agree with it, but that is what it's about.

[Mass]

31. Read MH1 post (#9) on what Sessions amendment adds

It is to add fences, not repair fences. The part about repairing fences was in the Kennedy bill.

[sandnsea]

39. Okay, I see

fence and vehicle barriers, which are 4x4 ties sticking up out of the ground. Which is what Napolitano does support and still isn't a continuous fence.

[saracat]

44. And that is okay with me and most Dems in AZ.

[sandnsea]

46. And I would guess

That's why Kerry voted for it. Although I don't know that for sure. :hi:

[ProSense]

34. May have to do with this:

Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border

At the end of the first session of the 109th Congress, the House passed the BorderProtection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437),which contains language that would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct at least two layers of reinforced fencing along much of the nation’s southwest international land border. Earlier, the 109th Congress passed provisions to facilitate the completion of a three-tiered, 14-mile fence, along the border near San Diego in the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418), which was subsequently added to H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, and signed into law on May 11, 2005 (P.L. 109-13). The new provisions allow the Secretary of DHS to waive all legal requirements determined necessary to ensure expeditious construction of authorized barriers and roads. In September of 2005, the Secretary announced that he was using this authority to waive a number of mostly environmental and conservation laws. This report outlines the issues involved with DHS’s completion of the San Diego border fence and highlights some of the major legislative and administrative developments regarding the construction of new border fences. This report will be updated as warranted.

Snip...

The increase in manpower and resources reflected the USBP’s policy of re-routing unauthorized migration away from population centers to remote border regions where their agents have a tactical advantage over border-crossers. Other sectors, especially the remote Tucson sector in Arizona, saw apprehensions increase significantly in the late 1990s. Proponents of border fences point to the drastic reduction in apprehensions along the San Diego sector as tangible proof that these fences succeed in their goal of reducing cross-border smuggling and migration where they are constructed. Opponents attribute part of the decrease in apprehensions to the increase in manpower and resources in the sector and (pointing to the increase in apprehensions in less-populated sectors) contend that the fence only succeeds in re-routing unauthorized migration. Additionally, some The increase in manpower and resources reflected the USBP’s policy of re-routing unauthorized migration away from population centers to remote border regions where their agents have a tactical advantage over border-crossers. Other sectors, especially the remote Tucson sector in Arizona, saw apprehensions increase significantly in the late 1990s. Proponents of border fences point to the drastic reduction in apprehensions along the San Diego sector as tangible proof that these fences succeed in their goal of reducing cross-border smuggling and migration where they are constructed. Opponents attribute part of the decrease in apprehensions to the increase in manpower and resources in the sector and (pointing to the increase in apprehensions in less-populated sectors) contend that the fence only succeeds in re-routing unauthorized migration. Additionally, some believe the reduction in apprehensions can be attributed to the economic recession in the United States which depressed the job market, while others note that the reduction began in the late 1990s when the economy was still undergoing a period of robust growth.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Immigration/BorderSecurity.pdf

And the Homeland Security bill that legislated fence-building:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1268 As Amended )
Vote Number: 109 Vote Date: April 21, 2005, 04:55 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 1268 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 )
Measure Title: An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 99
NAYs 0
Not Voting 1

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00109

[wisteria]

42. I still don't understand what real good this will do. n/t

[wisteria]

41. I was joking that maybe they didn't know where the boarder began and

ended and the fence was needed to distinguish both and the vehicle barriers were needed so the vehicles didn't drive through the fence. Actually, I don't understand this at all either.

[karynnj]

50. NYT article on what the virtual fence

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/washington/18border.html?hp&ex=1148011200&en=14e4f28aeaa03b90&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Reading this, I'm not surprised at all at Kerry's vote. In his speech on immigration in the Senate, among other things, Kerry was concerned with the law being followed: that borders be controlled, businesses have the tools and the reponsibility not to hire illegals as well as the liberal side - accepting those already here and established having a way to earn citizenship.

The border is huge and goes through unpopulated areas. There is no way to put enough troops at the border to bar crossings. In fact, I wonder what they will do in cities essentially cut by the border. (I knew people who lived in Nogales, Arizona years ago. They had friends on both sides of the border.) It sounds like this fence is suppose to combine the border patrol, technology and barriers. The article is more concerned with whether it could work - previously ideas like this have failed.

The question may come down to what does closing the border mean. I honestly have no idea how it can be done otherwise. How did the European countries do this before they were all part of EU.

[Mass]

51. But this is not what the Sessions amendment is about.

And in Europe, there was no fence. There were road blocks and border patrols on the borders, but definitively no fence. Fences do not work. If you want to stop illegal immigration, make sure the penalties are so severe that nobody will hire illegal immigrants.

This is money thrown by the window and I really wished Kerry had resisted the pandering. It is harmless, but still pandering. For somebody who has memories of post-war Berlin and is so proud of his adventure trying to cross the border between West and East Berlin, I would have thought that the idea of a fence (or wall, or whatever you call it) was offensive.

[karynnj]

52. Good points

The penalties for hiring do seem far more effective in that they get rid of the benefit of crossing illegally.

[Mass]

54. Another reason I dont believe in the fence is that I took a car ride

last summer along the Mexican border between Tempe (AZ) and San Diego. Most of the areas along the border are so arid and desolated that, if people are already ready to cross the border there in the middle of the desert, they must be so desolated that a fence will not stop them.

I understand the need to control illegal immigration but this is definitively not the way, IMHO.

[MH1]

58. A car ride one summer?

I lived there for roughly 5 years. I've gone through border checkpoints several times and like I said, I probably crossed inadvertently at least once when I was tooling around the mountains.

Your points are well-taken for some areas of the border but the amendment is not addressing those areas:

(c) Other High Trafficked Areas.--The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego, Tucson and Yuma Sectors and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States.

The "desolate" and mountainous areas are not "the most often used".

My only concern is that the partial fencing will redirect some traffic to other areas, that are more likely the desolate and mountainous areas. That is why, as I understand it, Kerry is proposing a comprehensive solution. I don't know if he feels this fence portion is important to his overall solution, or if it is a necessary compromise in order to get the important stuff passed. But either way his vote is not "pandering."

[MH1]

55. Okay I have to object to that allegation.

This is a good discussion on this thread but NO.WAY.NO.HOW was Kerry's vote "pandering." To accuse him of that for this vote, especially after the discussion and the facts are revealed, is just wrong.

Apparently the governors and the people in the affected area want this. I have lived in southeast Arizona - almost spitting distance from the border...I may have crossed it myself inadvertently, in the mountains - and I know people who live there now. I believe there is a widely accepted perception that fences and barriers and overall better border enforcement is needed.

If a lawmaker shouldn't listen to the will of the people who are affected, who the hell should he listen to? How the hell is it "pandering"??

I agree that fences aren't sufficient to resolve the problem, but I personally think that they can help. I could take or leave this particular legislation, but based on what I undertand from reading this thread, I am satisfied with Kerry's vote. (thanks to everyone for their inputs, btw. Yesterday was a busy day for me - hopefully I'll post about that in a little while - that's why I missed alot of this discussion).

Also there may have been some vote-trading to get the bill through. There are some things in this bill that many of us want, like the path to citizenship for people who have been here a long time. If a few miles of vehicle barriers (creating construction jobs in the area btw) are the price to make headway on the more important things, I'm all for it.

[Mass]

56. When you do something that you know does not work but

cost a lot of money and do that because it makes people feel better, it is pandering. I am not satisfied by this amendment and am not ready to say I am just because Kerry voted for it. There are probably many things that could help, including virtual fences, but this is useless.

To make it clear, I am talking about specifically what Sessions added, not the underlying amendment.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I never expected to agree with Kerry on everything and it is a vote I just dont agree. I dont expect him to be a saint who will never pander to an electorate. If he never does it with something more substantial than that (or funds to TV Marti), it is fine with me.

On edit:

anyway, even if it is not that, it will be seen like that. Everybody I know here that heard that had the same reaction: :wtf:. The RW media of course are already talking about pandering and so is the other side. As this vote came without an hint of an explanation, people can only think that and Kerry does not give them any chance to think the opposite.

[MH1]

57. I disagree that it is "useless."

It is certainly not the entire solution or (in my mind) the most important part of the solution, but there are CERTAINLY rational arguments for the benefits of a fence - that you disagree gives you NO justification to insult someone who disagrees with you. To be clear, I feel that you insulted Kerry (not me), by calling this "pandering." Why do you think that he must agree with you on everything? Oh wait, you said you don't expect that. But then why, when he votes in a way you don't like, suddenly you take up the RW meme that it is "pandering", instead of just figuring that he sees it differently?

I don't mind people disagreeing with and criticizing Kerry's actions on this forum - that's healthy and to be expected, and we can all learn from the discussion - I welcome this particular thread in general because I knew some folks would be concerned by this vote. But, I have a real problem with people expressing that disagreement with insults and repetition of baseless, negative memes.

"As this vote came without an hint of an explanation, people can only think that and Kerry does not give them any chance to think the opposite."
Bullshit. Each of us can choose to think the best of other people until there is evidence to the contrary, or you can choose to think the worst of them at the slightest hint of some action you don't understand. A lack of explanation is NO reason for automatically thinking the worst of someone. That would be like accusing someone of stealing because you see them walking out of a store with something and you don't get to personally inspect the receipt.

Sorry if I am coming off a bit strong. I don't like the word "pander", and I don't think Kerry panders - I think he has good reasons for the votes he makes, even if sometimes I disagree with his choice. I think that goes generally for a lot of politicians too, not just Kerry. I think way too many people in the blogosphere are too quick to use that stupid word when they don't understand or agree with someone (gay marriage anyone?) and I am just tired of it.

< /rant >

[beachmom]

59. To be fair, maybe we're all suspicious of politicians and worry about

"pandering". When Kerry co-sponsored with Feingold for censure, I admit that word popped in my brain even if I didn't write it here. I think it is healthy to disagree with the Senator, and it's also healthy for people to be honest. It's also healthy for you to question a person's speculation which lacks evidence.

What is pandering anyway? A Senator or a Congressman/woman is elected to REPRESENT their constituents, and if they have presidential ambitions to understand national concerns. I tell you -- I wish * would pander to the center of this country, even if he disagreed with it. ONLY sticking to principles without looking at polls and understanding what the people want is to me just as distressing as "pandering".

Just some thoughts to chew on.

[Mass]

60. I am not even sure why you take that so strongly,

but I did not want to upset you because, once in a while, I dont see the reason somebody does something. Let say that on this one, I feel much more in agreement with Kennedy (and it is not that often).

[MH1]

67. The word "pander" is HIGHLY negative. It is an insult.

It is saying that the person is motivated only by hopes of currying favor, not by any valid reason with intent to do what is best.

I heartily reject any allegation that the word accurately describes any vote by Kerry, unless and until I am presented with sufficient evidence. The absence of explanation for a vote is not evidence, particularly when the vote is consistent with prior statements and positions.

"Pander" is not a word to be used lightly. I wouldn't even accuse the republicans on Judiciary of pandering for what they just did in moving the gay marriage ban to the floor. Political maneuvering - absolutely! Pandering? Maybe some of them, but I don't know enough to make that accusation.

[whometense]

62. I'd like to heartily thank you for this post.

I've stayed out of the discussion because I'm not well-versed enough in the ins and out of immigration policy to offer a thoughtful critique.

I do agree with you though about the need to question Kerry's votes in a responsible way. If someone supports the man in general, I don't understand why they would immediately jump to assume the worst possible motivation for his vote. And "pander" is a word that carries strong negative connotations. I particularly agree with this:

"As this vote came without an hint of an explanation, people can only think that and Kerry does not give them any chance to think the opposite."
Bullshit. Each of us can choose to think the best of other people until there is evidence to the contrary, or you can choose to think the worst of them at the slightest hint of some action you don't understand. A lack of explanation is NO reason for automatically thinking the worst of someone. That would be like accusing someone of stealing because you see them walking out of a store with something and you don't get to personally inspect the receipt.

Again, I honestly don't know enough about the issue (or, indeed, whatever horse trading was going on behind the scenes) to slam him for it. Of all the politicians we watch every day, Kerry is among the 4 or 5 least likely to betray his own convictions through gross pandering. To my mind he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[Mass]

63. Yes, but this is not a big deal. If he only panders on things like that

it is fine with me.

I am sorry if I upset some people here, but I am sure that, somehow, all politicians pander one day, even Kerry. So what? Why is it such a huge issue? I am more concerned by somebody like Byrd who voted all these amendments by conviction. That is really disturbing, IMHO.

And for the record and because I feel as if some people think I do not support Kerry because I said that: I agree with you totally on how Kerry is one of the least likely to do that. But I am sure he does that once in a while as everybody else (and for the lurkers, yes, even the great Wellstone, or Feingold, or Gore do that as well).

[whometense]

64. It's just the use of the word pander I object to.

It implies that his only motivation for voting for the provision is political positioning, and I don't think it's at all clear that that was why he did it.

I don't see anything at all wrong with questioning his vote - only with calling it pandering without knowing the whole story. That's jumping to conclusions unmerited by the facts.

And I agree with you about Byrd (and others) - that is much more disturbing. I think what we're discussing here about Kerry is really a matter of semantics.

[MH1]

69. Thanks, I think you said it better and more concisely. nt

[_dynamicdems]

66. Thank you, MH!

I couldn't agree more.

First of all, we do not know all the details or the reasoning behind this legislation. I'm reserving my opinion until I'm a little more informed.

Secondly, I too take exception with the term pandering because it is presumptuous to assume to know the senator's motivation in voting for this legislation and also because the term is being used incorrectly.

The meaning of the word "pandering" has been extended by poetic license to a broader meaning than the dictionary definition but it is still derogative in connotation.

From dictionary.com:

1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: “He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism” (New York Times)

We may agree or dissagree with anything the Senator does. This is still a free country and we are not Kerrybots. That said, it is disengenuous to presume too much and to think we know better than someone with 20 years on the job (someone we all feel is more than qualified to be President of the United States of America) without having all the facts. Get the facts before accusing Senator Kerry of pandering, please. We all know that first perceptions are often incorrect, or we should by now.

Do I agree that a fence will help? I can't say one way of the other. I don't live there and I don't presume to second-guess the reasoning behind the fence. I'm waiting for the facts before I jump to any conclusions or accuse anyone of anything. It might indeed be a factor of negotiation. And if it is: negotiation and pandering are not at all the same thing. Working together to get something done often involves give and take. To say this is pandering is completely wrong.

[ProSense]

53. It makes sense when you read

The Democratic Senators' amendments and the report in post 34.

This the snip pertaining to Kerry (much more on overall bill at the link):

Recruiting, Retaining, and Equipping the Border Patrol (Kerry). This amendment contains two major provisions. The Rapid Response Measures would 1) let the Secretary of Homeland Security provide up to 1,000 additional US Border Patrol Agents when a governor declares a state of emergency; 2) ensure that no Border Patrol Agents are precluded from performing patrol duties and arresting law violators unless temporary use of fixed deployment positions is necessary; 3) increase the number of helicopters and power boats available for border patrol; 4) give complete and exclusive administrative and operational control over assets (aircraft, watercraft, vehicles, detention spaces etc.) to the Border Patrol; 5) establish a motor vehicle fleet for Border Patrol that allows 1 car for every 3 agents; 6) ensure that each vehicle is equipped with portable computers; 7) ensure that all agents have clear and encrypted 2-way radios; 8) ensure that each agent has a GPS device; 9) ensure that each agent has night vision equipment; 10) ensures that each agent has high-quality border armor; 11) ensure that each agent is equipped with reliable and effective weapons; and 12) ensure that each agent has the necessary uniform for the climate they work in.


The second part of the Kerry amendment would 1) increase the maximum student loan repayments for U.S. Border Patrol Agents; 2) authorize recruitment and relocation bonuses; and 3) give agents the same retirement benefits as law enforcement and allows them to get credit for private service.(Staff contact: Mirah Horowitz, 4-2742)


http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-53

[ProSense]

61. Considering Kerry's strong stance

on issues related to Homeland Security (port security, border security) and given the extent of his amendment and the fact that border is considered a factor in both immigration and Homeland Security policy, it seems understandable that he would move to get these measures passed.


JMO!

[whometense]

65. I think you're most likely right on this.

It was probably a matter of giving up something relatively insignificant in order to gain the greater good. That, for better or for worse, is how the Senate works, after all, and why presidential candidates who are senators get so tied up in knots explaining some of their votes.

[karynnj]

70. It also may be a trade off between needing more National Guard

and a more physical barriers.

[rox63]

72. Some Kerry quotes on this vote...

...along with the requisite Boston Herald snark.

Sen. John Kerry on the fence . . .

By Boston Herald editorial staff
Saturday, May 20, 2006

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), fresh from the ongoing Senate debate over an immigration bill, offered the following explanation of his vote in favor of 370 miles of fence at the U.S.-Mexican border (estimated cost $3 million a mile) at yesterday’s New England Council breakfast:

“I voted for it because, first of all, a lot of it is the repair of the existing fence. A lot of it is just in the Arizona area, where we have the worst problem, the most numbers of people coming over.

“And if you go down, and you look at the numbers of border people that we have right now, and even the numbers - I put in an amendment, which passed, and we raised the number up to about 3,000 that have to be trained and put out there. But even when we get there, we’re only going to have a couple of people or so per mile, which is simply not enough. So we’re way behind, in terms of the training and production of people. And in the short term, I think this can serve us well.

More at the link: http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=139994

[karynnj]

73. This sounded like the clearest expalnation I've heard

from anyone. Is there problem that they absolutely can't envision changing situations. It makes sense that if you really succeed in stopping illegal employment you may not need the fance forever.

[ProSense]

76. Yeah! Unlike the current

WH squatter who proposed 6,000 NG troops, then his entire team had to backtrack the next day because the guard could only fill support roles. Next, the head of the border patrol organization pointed out that there aren't that many support roles to fill.

Write that editorial!

[TayTay]

74. Friggin Herald. Still the snarkiest bastids around.

Everybody is on my shit list today. The Herald is too. I thought that was very clear. Friggin Herald should try to start hiring people who have graduated from grammer school. Then maybe their correspondents would be able to decipher clear English sentences.

Honestly, I wish these cheap bastids would stop hiring reporters before they get the High School education they so desperately need. It would be better for the paper and for Boston. (Frigin no-account, piece of crap, douchebag bastids. Bite me!)

[karynnj]

75. The saving grace is that they do quote Kerry's

quite lucid comments. It's lucky for Kerry that he speaks very well. I think most of us would cringe if our spoken sentences were transcribed.

Kerry's position really is exactly what he said in the Senate on the bill that I think was called the Spector bill at the time.