Gene Caferelli - Minutemen Civil Defense Corps
Mexico City , Dec 28 - Mexico 's National Migration Institute (INM) has said it will introduce electronic registration for foreigners entering the country through the southern border to curb illegal immigration.
In a communique, the INM Thursday said Biochip implants would be used to control the entry of workers and visitors from Belize and Guatemala from March 2008, Spanish news agency EFE reported Friday.
The implant will replace the currently used local pass, which can be easily modified.
The biochip ID will allow total electronic registration of entries and departures, officials said.
The INM said a migration form for local visitors will be issued to residents of regions near the border with Guatemala , while the migration form for border workers will benefit workers in the area bordering Belize and Guatemala .
In 2006, Mexico nabbed 200,000 people trying to enter illegally through the southern border, according to INM figures.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=211452
Federal judge refuses to halt Legal Arizona Workers Act
‘Plaintiffs have no substantive due process right to employ unauthorized aliens …’
By Linda Bentley
PHOENIX – On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake denied motions for an injunction to halt implementation of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. The new law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, requires all Arizona employers to participate in the federal EVerify program to screen employees for work eligibility and can result in suspension or loss of business licenses for those employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens.
Plaintiffs in the two, now consolidated, actions include: Arizona Contractors Association, Employers for Immigration Reform, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association, Arizona Roofing Contractors Association, Wake Up Arizona!, Arizona Landscape Contractors Association, Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America.
On Dec. 7, Wake dismissed the complaints without prejudice “for lack of a justiciable case or controversy” for plaintiffs’ failure to name the correct defendants.
Plaintiffs filed new actions on Dec. 10 and 12 adding county attorneys as the proper defendants and, once again, sought interim injunctive relief while also seeking an injunction pending appeal.
Oral arguments for the temporary restraining order were heard on Dec. 18.
The county attorney defendants stated although they would not intentionally delay carrying out their duties, they would not be able to bring any proceedings before February.
Wake denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a temporary restraining order in the second consolidated action, citing: there is an insufficient likelihood plaintiffs will succeed on issues that demand remedies in the short term; it may be improper to issue a temporary restraining order that is really a declaratory judgment; the balance of hardships tips against plaintiffs rather than for them; and there will be full opportunity at the January 16, 2008 preliminary injunction hearing to address issues that may occasion interim relief thereafter.
Wake elaborated by saying an injunction would deprive the Act’s beneficiaries of its substantive protection for the extended period of an appeal and causes other harms.
He also stated the plaintiffs’ hardship is minimal and said they offered “mostly sweeping generalities” adding, “The hardship comes down to nothing more concrete than the expense of using E-Verify,” especially since counsel admitted at trial none of the plaintiffs lacked a computer or Internet access.
Wake noted the only cost would be employee time in learning the program, submitting names of new hires after Jan. 1 and assisting new employees with resolving out-of-date government records, estimating the cost at no more than a couple hundred to a few thousand dollars a year for the large majority of employers.
While cost meets the minimum for standing, Wake said no plaintiff showed that the cost will be material in the context of its business operations.
“Moreover, complying with EVerify … will have off-setting benefits for plaintiffs,” said Wake, “An overwhelming majority will find it an effective and reliable tool for employment verification … The one thing it will not do is allow them to keep hiring nearly as many unknown unauthorized aliens, but that is not a ‘hardship’ that could count under the law.” Wake also noted the plaintiffs “wholly failed to acknowledge the harm to the interests of the state, the interests of others and the public interest from an injunction pending appeal or temporary restraining order,” as he expounded on those harms beginning with the state’s expenditure to inform every employer by Oct. 1 of the Act and the obligation to comply after Dec. 31, would be wasted.
He said the confusion that would arise among employers, “with the prospect of serious prejudice to some … Of approximately 150,000 employers in Arizona , the large majority have not yet enrolled in E-Verify. An injunction could cause many to think they are excused from the Act and from Everify compliance, perhaps permanently … If plaintiffs’ case fails in the end, many employers could in good faith find themselves exposed to harsh sanctions because they did not know when to comply. The risk of catastrophic loss to other employers from a confusioncausing injunction outweighs the minimal cost to plaintiffs from compliance.” Wake said people disagree whether the great number and continuing flow of unauthorized workers into the United States has more benefits than costs.
However, he said, “No one can disagree that costs and benefits accrue differently to different people in our society.” He stated, “The balance now struck is in favor of an economy for those who may work in the United States .” Accordingly, Wake said the benefits to those who come here illegally to make better lives for themselves, to those who save from lower cost labor and general depression of wages from employing unauthorized aliens, and to those who enjoy the products of unauthorized labor at lower prices, do not count.
“The beneficiaries chosen identically by federal and Arizona law prevail over all who benefit from unauthorized alien labor,” said Wake.
Last, Wake pointed out, “Those who suffer the most from unauthorized alien labor are those whom federal and Arizona law most explicitly protect. They are the competing lawful workers, many unskilled, lowwage, sometimes near or under the margin of poverty, who strain in individual competition and in a wage economy depressed by the great and expanding number of people who will work for less.” He said if the Act were to be suspended for any amount of time, “the human cost for the least among us, measured by each person’s continued deprivation, multiplied by their number, will be a great quantum,” a loss they would never recoup.
Reiterating how the plaintiffs, by comparison, suffer only the expense of having their computer staff log some more hours, with off-setting business benefits as well, Wake stated, “This is not a sharp tipping of the balance of hardships in favor of the plaintiffs. The balance does not even tip in their direction.”
In his 29-page order, Wake said, “The court sees little prospect of success on appeal on any of plaintiffs’ alleged justiciable injuries except the one injury the court found sufficient.”
Wake said because the court has found the balance of hardships tips strongly in favor of the defendants, plaintiffs bear a high burden to prove the new law invalid and stated, “They have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, much less a strong likelihood.”
Knocking down each of their arguments, Wake concluded, “Plaintiffs have no substantive due process right to employ unauthorized aliens or to refuse lawful precautions against doing so. The Act does not violate the separation of powers principal of Art. III of the Arizona Constitution and does not have the improbable meanings plaintiffs would give it to implicate that principal.”
Only hours after Wake issued his order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also denied the plaintiffs’ appeal for injunctive relief.
Violent Border Smugglers Scare U.S. Scientists
Sunday , December 30, 2007
PHOENIX —
Biologist Karen Krebbs used to study bats in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument on the Arizona-Mexico border. Then, she got tired of dodging drug smugglers all night.
"I use night-vision goggles, and you could see them very clearly" — caravans of men with guns and huge backpacks full of drugs, trudging through the desert, Krebbs said. After her 10th or 11th time hiding in bushes and behind rocks, she abandoned her research.
"I'm just not willing to risk my neck anymore," she said.
Across the southwestern U.S. border and in northern Mexico , scientists such as Krebbs say their work is increasingly threatened by smugglers as tighter border security pushes trafficking into the most remote areas where botanists, zoologists and geologists do their research.
"In the last year, it's gotten much worse," said Jack Childs, who uses infrared cameras to study endangered jaguars in eastern Arizona . He loses one or two of the cameras every month to smugglers.
Scientists, especially those working on the Mexican side of the border, have long shared the wilderness with marijuana growers and immigrants trying to enter the United States illegally. But tension is rising because of crackdowns on smugglers by the Mexican military, increased vigilance in the Caribbean Sea , new border fences, air patrols, a buildup of U.S. Border Patrol agents and a turf war between cartels.
Smugglers are increasingly jealous of their smuggling routes and less tolerant of scientists poking around, researchers say.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument stopped granting most new research permits in January because of increasing smuggling activity. Scientists must sign a statement acknowledging that the National Park Service cannot guarantee their safety from "potentially dangerous persons entering the park from Mexico ."
"It's a kind of arms race, and biologists are stuck in the middle," said Jim Malusa, who specializes in mapping desert vegetation. "There's been a chilling effect on researchers."
Scientists say things have gotten more uncomfortable since 2001, when the United States began fortifying its border after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In 2006, the Border Patrol embarked on a hiring spree, with plans to raise its personnel from 12,000 to 18,000 by the end of 2008.
Smugglers have responded with violence. Assaults on Border Patrol agents are occurring at a record pace, with 250 attacks reported from Oct. 1 to Dec. 16, an increase of 38 percent over 2006.
As crossing the border gets more difficult, the fees that smugglers charge to guide illegal immigrants through the desert has doubled in recent years, to as much as $3,000 per person, migrants say. At the same time, Mexico has been stepping up highway checkpoints and port inspections, forcing drug smugglers into the wilderness and onto remote beaches.
To avoid the checkpoints, Mexican drug cartels are moving their marijuana farms northward, from traditional growing areas in Michoacan, Nayarit and Guerrero states to more remote areas in Sonora and Sinaloa states, according to the U.S. government's 2008 National Drug Threat Assessment.
Marijuana smugglers, whose cargo is smellier and bulkier than cocaine, are increasingly abandoning the urban border ports of Texas and California in favor of the Arizona-Sonora corridor, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says. U.S. authorities seized 616,534 pounds of marijuana in the Tucson Sector alone in 2006, up from 233,807 pounds in 2001.
Smugglers also are increasingly relying on boats moving through the Pacific Ocean , the U.S. Coast Guard said this month. The Coast Guard seized a record 356,000 pounds of cocaine this year, most of it in the Pacific.
Scientists, who once had the ocean and desert all to themselves, say they are increasingly rubbing elbows with bad guys.
"They used to take the easier routes through washes and old river beds, but now, they're moving into the rougher country," said Randy Gimblett, a University of Arizona professor who studies human impacts on ecology. "There's a lot at stake because there's a lot of money tied up in drugs. We're not confronting those folks, but we're seeing more of that activity."
There are no statistics on attacks or threats against scientists, said Mark Frankel, director of the scientific-freedom program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But among researchers, drug stories abound.
Michael Wilson, a botanist and director of research at the Drylands Institute in Tucson , said he avoids some parts of Mexico 's Sonora state since seeing opium poppies, which are not native to Mexico , and mules carrying loads of marijuana down from the mountains. Opium resin is used to make heroin.
Wilson said he has noticed an increase of marijuana cultivation in recent years and more people watching over the fields. Some of his colleagues now carry guns, he said.
"There are a lot of researchers who have ducked out of doing research in Mexico ," Wilson said.
David Yetman, a social scientist and host of the PBS series "The Desert Speaks," said he had to stand in a marijuana field in eastern Sonora to get pictures during the filming of a 2004 segment on rural liquor-making. He hired off-duty policemen with automatic weapons to protect his film crew during a piece in southern Sonora , an area known for drug trafficking.
Richard Felger, another botanist, said he stays away from remote mountains in Sonora since being robbed and threatened on research trips.
"I got kind of allergic to pistols being held to my forehead," Felger said.
Gimblett, who relies on buried pressure sensors for his research on park users, said smugglers routinely cut his cables. Childs has tried leaving notes and pictures of saints — even Jesus Malverde, the unofficial saint of drug traffickers — to try to persuade smugglers to spare his jaguar cameras, but to no avail.
Huge swaths of northeastern Mexico are now off-limits to science, said Andres Burquez, a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
"(Residents) will say 'You can go to A, B and C place, but not D,"' Burquez said. "And it turns out that's the place that interests you most."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/30/dozens_of_illegal_immigrants_found/5872/
Dozens of illegal immigrants found
Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 8:42 PM
TOLLESON, Ariz. , Dec. 30 (UPI) -- About three dozen illegal immigrants were found in the back of an abandoned semi-tractor trailer early Sunday in Arizona .
Thirty-five people were found hiding in the back of the truck behind pallets of green bell peppers, and two others were found hiding nearby, The Arizona Republic reported. They were turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
It was believed at least four others escaped, the newspaper said. The truck was found in the town of Tolleson in Maricopa County .
Tolleson police Sgt. Lisa Mendoza said the immigrants reported they were headed to a drop-house, but police were unable to determine its location. Mendoza said authorities would pursue charges against the smugglers if they can find them.
© United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Weekly Political Emails in Southeastern Arizona
Border
From Gene Caferelli:
Title: Law Enforcement Hampered by Sanctuary City Advocates
Source: Border Fire Report
URL Source: http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/law-enforcement-hampered-by-sanctuary-city-advocates.html
Published: Dec 22, 2007
Author: Jim Kouri
Post Date: 2007-12-24 07:56:26 by midwest minuteman
Ping List: *Immigration Issues-Borders*
3 Comments
Taxes
From Jim Ehl:
IF I had the answer I could become rich. People have been duped about property taxes for a long time and accept it as a justifiable tax. There are a couple measures in the mill that may help. Go: http:www.ArizonaTaxRevolt.ORG
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: James Bretney
To: Strider
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Plan Would Let Seniors Work to Pay Taxes
I believe you're right Cochise County is going the way of NY. What do you suggest we do about it?
Jim Ehl wrote:
As 'Tip O'Neil said once, "All politics is local', or words that effect. We could start here in Cochise county getting rid of the three county supervisors and replacing them with supervisors who are concerned about property taxes and will lower significantly lower the tax rate and replaces the county assessor with one who will work to repeal the state statures that dictate the demise of our freedom to own property.
Jim
Reply - This is one of many examples of why We the People need to take control of our governments. As was predicted though when the Founding Fathers were still living, people will learn that they can take money away from others and award it to themselves. Although the Fathers didn't call it Socialism, that is what they were referring to. We are well on our way there and it may be too late to change, particularly as we import low income workers and rapidly facilitate their ability to vote in their own favor, taking money away even from what is referred to as the middle class.
The case of property taxes is one of the leading examples of redistribution of wealth by taxing arbitrarily assigned "value." Since most local governments where property taxes originate are run by people that are effectively elected by the development community, the utility of property taxes appear in another important aspect. As property owners age in property they have owned for a long time, the "value" eventually increases while the income of the property owner eventually decreases. This is important because it accelerates the turn over of property, creating additional health in the real estate community.
We must stop property taxes. In fact, we must stop all taxes that are not based on expenditures or on a fair contribution to what I call Civilized Society Tax. That is a tax to provide the services necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens. It does not include social services. In addition, I would like to see the application of most taxes at the local level, imposed by representatives serving as close to the taxpayer as possible. That way, there would be a better ability to have our desires represented.
Ron
Reply - 2
Jim,
New York being one of the original states does not have the initiative process. We are lucky that the founders in Arizona had the foresight to reserve that power to the people.
There is only one way that the people in those states can bring about a fair property taxation system and that is by withholding their property tax payments until the legislature places something like the AZTR property tax rollback initiatives on the ballot. There really is a need for a Tax Revolt with teeth!
Marc
Are we going down the road in Arizona to what is happening in N.Y.? What the h**ll, why don't the politics just lower her taxes? If anyone complains, wait until they are 73 with a $620 a month income, lived in their home for 43 years then lower their taxes, too. Boy!! Greedy politicians forcing the elderly to work to pay taxes. Lord help us.
By the way, Merry Christmas, Mr. Scrodge.
Jim
To be removed from the list click here.
Plan Would Let Seniors Work to Pay Taxes
Email this Story
Dec 25, 1:38 PM (ET)
By JIM FITZGERALD
(AP) Greenburgh resident Audrey Davison, right, talks with town supervisor Paul Feiner, left, about a...
Full Image
GREENBURGH, N.Y. (AP) - Audrey Davison lives alone, gets a $620 Social Security check each month and worries about the sharply rising taxes on her four-bedroom house. Davison, 76, raised her family there and after 43 years, she really doesn't want to leave Greenburgh.
Greenburgh doesn't want her to leave, either.
The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.
"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.
(AP) Greenburgh town supervisor Paul Feiner, second from left, talks to women in a knitting class at a...
Full Image
He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town's finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.
"It's not like we're going to see grandma running the snowplow," he said. "There are lots of things people can do for the town and it wouldn't cost us that much to pay them."
The proposal has caused a stir in Greenburgh, a town of 90,000 in Westchester County, which has the nation's third-highest homeowner property taxes. The plan would be unusual if not unique in New York, but similar programs are considered successes in Colorado, Massachusetts, South Carolina and elsewhere.
Davison, who suffers from arthritis and sciatica and needs a walker to get around on her bad days, said she pays about $12,000 a year in property taxes - perhaps $2,000 to the town - and has already taken out a reverse mortgage to pay her bills.
Talking to Feiner last week at the town senior center, she said, "I would work as long as it was a job where I could sit."
(AP) Janet Goodman, left, talks about a proposed program that will allow her to work off some of her...
Full Image
"You could be a receptionist!" Feiner said. "You could greet people right here, when they come in."
"That I would love," Davison said.
Scott Parkin, spokesman for the National Council on Aging, said the program sounded interesting, as long as it wasn't limited to menial work. "It's certainly in line with what we stand for, keeping seniors involved in work or volunteering as a part of healthy aging," he said.
Boulder County, Colo., pioneered a tax workoff program in 1986 for residents over 60 and now has about 250 applicants for the fewer than 100 openings, said spokeswoman Barbara Halpin. The work done by the seniors includes landscaping, gathering climate data, clipping newspapers and staffing the courthouse information booth.
"Taxes aren't that high out here, so even at $7 an hour people can burn off their county taxes pretty quickly," Halpin said. She added that many stay in the program as volunteers after paying off their taxes.
In Concord, Mass., Maria Casey of the personnel department said about 10 seniors get $8.50 an hour to work at research, data entry and groundskeeping. The program, started in 1999, "allows seniors to be able to work and be involved in the community, and the town benefits by their work," she said.
Feiner is suggesting creating about 25 slots for seniors and letting them work off $500 or so a year. His proposal faces some obstacles. If the wages earned are to be tax-free and directly credited to the property tax bill, the state Legislature would have to approve. In addition, unions would have to be convinced that the program is no threat to their members' job security.
Feiner is hoping for at least a pilot program next year.
Eventually, he said, he would like to see the county and the local school districts adopt similar plans.
"If we got seniors working for the schools, there might be a more intergenerational feeling there," he said. "It might be easier to pass the school budgets."
Janet Goodman, a retired teacher and travel agent who was leading a knitting class at a Greenburgh community center, said paying the bills at her town house in Hartsdale, one of Greenburgh's seven villages, is "a constant struggle." She said she would gladly take part in a tax workoff program "as long as the work is interesting."
"You have to be creative," she said.
email this page to a friend
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
From Gene Caferelli:
Title: Law Enforcement Hampered by Sanctuary City Advocates
Source: Border Fire Report
URL Source: http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/law-enforcement-hampered-by-sanctuary-city-advocates.html
Published: Dec 22, 2007
Author: Jim Kouri
Post Date: 2007-12-24 07:56:26 by midwest minuteman
Ping List: *Immigration Issues-Borders*
3 Comments
Taxes
From Jim Ehl:
IF I had the answer I could become rich. People have been duped about property taxes for a long time and accept it as a justifiable tax. There are a couple measures in the mill that may help. Go: http:www.ArizonaTaxRevolt.ORG
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: James Bretney
To: Strider
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Plan Would Let Seniors Work to Pay Taxes
I believe you're right Cochise County is going the way of NY. What do you suggest we do about it?
Jim Ehl wrote:
As 'Tip O'Neil said once, "All politics is local', or words that effect. We could start here in Cochise county getting rid of the three county supervisors and replacing them with supervisors who are concerned about property taxes and will lower significantly lower the tax rate and replaces the county assessor with one who will work to repeal the state statures that dictate the demise of our freedom to own property.
Jim
Reply - This is one of many examples of why We the People need to take control of our governments. As was predicted though when the Founding Fathers were still living, people will learn that they can take money away from others and award it to themselves. Although the Fathers didn't call it Socialism, that is what they were referring to. We are well on our way there and it may be too late to change, particularly as we import low income workers and rapidly facilitate their ability to vote in their own favor, taking money away even from what is referred to as the middle class.
The case of property taxes is one of the leading examples of redistribution of wealth by taxing arbitrarily assigned "value." Since most local governments where property taxes originate are run by people that are effectively elected by the development community, the utility of property taxes appear in another important aspect. As property owners age in property they have owned for a long time, the "value" eventually increases while the income of the property owner eventually decreases. This is important because it accelerates the turn over of property, creating additional health in the real estate community.
We must stop property taxes. In fact, we must stop all taxes that are not based on expenditures or on a fair contribution to what I call Civilized Society Tax. That is a tax to provide the services necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens. It does not include social services. In addition, I would like to see the application of most taxes at the local level, imposed by representatives serving as close to the taxpayer as possible. That way, there would be a better ability to have our desires represented.
Ron
Reply - 2
Jim,
New York being one of the original states does not have the initiative process. We are lucky that the founders in Arizona had the foresight to reserve that power to the people.
There is only one way that the people in those states can bring about a fair property taxation system and that is by withholding their property tax payments until the legislature places something like the AZTR property tax rollback initiatives on the ballot. There really is a need for a Tax Revolt with teeth!
Marc
Are we going down the road in Arizona to what is happening in N.Y.? What the h**ll, why don't the politics just lower her taxes? If anyone complains, wait until they are 73 with a $620 a month income, lived in their home for 43 years then lower their taxes, too. Boy!! Greedy politicians forcing the elderly to work to pay taxes. Lord help us.
By the way, Merry Christmas, Mr. Scrodge.
Jim
To be removed from the list click here.
Plan Would Let Seniors Work to Pay Taxes
Email this Story
Dec 25, 1:38 PM (ET)
By JIM FITZGERALD
(AP) Greenburgh resident Audrey Davison, right, talks with town supervisor Paul Feiner, left, about a...
Full Image
GREENBURGH, N.Y. (AP) - Audrey Davison lives alone, gets a $620 Social Security check each month and worries about the sharply rising taxes on her four-bedroom house. Davison, 76, raised her family there and after 43 years, she really doesn't want to leave Greenburgh.
Greenburgh doesn't want her to leave, either.
The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.
"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.
(AP) Greenburgh town supervisor Paul Feiner, second from left, talks to women in a knitting class at a...
Full Image
He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town's finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.
"It's not like we're going to see grandma running the snowplow," he said. "There are lots of things people can do for the town and it wouldn't cost us that much to pay them."
The proposal has caused a stir in Greenburgh, a town of 90,000 in Westchester County, which has the nation's third-highest homeowner property taxes. The plan would be unusual if not unique in New York, but similar programs are considered successes in Colorado, Massachusetts, South Carolina and elsewhere.
Davison, who suffers from arthritis and sciatica and needs a walker to get around on her bad days, said she pays about $12,000 a year in property taxes - perhaps $2,000 to the town - and has already taken out a reverse mortgage to pay her bills.
Talking to Feiner last week at the town senior center, she said, "I would work as long as it was a job where I could sit."
(AP) Janet Goodman, left, talks about a proposed program that will allow her to work off some of her...
Full Image
"You could be a receptionist!" Feiner said. "You could greet people right here, when they come in."
"That I would love," Davison said.
Scott Parkin, spokesman for the National Council on Aging, said the program sounded interesting, as long as it wasn't limited to menial work. "It's certainly in line with what we stand for, keeping seniors involved in work or volunteering as a part of healthy aging," he said.
Boulder County, Colo., pioneered a tax workoff program in 1986 for residents over 60 and now has about 250 applicants for the fewer than 100 openings, said spokeswoman Barbara Halpin. The work done by the seniors includes landscaping, gathering climate data, clipping newspapers and staffing the courthouse information booth.
"Taxes aren't that high out here, so even at $7 an hour people can burn off their county taxes pretty quickly," Halpin said. She added that many stay in the program as volunteers after paying off their taxes.
In Concord, Mass., Maria Casey of the personnel department said about 10 seniors get $8.50 an hour to work at research, data entry and groundskeeping. The program, started in 1999, "allows seniors to be able to work and be involved in the community, and the town benefits by their work," she said.
Feiner is suggesting creating about 25 slots for seniors and letting them work off $500 or so a year. His proposal faces some obstacles. If the wages earned are to be tax-free and directly credited to the property tax bill, the state Legislature would have to approve. In addition, unions would have to be convinced that the program is no threat to their members' job security.
Feiner is hoping for at least a pilot program next year.
Eventually, he said, he would like to see the county and the local school districts adopt similar plans.
"If we got seniors working for the schools, there might be a more intergenerational feeling there," he said. "It might be easier to pass the school budgets."
Janet Goodman, a retired teacher and travel agent who was leading a knitting class at a Greenburgh community center, said paying the bills at her town house in Hartsdale, one of Greenburgh's seven villages, is "a constant struggle." She said she would gladly take part in a tax workoff program "as long as the work is interesting."
"You have to be creative," she said.
email this page to a friend
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Harold Hough versus Gabby Giffords
By presenting Gabby's opinions unfiltered, complimenting her staff on their courtesy and congratulating her on her marriage, I have been accused of being a Pro-Gabby patsy. I can assure you gentle reader that I am no Arianna Huffington. I just believe in fair play. Folks from both red and blue states, Democrats and Republicans died in the Twin Towers. Besides Gabby is not Clinton or Grijalva. Gabby will debate the issues and therefore if she is to be defeated, she has to be defeated on the issues.
Southeastern Arizona Republican activist Harold Hough cautioned me:
A friend passed your email on to me about your conversation with Congresswoman Gifford's Chief of Staff. Here are my thoughts.
There is an old saying that, “talk is cheap.” And, that adage is no truer than with politicians. Politicians and their staffs will tell you whatever it takes to get reelected, especially if they are Democrats in a district where they are outnumbered and are expecting a tough reelection race. Congresswoman Giffords may say she favors a strong border, but her votes have consistently opposed a strong border. In fact, her voting record is consistent with that of Open Border advocate Raul Grijalva.
What Congresswoman Giffords really believes was shown when she repeatedly voted against stronger border protection as Congress was working on the 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Five times she voted with Grijalva and the open border crowd to weaken our border.
The Carter of Texas Amendment. This amendment would have kept bureaucratic and environmental obstacles from stopping construction of the border fence. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 476).
The King of Iowa Amendment #105. This amendment would have put more money into a Employment Verification Program that would verify that a potential employee is legal. She voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call 478).
The McCaul of Texas Amendment #99. This amendment would give the Department of Homeland Security wide latitude to move personnel to areas where the threat is greatest. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call 480).
The Royce of California Amendment. This amendment makes sure that the money appropriated for building the border fence is actually spent on building the fence instead of being diverted. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 486).
Motion to Recommit the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. This Republican motion would have sent the bill back to committee to provide all the funds for building the fence, along with the necessary roads, lights, cameras, barriers, and sensors. Giffords voted against the motion to recommit along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 490).
Congresswoman Giffords, her Chief of Staff Maura Policelli, and her staff may be polite and willing to listen to our concerns about border security, but when it comes time to vote, Giffords prefers a porous border to a secure one. Don’t let common courtesy blind us to the votes of an open border congresswoman.
Sincerely,
Harold Hough
To which Gabby's staff responded:
December 18, 2007
Dear Mr. Bretney,
Thank you for contacting me about border protection and my votes on amendments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2638). Securing our border and passing comprehensive immigration reform is my highest priority in Congress.
Our district in Southeastern Arizona has paid a heavy price for illegal immigration. For too long, the federal government has failed to secure our borders and Congress has refused to act to solve this national problem. It is extremely unfortunate that the Senate did not succeed in moving immigration legislation this year. It is time the federal government stepped up to its responsibility. I continue to press House leadership to bring comprehensive immigration legislation to the floor.
I voted against the Carter amendment (Roll Call 476), the Royce amendment (Roll Call 486) and the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call 490) to the DHS Appropriations bill because I believe a piecemeal approach to this issue, such as limiting federal action to building a fence, will not be sufficient. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act of 2007 (H.R. 1645), a comprehensive reform bill that includes the following strong security and enforcement provisions:
o 11,600 new Border Patrol Agents,
o utilize Department of Defense surveillance equipment to control the U.S. border,
o build vehicle barriers and facilities to achieve control of the U.S. borders,
o deploy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to patrol the U.S. border,
o make it a crime to evade border inspection personnel, and
o develop intergovernmental programs targeting violent criminal aliens, border security, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gang activity.
I voted against the King amendment (Roll Call 478) and the McCaul amendment (Roll Call 480) because they were not fiscally responsible. The King amendment would have put $5 million into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers Program. The DHS Appropriations bill already included $30 million for the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to carry out the Homeland Security Department's Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEEVS). As a result, I believed the King amendment to be duplicative of stronger efforts that I supported.
Similarly, I rejected the McCaul amendment because it called for DHS to develop MAX-HR, a human capital system that was found illegal and in violation of contractual agreements by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a June 27, 2006 decision. Pouring money into this illegal system would not be a prudent way to spend our tax dollars.
On June 15, 2007, I voted for the final passage of the DHS Appropriations bill that included:
o 3,000 additional border patrol agents,
o $27 million for 250 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers for commercial operations and Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) validation,
o $50 million to improve DHS's ability to recruit and retain officers, and
o $180 million for the Criminal Alien Program so that DHS can identify incarcerated and convicted aliens and deport them.
Additionally, I launched a vigorous campaign in Congress to restore much-needed funding to our state and counties through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants. Other members of Congress and the President proposed cutting this essential federal program. I helped add a total of $55 million in SCAAP funding which was attached to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) which passed the House with my support on June 26, 2007.
I have consistently been an advocate for stronger security by supporting these measures in Congress:
o Border Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 2542) to fund enhanced law enforcement operations, as well as the detention and transfer of illegal aliens to federal authorities (cosponsor),
o To provide for the next generation of border and maritime security technologies (H.R. 3916) by deploying UAVs and Advanced Tunnel Detection on the U.S.-Mexico border and study additional border security needs (cosponsor),
o Motion to Recommit on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving housing assistance,
o Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 2399) to increase penalties for smuggling an illegal immigrant into the U.S. (H.R. 2399), and
o Department of Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 3222) to support $247 million for the continuing National Guard operations along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Thank you for your active engagement in our democracy. Participation and vigilance in monitoring the actions of elected officials is the responsibility of all citizens. Without accountability, our system of government would be in great peril. I am honored to represent you and look forward to working with you to continue bringing the voice of Southern Arizona to Washington .
Sincerely,
Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress
Here is what I wrote back to those questioning my loyalty to the cause:
To be offended by a presentation of the opposition viewpoint impeaches the belief that our ideas are better. To disallow their circulation furthers not only ignorance and misinformation but also impeaches the belief that we are better. It would make us no better that the smear merchants and muckrakers in the print media and in the Clinton campaign.
On the issue where Gabrielle Giffords wants to sound Republican, she stopped a permanent checkpoint on the I-19 and she won't vote with Republicans to secure the border.
Take the Time to Read the amendments to the House Homeland Bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2638&tab=amendments
Take Roll Call Vote 478 offered by Rep King of Iowa. Gabby said it was fiscally irresponsible because it increases "The King amendment would have put $5 million into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers Program. The DHS Appropriations bill already included $30 million for the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to carry out the Homeland Security Department's Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEEVS). As a result, I believed the King amendment to be duplicative of stronger efforts that I supported."
Yet the King Amendment passed. 38 Democrats joined 190 Republicans.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-478
Why? Because the King Amendment increases the salaries of overworked and underappreciated DHS employees.
Amendment reduces and then increases funding for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses account by $5 million.
Proposed: Jun 14, 2007. Accepted: Jun 15, 2007.
An amendment numbered 105 printed in the Congressional Record to increase and decrease the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses account by $5,000,000.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the King (IA) amendment (A029) Agreed to by recorded vote: 228 - 195 (Roll no. 478).
What about the McCaul Amendment (Roll Call 480)? The Texas Republican wanted to give the President the authority to move DHS people around in a state of emergency such as an like 9/11 or a tsunami or another Katrina. But the Courts blocked Bush's agency rules saying it violates their collective bargaining agreements. A vote from the Congress would trump the Courts of Appeals ruling. Instead, Gabby voted with the unions.
Let's look at the other Amendments which Gabby called "piecemeal":
Carter amendment (Roll Call 476)
Amendment sought to strike language regarding border fencing requirements under the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology heading.
Proposed: Jun 14, 2007. Rejected: Jun 15, 2007.
An amendment to strike the proviso regarding border fencing requirements under the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology heading.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the Carter amendment (A024) Failed by recorded vote: 190 - 233 (Roll no. 476).
This amendment does not sound very piecemeal to me. This is what the Texas Republican wrote about the amendment he authored:
“Illegal immigrants are entering our country in increasing numbers because our border is not secure. We need to get this fence built to change that. The people of Texas and the people of American want this fence up,” said Congressman Carter. “There is no reason for this holdup; Congress authorized this fence to be built, and it’s not getting done. This Amendment will ensure that DHS doesn’t have to jump through hoops to get this fence built.”
The Appropriations bill includes three provisions that appear to be good oversight, but in reality are bureaucratic roadblocks that effectively kill construction of fencing and border infrastructure. The Carter Amendment would eliminate these bureaucratic roadblocks designed to thwart fence construction, but still require good government sunshine and oversight of the process while taking much-needed steps to secure the border while protecting local and environmental values.
Specifically, the Carter Amendment:
* Removes the funding restriction on the requirement of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to minimize impact on wildlife and natural resources. The Carter Amendment directs DHS to continue coordinating with DOI, but does not withhold funding;
* Changes the requirement on DHS to solicit “advice and support” from State and local communities. The Carter Amendment directs DHS to solicit “input” from state and local communities and removes the funding restriction on this provision; and
* Removes the funding restriction on DHS requiring DHS to publish in the Federal Register when the Secretary uses his environmental waiver authority, and then no funds will be used for 15 days after it is published. The Carter Amendment still requires DHS to publish when the waiver is used, but removes the 15-day funding restriction.
http://carter.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=68623
By looking at what Gabby has said to her constituents and looking at the facts, one can see that Gabby is being disingenuous or incompetent.
Let's look at Royce (Roll Call 486)
An amendment to prohibit funds made available for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology from being used for anything but at least two layers of reinforced fencing and roads.
Proposed: Jun 15, 2007. Rejected: Jun 15, 2007.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the Royce amendment (A046) Failed by recorded vote: 149 - 272 (Roll no. 486).
She characterizes this amendment as "limiting federal action to building a fence" and then qualifying this action "not . . . sufficient." But doesn't this amendment sound like good oversight? Isn't that what Nancy Pelosi and her Congress pledged to do? In the words of Iris Lynch "Acta Non Verba."
Lastly let's look at the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call 490). What is a Motion to ReCommit? A Motion To Recommit is the Minority attempt to kill a bill.
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm
The motion failed and the bill passed. This is what the Heritage Foundation has said about the House Homeland Security bill:
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY08, the price of safety is $36.3 billion dollars - $2.5 billion more than what safety cost us last year and $2.1 billion more than what the President thinks we need. . . . Congress decides to turn state and local first-responder grant programs into de facto revenue-sharing programs, this raises some serious concerns about fiscal responsibility.
This critique points to fiscal irresponsibility rather than a piecemeal approach.
You are welcome to question my loyalty and my motives, but read the bill, listen to the opposition and form an informed opinion. I think it is important to disagree and demonstrate your difference, but there comes a point where you have to unify around people you may not like for a cause that transcends us. Border security is such an issue. It is very important to close the border and secure our homeland. Electing officials that represent our values is more important than walking lock step with rogue Congress that is only in power on a temporary visa.
Southeastern Arizona Republican activist Harold Hough cautioned me:
A friend passed your email on to me about your conversation with Congresswoman Gifford's Chief of Staff. Here are my thoughts.
There is an old saying that, “talk is cheap.” And, that adage is no truer than with politicians. Politicians and their staffs will tell you whatever it takes to get reelected, especially if they are Democrats in a district where they are outnumbered and are expecting a tough reelection race. Congresswoman Giffords may say she favors a strong border, but her votes have consistently opposed a strong border. In fact, her voting record is consistent with that of Open Border advocate Raul Grijalva.
What Congresswoman Giffords really believes was shown when she repeatedly voted against stronger border protection as Congress was working on the 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Five times she voted with Grijalva and the open border crowd to weaken our border.
The Carter of Texas Amendment. This amendment would have kept bureaucratic and environmental obstacles from stopping construction of the border fence. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 476).
The King of Iowa Amendment #105. This amendment would have put more money into a Employment Verification Program that would verify that a potential employee is legal. She voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call 478).
The McCaul of Texas Amendment #99. This amendment would give the Department of Homeland Security wide latitude to move personnel to areas where the threat is greatest. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call 480).
The Royce of California Amendment. This amendment makes sure that the money appropriated for building the border fence is actually spent on building the fence instead of being diverted. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 486).
Motion to Recommit the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. This Republican motion would have sent the bill back to committee to provide all the funds for building the fence, along with the necessary roads, lights, cameras, barriers, and sensors. Giffords voted against the motion to recommit along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 490).
Congresswoman Giffords, her Chief of Staff Maura Policelli, and her staff may be polite and willing to listen to our concerns about border security, but when it comes time to vote, Giffords prefers a porous border to a secure one. Don’t let common courtesy blind us to the votes of an open border congresswoman.
Sincerely,
Harold Hough
To which Gabby's staff responded:
December 18, 2007
Dear Mr. Bretney,
Thank you for contacting me about border protection and my votes on amendments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2638). Securing our border and passing comprehensive immigration reform is my highest priority in Congress.
Our district in Southeastern Arizona has paid a heavy price for illegal immigration. For too long, the federal government has failed to secure our borders and Congress has refused to act to solve this national problem. It is extremely unfortunate that the Senate did not succeed in moving immigration legislation this year. It is time the federal government stepped up to its responsibility. I continue to press House leadership to bring comprehensive immigration legislation to the floor.
I voted against the Carter amendment (Roll Call 476), the Royce amendment (Roll Call 486) and the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call 490) to the DHS Appropriations bill because I believe a piecemeal approach to this issue, such as limiting federal action to building a fence, will not be sufficient. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act of 2007 (H.R. 1645), a comprehensive reform bill that includes the following strong security and enforcement provisions:
o 11,600 new Border Patrol Agents,
o utilize Department of Defense surveillance equipment to control the U.S. border,
o build vehicle barriers and facilities to achieve control of the U.S. borders,
o deploy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to patrol the U.S. border,
o make it a crime to evade border inspection personnel, and
o develop intergovernmental programs targeting violent criminal aliens, border security, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gang activity.
I voted against the King amendment (Roll Call 478) and the McCaul amendment (Roll Call 480) because they were not fiscally responsible. The King amendment would have put $5 million into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers Program. The DHS Appropriations bill already included $30 million for the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to carry out the Homeland Security Department's Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEEVS). As a result, I believed the King amendment to be duplicative of stronger efforts that I supported.
Similarly, I rejected the McCaul amendment because it called for DHS to develop MAX-HR, a human capital system that was found illegal and in violation of contractual agreements by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a June 27, 2006 decision. Pouring money into this illegal system would not be a prudent way to spend our tax dollars.
On June 15, 2007, I voted for the final passage of the DHS Appropriations bill that included:
o 3,000 additional border patrol agents,
o $27 million for 250 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers for commercial operations and Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) validation,
o $50 million to improve DHS's ability to recruit and retain officers, and
o $180 million for the Criminal Alien Program so that DHS can identify incarcerated and convicted aliens and deport them.
Additionally, I launched a vigorous campaign in Congress to restore much-needed funding to our state and counties through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants. Other members of Congress and the President proposed cutting this essential federal program. I helped add a total of $55 million in SCAAP funding which was attached to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) which passed the House with my support on June 26, 2007.
I have consistently been an advocate for stronger security by supporting these measures in Congress:
o Border Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 2542) to fund enhanced law enforcement operations, as well as the detention and transfer of illegal aliens to federal authorities (cosponsor),
o To provide for the next generation of border and maritime security technologies (H.R. 3916) by deploying UAVs and Advanced Tunnel Detection on the U.S.-Mexico border and study additional border security needs (cosponsor),
o Motion to Recommit on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving housing assistance,
o Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 2399) to increase penalties for smuggling an illegal immigrant into the U.S. (H.R. 2399), and
o Department of Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 3222) to support $247 million for the continuing National Guard operations along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Thank you for your active engagement in our democracy. Participation and vigilance in monitoring the actions of elected officials is the responsibility of all citizens. Without accountability, our system of government would be in great peril. I am honored to represent you and look forward to working with you to continue bringing the voice of Southern Arizona to Washington .
Sincerely,
Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress
Here is what I wrote back to those questioning my loyalty to the cause:
To be offended by a presentation of the opposition viewpoint impeaches the belief that our ideas are better. To disallow their circulation furthers not only ignorance and misinformation but also impeaches the belief that we are better. It would make us no better that the smear merchants and muckrakers in the print media and in the Clinton campaign.
On the issue where Gabrielle Giffords wants to sound Republican, she stopped a permanent checkpoint on the I-19 and she won't vote with Republicans to secure the border.
Take the Time to Read the amendments to the House Homeland Bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2638&tab=amendments
Take Roll Call Vote 478 offered by Rep King of Iowa. Gabby said it was fiscally irresponsible because it increases "The King amendment would have put $5 million into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers Program. The DHS Appropriations bill already included $30 million for the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to carry out the Homeland Security Department's Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEEVS). As a result, I believed the King amendment to be duplicative of stronger efforts that I supported."
Yet the King Amendment passed. 38 Democrats joined 190 Republicans.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-478
Why? Because the King Amendment increases the salaries of overworked and underappreciated DHS employees.
Amendment reduces and then increases funding for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses account by $5 million.
Proposed: Jun 14, 2007. Accepted: Jun 15, 2007.
An amendment numbered 105 printed in the Congressional Record to increase and decrease the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses account by $5,000,000.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the King (IA) amendment (A029) Agreed to by recorded vote: 228 - 195 (Roll no. 478).
What about the McCaul Amendment (Roll Call 480)? The Texas Republican wanted to give the President the authority to move DHS people around in a state of emergency such as an like 9/11 or a tsunami or another Katrina. But the Courts blocked Bush's agency rules saying it violates their collective bargaining agreements. A vote from the Congress would trump the Courts of Appeals ruling. Instead, Gabby voted with the unions.
Let's look at the other Amendments which Gabby called "piecemeal":
Carter amendment (Roll Call 476)
Amendment sought to strike language regarding border fencing requirements under the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology heading.
Proposed: Jun 14, 2007. Rejected: Jun 15, 2007.
An amendment to strike the proviso regarding border fencing requirements under the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology heading.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the Carter amendment (A024) Failed by recorded vote: 190 - 233 (Roll no. 476).
This amendment does not sound very piecemeal to me. This is what the Texas Republican wrote about the amendment he authored:
“Illegal immigrants are entering our country in increasing numbers because our border is not secure. We need to get this fence built to change that. The people of Texas and the people of American want this fence up,” said Congressman Carter. “There is no reason for this holdup; Congress authorized this fence to be built, and it’s not getting done. This Amendment will ensure that DHS doesn’t have to jump through hoops to get this fence built.”
The Appropriations bill includes three provisions that appear to be good oversight, but in reality are bureaucratic roadblocks that effectively kill construction of fencing and border infrastructure. The Carter Amendment would eliminate these bureaucratic roadblocks designed to thwart fence construction, but still require good government sunshine and oversight of the process while taking much-needed steps to secure the border while protecting local and environmental values.
Specifically, the Carter Amendment:
* Removes the funding restriction on the requirement of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to minimize impact on wildlife and natural resources. The Carter Amendment directs DHS to continue coordinating with DOI, but does not withhold funding;
* Changes the requirement on DHS to solicit “advice and support” from State and local communities. The Carter Amendment directs DHS to solicit “input” from state and local communities and removes the funding restriction on this provision; and
* Removes the funding restriction on DHS requiring DHS to publish in the Federal Register when the Secretary uses his environmental waiver authority, and then no funds will be used for 15 days after it is published. The Carter Amendment still requires DHS to publish when the waiver is used, but removes the 15-day funding restriction.
http://carter.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=68623
By looking at what Gabby has said to her constituents and looking at the facts, one can see that Gabby is being disingenuous or incompetent.
Let's look at Royce (Roll Call 486)
An amendment to prohibit funds made available for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology from being used for anything but at least two layers of reinforced fencing and roads.
Proposed: Jun 15, 2007. Rejected: Jun 15, 2007.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the Royce amendment (A046) Failed by recorded vote: 149 - 272 (Roll no. 486).
She characterizes this amendment as "limiting federal action to building a fence" and then qualifying this action "not . . . sufficient." But doesn't this amendment sound like good oversight? Isn't that what Nancy Pelosi and her Congress pledged to do? In the words of Iris Lynch "Acta Non Verba."
Lastly let's look at the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call 490). What is a Motion to ReCommit? A Motion To Recommit is the Minority attempt to kill a bill.
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm
The motion failed and the bill passed. This is what the Heritage Foundation has said about the House Homeland Security bill:
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY08, the price of safety is $36.3 billion dollars - $2.5 billion more than what safety cost us last year and $2.1 billion more than what the President thinks we need. . . . Congress decides to turn state and local first-responder grant programs into de facto revenue-sharing programs, this raises some serious concerns about fiscal responsibility.
This critique points to fiscal irresponsibility rather than a piecemeal approach.
You are welcome to question my loyalty and my motives, but read the bill, listen to the opposition and form an informed opinion. I think it is important to disagree and demonstrate your difference, but there comes a point where you have to unify around people you may not like for a cause that transcends us. Border security is such an issue. It is very important to close the border and secure our homeland. Electing officials that represent our values is more important than walking lock step with rogue Congress that is only in power on a temporary visa.
Gabby Is Coopting Randy's Border Position
Gabby Giffords is trying to look harder than Darth Vader when it comes to Border Security. She is trying to look like Randy Graf. As the Pelosi Congress keeps trudging along the Road to Nowhere, many of us are having buyer's remorse over 2006. Will Gabby become a Republican? Consider the latest email I got from Le Giff over the issue:
Sincerely Yours,
Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress
December 21, 2007
Dear Mr. Bretney,
This week the House passed the Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations package and it is now going to the President for his signature. I thought you might be interested in hearing about a provision that I included in that legislation to toughen our border security.
I first introduced this legislation as a stand-alone bill, called the Tunnel Enforcement Act (H.R. 4326). My legislation, as passed in the appropriations package, will ensure that the federal government can prosecute smugglers who tunnel into the United States .
This provision criminalizes the construction of tunnels under the U.S. border and adds this prohibition to the federal criminal code. It also creates criminal penalties for using tunnels to smuggle illegal aliens, goods, controlled substances, weapons, or terrorists.
Specifically, the Tunnel Enforcement Act established the following federal crimes and corresponding sentences.
oAny person who knowingly constructs or finances the construction of a tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses the international border between the United States and another country, other than a lawfully authorized tunnel or passage known to the Secretary of Homeland Security and subject to inspection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.
oAny person who knowingly or recklessly disregards the construction or use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection (a) on land that the person owns or controls shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
oAny person who uses a tunnel or passage described in subsection (a) to unlawfully smuggle an alien, goods, controlled substances, weapons of mass destruction, or a member of a terrorist organization shall be subject to a maximum term of imprisonment that is twice the maximum term of imprisonment that would have otherwise been applicable had the unlawful activity not made use of such a tunnel or passage.
Securing our border is my highest priority in Congress, and I have consistently been an advocate for strengthened border security by supporting these measures in Congress:
oBorder Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 2542) to fund enhanced law enforcement operations, as well as the detention and transfer of illegal aliens to federal authorities (cosponsor),
oTo provide for the next generation of border and maritime security technologies (H.R. 3916) by deploying UAVs and Advanced Tunnel Detection on the U.S.-Mexico border and study additional border security needs (cosponsor),
oMotion to Recommit on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving housing assistance,
oAlien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 2399) to increase penalties for smuggling an illegal immigrant into the U.S. (H.R. 2399), and
oDepartment of Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 3222) to support $247 million for the continuing National Guard operations along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Additionally, I launched a vigorous campaign in Congress to add $55 million in much needed funding to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). This program reimburses our county and state law enforcement agencies for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants. Other members of Congress and the President proposed cutting this essential federal program. As a result of my added funding, Congress included a total of $410 million in SCAAP funding in the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill that passed the House as part of the FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations package. The Omnibus funding package is going to the President for his signature which is expected promptly thereafter.
I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested in issues of important to Arizona and the nation. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you require assistance. My job as your representative is to assist you with federal agencies, access services and get your policy questions answered thoroughly. Feel free to sign-up for e-news updates on my website at www.giffords.house.gov.
Sincerely Yours,
Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)