Connect with us

Politics

Exactly What Happened To The Fence Promised By The Secure Fence Act Of 2006?

Notable Democrats who supported the bill in the Senate were Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Harry Reid, and Senator Barack Obama.

Published

on

national emergency

TheSecure Fence Act was introduced on Sept. 13, 2006, by Rep Peter King (R-NY) and passed Congress on a bi-partisan basis. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19.

Out of the eighty senators in total who voted in favor of the secure fence act, twenty-six (out of the forty-four) Democrats voted in favor of the bill (one, Ted Kennedy did not vote). A dozen years later some of those Democratic Senators are still serving in the upper body (Sherrod Brown was in the house, but is now in the Senate) they include;

  • Sherrod Brown (OH)
  • Thomas Carper (DE)
  • Diane Feinstein (CA)
  • Bill Nelson (FL)
  • Chuck Schumer (NY)
  • Debbie Stabenow (MI)
  • Ron Wyden (OR)

Other notable Democrats who supported the bill in the Senate were Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Harry Reid, and Senator Barack Obama.

Trending: IT HAPPENED: The Next James Bond Is Confirmed to Be A Black Female [Details]

Of course, that was then, the Democratic Party strategy today is to oppose everything President Trump opposes.

take our poll - story continues below

Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?

  • Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But why wasn’t the fence built before Trump became President? It was supposed to be done by now.

The secure fence act law stated in part:

Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions theSecretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following–

(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all-weather access roads, and vehicle barriers. (b) Operational Control Defined.–In this section, the term “operational control” means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

The primary goal of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Later in the text of the bill, it specifies what was supposed to be built:  a double-layered fence with barbed-wire on top and room for a security vehicle to patrol between the layers. Not bad right?

Of the almost 700 miles of fencing specified in the bill only 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing, as the law required has been built.  Most of the 36+ miles of fencing were created during the Bush Administration.

The first blow against the promised fence was made by former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). In 2007 at the urging of the DHS, she proposed an amendment to give Homeland Security discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read,

“Nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”

Hutchison ’s amendment was included in a 2007 federal budget bill even though the bill’s sponsor,  Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., had a cow…he argued the amendment would kill the border fence promised in the 2006 law. Sadly, he was right. At a different time, Hutchison’s amendment would have been legit. What she couldn’t forsee is that one day the president would be Barack Obama.

On the bright side, if amendment allows DHS to switch from two-layered fencing to other types of barriers as they see fit,  it also allows a wall to be built rather than the two-layered fence (but doesn’t provide funding).

During an El Paso speech about immigration reform on May 10, 2011, Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is “now basically complete.” But what the Obama administration built was totally different from what the Secure Fence Act specified. Obama’s DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “used her discretion.”

According to the DHS along with the 36.3 miles of double-fencing they’ve built 300 miles of Vehicle Fence and 353 miles of primary Pedestrian Fence, along with the 36.3 miles of the intended fence along the Southwest border.”

Vehicle Fence

As described in the customs and Border Patrol website, the vehicle fence includes, ‘post on rail’ steel set in concrete; steel picket-style fence set in concrete; vehicle bollards similar to those found around federal buildings; ‘Normandy; vehicle fence consisting of steel beams; and concrete jersey walls with steel mesh. They seem capable of blocking cars, but any able-bodied human can walk through them.

The 18-foot tall pedestrian fence needs merely a ladder to scale.

 

When She was still Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano said, “You show me a 50-foot wall, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border.”

And she may be right. The fence will never stop ALL illegal crossings, and neither will a wall, although either will reduce the inflow significantly, because the barriers will slow the intruders, making them visible to surveillance equipment, and members of the border patrol.

Israel built a two-layered fence like the one above to protect her citizens from terror attacks, and fence has served its purpose, in 2002, the year before construction started, 457 Israelis were murdered; in 2009, 8 Israelis were killed. The reason the Israel barrier been effective is not merely the fence itself but how it is guarded and patrolled.  And that’s what will make our fence along the Mexican border work.

Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano ignored what Congress intended. Those vehicle barriers won’t stop a small child or even a bald, overweight blogger. Which is also why the House didn’t take up the Gang of Eight bill. The belief was that If Obama didn’t build the fence per the Secure Fence Act,   GOP congressmen did trust that he would follow any border security legislation.

Here’s the bottom line.  Back in 2006, the people of the U.S. were promised a two-layered high-tech Mexican border fence, Thanks to Kay Bailey Hutchison and Barack Obama 95% of the barrier wasn’t built. The arguments against the Trump wall are totally bogus especially if you look at Israel’s history.

Now Donald Trump has promised America a border wall, and that same amendment that allowed the Obama administration to downgrade the required double-layered fencing enables the Trump Administration to upgrade from a fence to a 30-foot-tall wall. All he needs is funding.

It’s time for America to get the border barrier we were promised.  No one can honestly say it won’t work. It worked in Israel, and it’s never been tried here. The Democrats must stop obstructing, our future depends on it.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Beto O’Rourke Drops Bombshell About Connection To Slavery

Where’s the liberal outrage?

Published

on

In a move that should, if the left were consistent, spell the end of his political aspirations, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke revealed that both he and his wife are descendants of slave owners. Yes, a consistent application of the beliefs of the modern-day progressive should see Beto dropping from the race and spending the rest of his life attempting to atone for the sins of his ancestors. Probably not going to actually happen though. You know, because hypocrisy or something. via The Daily Wire: The failed Texas Senate candidate, who is losing ground in the presidential race, made the revelation in a Medium post, saying that he was recently given documents that revealed his family’s past. “A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s,” O’Rourke wrote. “There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).” “Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army,” O’Rourke added. O’Rourke’s claim comes after the media last week tried to tie Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opposition to reparations to the fact that his great-great-grandfathers owned slaves. When the media tried to push that narrative they were met with the fact that former President Barack Obama’s ancestors were slave owners. Sen. Kamala Harris’ ancestors also owned slaves. So where is all of the classic liberal outrage over these folks having this sort of bloodline? Surely they would have no problem striking at these kind…

Continue Reading

News

Trump Administration Set To Carry Out Major Crackdown On Asylum Abuse

This is going to make liberals absolutely furious.

Published

on

The Trump administration has announced some major changes in the country’s current asylum policies that will inevitably lead to a sizable reduction in the number of individuals that are eligible for asylum who are trying to enter the country at the southern border. If you listen closely, you can hear the left already throwing a total fit over this, ready to compare the president to a whole plethora of deplorable fascist world leaders throughout history. via Daily Wire: “The new rule, published in the Federal Register, would require most migrants entering through America’s southern border to first seek asylum in one of the countries they traversed – whether in Mexico, in Central America, or elsewhere on their journey,” Fox News reported. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) highlighted three limited exceptions: (1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or, (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The statement went on to detail that a very small minority of these individuals actually receive asylum, however, a large number of requests burdens the system and undermines its humanitarian purposes. The statement also notes the large number of requests…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend