Interesting development... what would you do if the government wanted to take your land away from you? would it really be your "civic duty" to give it up?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/17/border.fence/index.html

# Story Highlights
# Government wants land for border fence; landowners refuse
# Secretary Chertoff says he won't relent "for a particular individual"
# Eloisa Tamez says her property has been in her family since 1767
# Border town mayor calls the fence "a multibillion dollar speed bump"

Heres a better idea that this waste of money:

"entice" american companies to leave the communist dictatorship of China and move their operations to mexico. By moving production and facilities to mexico you would create more jobs (good ones) build a middle class that would not tolerate the corrupt mexican police and government and stabilize the nation. By helping build the economy of mexico then you make the appeal of the US that much less and a win win for both nations??????

Tim

Most of the people down there who oppose the border fence, do so because of their own personal interests and not any interest in the nation as a whole.

The border fence is basically a moot point right now.

Texas turncoat Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson killed the border fence with her amendment to the recent omnibus spending bill.

With that amendment she killed the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

Piece of cake: just move the fence a couple miles north to isolate those who oppose it's construction, making sure they're left on the "Mexico" side.

I don't see a border fence as being any different than any other construction project, be it a freeway, railroad tracks, or just a new sidewalk - if the government needs the right of way and/or the land, they'll either 1) pay you for the land and build the stuff, or 2) bury you in paperwork and legal fees until you cave.

Single layer vrs double layer, big deal, it was already dead. While congress was busy pandering to the fence construction industrial complex instead of fixing immigration, they failed to fund the fence. No money - no fence.

Yes and no. Your assessment is not entirely correct.

The 2006 Secure Fence Act was a congressional mandate to build the fence. No and, ifs, or buts, about it. The Executive Branch was forced by law to build it.

Yes, the bill did provide some funding, but not adequate funding. It also only provided a finite amount of fencing to be built.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson's amendment gutted the 2006 law by removing the congressional mandate and leaving the decision up to the Director of Homeland Security.

The same DHS Michael Jerkoff who was involved in ramming an amnesty bill for illegal aliens through the backdoor of congress with no debate and no committee hearings.

Things would have to get a lot worse in Mexico for companies to move their operations from China. Dollar-an-hour labor isn't nearly as enticing as dollar-a-day labor.

And, not to split hairs or anything, but in terms of archaic colloquialisms, isn't this situation more of a "Mexican Standoff", as opposed to a "Texas Showdown"?

This guy should be doing border patrols...

He's not???

I thought he was a Texas Ranger.

Shit.

No, it did not provide funding. Go read the bill as signed by the President HERE .

How does a $20-billion-something dollar agency pull out a $1-billion-something (probably 3 or 4 of the total budget) from other allocations to build a fence?

A "mandate" without funding is nothing.

To use your words, "Your assessment is not entirely correct."
The original Act specified corridors for the fence. Section A Reinforced Fencing gives the Director some latitude on where along the border, it does not eliminate the fence.
Section B Priority Areas says to figure out the most critical areas and get the fence built by the end of '08.
Section C consultation says to talk to the local goverments, landowners, and Indian tribes to negotiate out the best place.
Section D Limitations on Requirements states that if there is a better way to secure the border, than do it. It doesn't remove the mandate to secure the border.

The Act wasn't "gutted".

Fill the Rio Grande with Man Eating Sharks - with Frikkin Lasers on their heads - That should do it!

Again, you are only partially correct.

The 2006 Secure Fence Act did not provide specific funding for the border fence within that particular bill. The reason for that is because a few weeks before that bill was signed, $1.2 billion of funding for the fence was included in a $33.8 billion funding package for Homeland Security... "H.R.5814 Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5814:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15131303/

You are just making a play on words. By putting the decision to build the fence in the hands of people who have opposed the fence all along IS gutting the orgiginal fence act.

Michael Chertoff always opposed the fence. The landowners always opposed the fence. Kay Bailey Bitchenson always opposed the fence. Democrats always opposed the fence.

You can spin it all you want, but the 2006 fence act is effectively gutted.