we know where she is coming from. illegal immigration. her fight is one of many, even if having truckers continue on driving to the destination vs breaking down the rig and turning it over the unit to be driven by perhaps teamsters. the consumer loses, adding unnecessary costs to provide jobs and additional expenses to dead line a truck and trailer and then switch loads. It certainly is not productive.
here is an example of her position on mexico and states.. build the wall, keep out illegals.. i do not mind that opinion and believe the wall should be built.. but we are not talking ilegals,, or unsafe trucks. we are talking about economics and practical sense. Mexicans who are cleared to come into this country will continue onto the destination. Trucks and trailers will be checked upon entry for safety and documents. Perhaps several companies lose money in texas that presently break down these units and unload/reload trucks 24/7 days and these jobs in texas will not longer be required. i have no idea of her motive. but i think the article does put her position in better perspective.
October 29, 2006
Fund the Fence
By Gina Parker
After a conservative outcry and just days before the mid-term elections, President Bush authorized last week the construction of nearly 700 miles of fence along the U.S. – Mexico Border.
Much debate as to whether the legislation would be signed into law began circulating as soon as Congress approved the bill in September, because it does not provide any funding for the fence, but only authorizes its construction. As Senator John Cornyn noted, “We have a bad habit of over-promising and under-delivering, and that means there is no credibility when it comes to proposals for border control and immigration reform."
Although no money is specifically allocated in this particular piece of legislation, President Bush did sign a bill earlier this year that earmarked $1.2 billion for the project, which will at least get the ball rolling along some of the most porous sections of our border.
President Bush stated at the signing ceremony, “The bill authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to help prevent people from enter[ing] our country illegally.” The Department of Homeland Security was also authorized to implement advanced technology, including the use of cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
As Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) explained, solidifying our border is a critical component in the fight to stem illegal immigration. He noted that since a newly constructed fence was completed near San Diego, there has already been a 70 percent drop in illegal immigration.
It seems clear that building a fence works, and although 700 miles of new fencing does not completely seal the 1,951 mile long border, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Conservatives, however, must be diligent in encouraging our representatives to fund fully the initiative, and not let them slip away with merely authorizing the construction of a fence without actually paying for it.
As Americans, we need to realize securing our border is not only about securing jobs, protecting our economy, and preventing future acts of terrorism, but also more importantly, it is about ensuring our national sovereignty. Without borders and without penalties for those who choose to ignore those borders, we will cease to exist as a nation.
sometimes we fail to compromise for the good of the overall operation. I think this is one contract with mexico that is better for both countries. We can continue to deliver goods throughout mexico and they can continue on in the states. No longer will we have this added expense of exchanging goods at some break point near the border.
Most of the scare tactics i have read in the years leading up to this was trucking jobs and unsafe trucks.. It appears we now the threat of illegals added onto the issue. Whatever works, but it does lend itself to alarmist writing. Exaggeration of problems can hurt supporters of the wall etc if we come to the conclusion that these people will publish anything.
|
