quote:

Originally posted by speed_025:
Here Looney
I created a propose
path to legalize you!!!

SEE I SAID BEFORE SPEED IS ONE THEM ILLEGAL. HE IS ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL CONDUCT TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AMERICANS. HE SHOULD BE REPORTED TO FBI, USCIS, ICE, DHS, CIA, NSA.

quote:

SEE I SAID BEFORE SPEED IS ONE THEM ILLEGAL. HE IS ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL CONDUCT TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AMERICANS. HE SHOULD BE REPORTED TO FBI, USCIS, ICE, DHS, CIA, NSA.

I think those you mentioned busted you
and kicked you out cuz you talk like Yoda!!!

LMAO!!

The jaguar hits a wall

""CNN's Rusty Dornin reports on a barrier against efforts to preserve the jaguar -- the border wall with Mexico." CNN video, May 5, 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/tech/2008/05/05/pip.dornin.jaguars.cnn



Mexico's Mother's Day on the Border

""In a beachfront neighborhood of Tijuana, Playas de Tijuana, families from Mexico and the United States visit through the border fence on Mother's Day, under the watchful eyes of the border patrol." Slide show, Washington Post, May 11, 2008."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/20...GA2008051002411.html



Bittersweet Reunions Span U.S. Border

"Mexican Mothers Get Glimpse of Kin; Washington Post, May 11, 2008."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008051002436.html

Its sad that these children could not visit their mothers. As a public service I'm posting this information.

How to cross the border to Tijuana

USCIS Announces a Proposal to Increase Periods of Stay for TN Professional Workers From Canada or Mexico

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it is publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to increase the maximum amount of time a Trade-NAFTA (TN) professional worker from Canada or Mexico can remain in the United States before seeking readmission or obtaining an extension of stay. The proposal will extend the maximum period of admission for TN workers from one year to three years, the same term that USCIS currently may grant to H-1B specialty occupation workers.

The proposed rule will further allow eligible TN nonimmigrants to be granted an extension of stay in increments of up to three years, as opposed to the current maximum of one year. TN nonimmigrants are not subject to a maximum period of stay and thus may seek multiple readmissions or extensions, provided their intended professional activity continues and they remain otherwise eligible. Current regulations require that TN workers seek readmission or apply for an extension of stay each year.


more...

Nicol: The border wall’s lawless history

By Scott Nicol

June 19 - The border wall, which has already done tremendous damage to the environment of our borderlands, will in coming weeks plug a canyon south of San Diego.

More than 2 million cubic yards of earth will be torn from adjacent hills and dumped into a canyon called Smuggler’s Gulch to create a massive earthen berm.

The wall will then be built on top of this berm, rather than following the canyon’s natural contours. The Keiwit Corporation will be paid $48.6 million to fill the canyon and build 3.5 miles of border wall, doing irreparable damage the Tijuana River estuary in the process. In Keiwit’s home state of Nebraska, or any other part of the country, federal laws would limit the destruction that such a reckless project could do, but on the border the Department of Homeland Security is no longer bound by our nation’s laws.

In 1996 Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which called for the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border. Beginning in the Pacific Ocean and extending inland for 14 miles, the wall would slice through protected lands, Smuggler’s Gulch, and the Tijuana River. It would consist of parallel concrete and steel walls with a graded road between them, lights, cameras, and sensors, and 50 feet on either side cleared of all vegetation.

California’s Coastal Commission determined that the border wall would violate the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Of particular concern was the damage that would be done to the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and other lands that had been set aside for protection, Smuggler’s Gulch in particular, as well as impacts on threatened and endangered species.The Sierra Club and other environmental groups challenged the border wall in court, alleging that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The judge agreed, and construction was halted.

In 2005 the Real ID Act was attached as a rider on an appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after it failed to pass on its own merits.It contained a provision intended to overrule the objections of the California Coastal Commission and anyone else who might oppose the construction of border walls. It said, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff used his unprecedented new power to “waive in their entirety” the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Water Act, and other vital federal laws to build the San Diego border wall. The challenges brought by the California Coastal Commission and the Sierra Club were thrown out when the laws that they were based upon were waived.

The Real ID Act amended the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, with the phrase “under this section” referring to its 14 miles of California border wall. When the Secure Fence Act was passed two weeks before the 2006 mid-term election, it further amended the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, replacing the 14 miles originally called for by the act with over 700 miles of border wall. Because these new walls were now “under this section” Secretary Chertoff had the power under Real ID to “waive all legal requirements” to build them as well.

In 2007 the California pattern was repeated in Arizona. The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife challenged the construction of the border wall in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. The San Pedro was recognized by the National Audubon Society as its first Globally Important Bird Area, and designated as a world heritage natural area by the United Nations World Heritage Program. The court agreed that the Department of Homeland Security had ignored the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act when they began building the wall through Arizona’s last free-flowing river, and an injunction temporarily halting construction was handed down. Rather than comply with the law, Secretary Chertoff waived it, once again suspending the laws that were the basis of a successful suit, along with 18 others. Within days of the waiver DHS restarted construction. This case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Apparently hoping to head off further court challenges to the border wall, last April Secretary Chertoff issued two waivers. One waived 27 federal laws to allow for the insertion of border walls into the existing flood control levees in Hidalgo County. This followed the determination by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that, “any proposed fence and/or levee segment that bisects lands within the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge cannot be found compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established,” and would therefore be in violation of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. It also brought an abrupt end to the Environmental Impact Statement process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The second waiver covered every other section of border wall that will be built in 2008 from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas. This mega-waiver suspended 36 federal laws. Along with the environmental laws set aside in earlier waivers, Chertoff waived the Farmland Protection Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a host of others. It appears that in his rush to build the border wall, Chertoff was setting aside not only the laws that the wall was certain to violate, but any law that might in any way be relevant.

Predictably, this abuse of power invited court challenge rather than curtailing it. A diverse group of plaintiffs - El Paso County, the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, the Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1, the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of the Tigua Nation, Frontera Audubon Society, the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, and Brownsville’s Galeria 409 - have challenged the constitutionality of the Real ID Act’s waiver provision. They allege that giving an Administration appointee the power to overrule acts of Congress that were signed by the President for the express purpose of short-circuiting the functioning of the Judiciary is a violation of the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

This is not just an academic question; these plaintiffs will be directly impacted by the suspension of these laws. he waiving of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act means that the wall can be built without consideration of the sites on the Rio Grande that are important to the religious practices of the Tigua Nation. The El Paso and Hudspeth County water districts are charged with providing their counties with drinking and irrigation water. Not only has Chertoff waived the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, but, “all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of” the laws listed in the waiver. Apparently, no laws related to water are in force, leaving water districts with no way of knowing what rules still apply.

Long after the remains of the border wall share museum space with the broken concrete of the Berlin Wall, Smuggler’s Gulch will still be filled in, and the Tijuana River estuary that it flows into silted up. Secretary Chertoff, however, is so fixated on building the border wall that he is willing to ignore the consequences of his actions. Serious violations of federal law, resulting in irreparable damage to our nation’s natural and cultural heritage; to homes and farms and businesses; and to the continuation of Native American religious practices that predate the founding of the United States, are all acceptable costs according to this narrow mindset. Chertoff has admitted that, “Yes, you can get over it; yes, you can get under it,” but in his mind an ineffectual border wall is still worth sacrificing the fundamental principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Scott Nicol is a member of the No Border Wall Coalition and a resident of Weslaco, Texas.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/columns_story.asp?story_no=9

The Great Wall of America

"[W]e had a chance to see how a group of ordinary Mexicans - one a grandmotherly woman, another a 10-year-old boy - cope with the U.S. government's new $1 million-per-mile border-security fence." Time, June 19, 2008.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1816488,00.html

Supreme Court rejects lawsuit challenging border fence

Tom Pennington / Fort Worth Star-Telegram / MCT

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s controversial fence along the Southwest border escaped a potentially devastating legal roadblock Monday as the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge by environmental groups and more than a dozen members of Congress.

Without comment, the justices refused to consider pleas that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had overstepped his constitutional authority by waiving laws and regulations in order to expedite construction of 670 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Chertoff, invoking authority granted by the REAL ID Act of 2005, has waived more than 30 laws in the administration’s goal to complete the fencing by Dec. 31. Chertoff has told Congress that "it would be impossible" to meet the deadline without invoking the waivers.

The case in question before the high court focused on a 2-mile section of fencing in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. A broader challenge to Chertoff’s waiver authority has been filed in a federal court in El Paso, Texas, but fence opponents acknowledged that the Supreme Court decision was a stunning setback in their efforts to block construction.

"It does send a surprising and disturbing message that the broadest waiver in American history, unprecedented in its scope, is not worthy of the court’s consideration," said Brian Segee, staff attorney for the Defenders of Wildlife. "The only thing that can stop the construction of this very destructive border wall is Congress."

Laura Keehner, the press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said the administration "is obviously pleased" with the court’s refusal to consider the case.

"The American people expect this department to enforce the rule of law at the border," she said. "Our efforts to do so sometimes result in lawsuits like this one, which the court rejected."

If the court had agreed to review the challenge, it wouldn't have heard arguments until its next term, which begins in October. Although the fence faces other lawsuits and objections from property owners in Texas, DHS officials have said repeatedly that they're on track to complete the fence before the Bush administration comes to an end in mid-January.

The Defenders of Wildlife and The Sierra Club filed their petition March 17, contending that the waivers granted under the REAL ID give "unbounded authority" to the executive branch and violate the Constitution’s separation of powers provision. Fourteen members of Congress, including eight committee chairmen, supported the petition in a friend-of-the-court brief, challenging Chertoff’s waiver authority to "skirt numerous federal laws" in pressing ahead with fence construction. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, charged that the waivers are a "direct challenge to Congress’ constitutional role."

Thompson said he was "extremely disappointed" with the court’s decision.

"This waiver will only prolong the department from addressing the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border-security plan. Without a comprehensive plan, this fence is just another quick fix," he said.

Chertoff waived 19 laws for construction of fencing in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. A more extensive blanket waiver suspends compliance with up to 36 laws and covers 470 miles in all four states along the border. The waived laws include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Eagle Protection Act.

Chertoff told Congress that the DHS would be unable to meet its goal "if we were to engage in each of the individual regulatory elements" that the statutes required. But he said that his agency was sensitive to the concerns of border communities and could complete the fence "without materially sacrificing" environmental and historical protections.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41918.html

Chertoff’s Great Divide

June 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Four months have passed since the Observer’s Hole in the Wall story came out. The story focused on the struggle of 72-year old Eloisa Tamez and 76-year old Daniel Garza to save their properties, which have been designated for destruction by a border fence. Meanwhile, the planned fence will bypass the wealthy in the area, such as Dallas billionaire Ray Hunt. (According to Forbes magazine, Hunt ranks at number 292 on their list of the richest people in the world.)

The Observer article prompted much debate and discussion as to whether the border fence was biased toward lower income people. A working group of faculty and students at the University of Texas at Austin Law School have now released a statistical study that illustrates a divide between rich and poor when it comes to the border fence placement.

The group has submitted their findings to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an intergovernmental body of the Organization of American States. The Commission monitors compliance by member states, including the United States, with issues of human rights and international law.

Dr. Jeff Wilson, assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry and Environmental Sciences at The University of Texas at Brownsville, conducted the statistical study. He found that “The border wall and the necessary taking of property resulting from its construction will disproportionately impact poor Latino immigrant families.”

Wilson analyzed data for the Cameron County portion of the fence.

He divided the study into “gaps” and “fence” to determine if there was any significant statistical difference between those who will have the border fence on their property and those who won’t get a fence. Wilson found that the group who won’t get the fence are older, wealthier, more likely to be Anglo and not recent immigrants.

Many landowners like Tamez say that Secretary Chertoff and Homeland Security have never adequately explained to landowners why their houses are being targeted for a fence while other properties are not on the list.

Landowners have felt for some time that income level and ability to defend oneself, eg. the number of lawyers one can hire, has something to do with the equation.

The group also found other human rights abuses including: violations of the rights of indigenous communities, and severe degradation of the environment.

The working group is asking the Commission to bring up their findings at its July meeting and to hold a hearing on the Texas-Mexico border wall in October.

by Melissa del Bosque

http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/06/20/chertoffs-great-divide/

quote:

The story focused on the struggle of 72-year old Eloisa Tamez and 76-year old Daniel Garza to save their properties, which have been designated for destruction by a border fence. Meanwhile, the planned fence will bypass the wealthy in the area, such as Dallas billionaire Ray Hunt.

This sickens me. I'm glad I haven't had dinner yet. Afraid I would have lost it after reading this article. So unfair for people who don't have the financial ability to defend themselves and so wrong of our government to treat its citizens this way. I'm personally hoping Congress will stop funding the border fence project. It truly sends the wrong message about the USA.

Agree totally Proud. It's always easier (and cheaper) to use cheap land than expensive land. The path of least resistance if you pardon the pun

The fence will never really achieve it's objective anyway. The only people who want it are those groups of anti-illegal proponents like supporters of FAIRUS.org and NumbersUSA etc.

It's bad enough already with the "warm" welcome visitors receive when arriving at the POE..fingerprints and photos please. Just look how much good that's done the USA with tourism and students shunning the USA and going elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:

quote:

The story focused on the struggle of 72-year old Eloisa Tamez and 76-year old Daniel Garza to save their properties, which have been designated for destruction by a border fence. Meanwhile, the planned fence will bypass the wealthy in the area, such as Dallas billionaire Ray Hunt.

This sickens me. I'm glad I haven't had dinner yet. Afraid I would have lost it after reading this article. So unfair for people who don't have the financial ability to defend themselves and so wrong of our government to treat its citizens this way. I'm personally hoping Congress will stop funding the border fence project. It truly sends the wrong message about the USA.

Yes, it is wrong on moral grounds for money to buy seclusion. The Gov isn't looking at it from the perspective of giving favors, at least not to this guy.

Its a matter of perceived litigation probability. He would undoubtedly file lawsuits of legendary proportions. Which would end up costing more than the fence. The cheaper way to go is roust the poor.

quote:

The cheaper way to go is roust the poor.

And that is morally reprehensible, Davdah. Shame on our government the way it is treating people anymore. On a different topic, there are people who can't even afford to put gas in their vehicles anymore. It's quite upsetting. I, for one, am extremely upset with how our government has treated its citizens for the past 4 years and something has to change.

It all boils down to dinero. If you have it you can buy better justice. If the legal system were made to work like medical where you can get the same care free there would surely be overnight changes. As if the lawyers would allow that!

The gas issue has little to do with Bush. As much as everyone would like to find someone to point the finger at, he ain't the guy. To many people with open gas caps around the world bidding up the price.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
It all boils down to dinero. If you have it you can buy better justice. If the legal system were made to work like medical where you can get the same care free there would surely be overnight changes. As if the lawyers would allow that!

The gas issue has little to do with Bush. As much as everyone would like to find someone to point the finger at, he ain't the guy. To many people with open gas caps around the world bidding up the price.

Bush and Congress are in charge of running this country according to the Constitution, Davdah. They are accountable for the well-being of the USA and they have done a poor-a$s job. I may be generalizing, but I think they have let things get so far out of hand, it will take years for us to rebuild. I'm so tired of us being the laughing stock of the world and you know the other countries (i.e., specifically China) are working behind the scenes to bring us down because they all hate us. So, what is the solution???? You think 4 more years of Republican rule will be the answer? See, I've never voted Democrat in my life, but switched over this time because something just ain't working right anymore.

You're right about China. We keep buying walmart and they are building what?

We could do a lot about the gas problem if it weren't for the tree huggers. When was the last time a refinery was built? Many, many years ago. When was the last time any of the oil leases were actually exploited? We have oil off our coast in Ca. But there is no way the environmentalist wackos would permit it. It would and has been tied up in the courts for years.

It won't be until it really hurts the economy on a grand scale that the courts be ****ed and the drilling would start. When it gets close to 10.00 a gallon then it will hit the fan. Bush and congress can't do a lot until we can relax our EPA regs. That is one of the reasons most of the heavy industry has left this country. You can't open a factory that actually produces something without the likes of Iperson suing you for polluting her latte water.