So the Senate voted today to spend our tax dollars on 370 miles of triple-fencing along the US-Mexico borrder, as well at 500 miles of what the New York Times calls “vehicle barriers” (whatever those are). The final vote was a whopping 83 to 16. And guess which opportunistic Massachusetts Senator didn’t oppose it? Yes, that’s right–it’s John Kerry! Maybe he planned to vote against it after he voted for it. Maybe he was the one who didn’t vote–I haven’t seen a roll call. But according to this article in the New York Times, he didn’t vote against it. [UPDATE (by David): Kerry voted “yes” – see comments]
Thanks, John. Just to be clear, the people who didn’t vote for you in 2004 won’t turn around and support you now. But we understand–opposing this might have involved a spine, and you haven’t shown one of those for quite some time.
For those who are curious, Ted Kennedy did oppose it. So did Jim Jeffords, and even Joe Lieberman. Hillary Clinton did not.
Link. Rockefeller (D-WV) was the non-voting Senator.
Thanks, David–that was actually in the Times article, and I should have noticed it.
Kerry used to be a bold, straightforward Senator in his first decade or so. Then he started looking forward to a presidential run, and it colored all his votes on controversial matters. For a few years in the mid 90s I remember wondering what was up with Kerry, the Senator I used to think was great. I figured out that he was looking forward to a presidential run in 1996, when he voted for the Communications Decency Act. That act passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, because oh no porn!! Then it got slapped down 9-0 by the Supreme Court, because it was blatant censorship and unconstitutional. (Kennedy was one of the leaders of the opposition, along with Patrick Leahy)
<
p>
When Kennedy lost in 2004, I thought the silver lining would be that we’d finally get our pre-mid-90s Kerry back. Without the prospect of a presidential bid constantly on his shoulder, he’d go back to voting for what he believes in. But alas, no, he seems to be seriously considering running again, and we’re in for the same Kerry we’ve had over the past decade.
<
p>
So when I see a vote like this, I take it as an indication that he will likely run.
It is useless, not harmless.
I’m guessing that you meant to say that the meausre was harmless (since few people support things that they consider harmful). In my opinion, this is likely to be harmful. In part, it’s a huge waste of taxpayer money which will probably go to a mega-project corporation like Halliburton or Bechtel–I think that there are other comments on this below.
<
p>
But I’m more concerned by the human risks. People are already dying in the desert trying to enter this country. They do so out of desperation, and they’re likely to keep doing so until the dire poverty in which they live changes (which will require a lot, including big changes to our county’s free trade policies). By putting walls on sections of the border, we make it even more likely that people will take dangerous and isolated routes.
<
p>
One implementation detail on this plan which should tell us a lot is WHERE these walls are put. if they’re put in the areas with the most treacherous desert, that may indicate a desire not to have people die in the desert. But I fear that they’ll be put near urban areas, viewing the deserts as a sort of natural boundary. Which will likely drive more people into the desrts to die.
Won’t Clinton bury him?
Why is this bad idea?
Fiscal: It’s a lot of money that might be better spent installing public water systems and health clinics in South Texas border communities or other pockets of dire poverty in America. Hell, installing public works and clinics on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande would do a lot to reduce the pressures that send desperate people over here.
<
p>
Environmental: the presence of construction crews and the barriers will no doubt interfere with a delicate desert ecosystem.
<
p>
But most of all:
It will not deliver what it promises. If people can’t wander through there, expect more people crammed into truck trailers and cargo holds.
<
p>
This is why it’s useless.
<
p>
There’s probably enough money in this project to provide health insurance to every person in Mass.
The Texas Observer has done a bang-up job explaining just who gets rich off this interdiction of immigrants plan, which John Kerry thinks will help him get elected.
I read the article (quickly) but can’t seem to figure out what you think Kerry’s stratgey is.
<
p>
Who’s he pandering to by supporting the Senate bill?
He and Clinton must be reading the same polling data. The fence plays well with the security moms. Its also a throwaway compromise to get the worker vouchers. Nobody REALLY thinks it will keep illegal immigrants out, but its good politics and it gets them the part of the bill they actually wanted.
<
p>
The question is, how do hispanic voters, who have always been hugely Democratic, react in 2008? Put another way, did he give up one block of votes for another?
The Texas Observer article is more about who exactly gets rich off of this, and those businessmen who build the holding facilities in South Texas most likely have no ties to Kerry.
<
p>
But, to me, that means Kerry should be free to really consider what is the best response here. (A contrasting situation would be some telecommunications act because Kerry’s sponsored by some big telcos, if I recall correctly from Charles Lewis’ recent book on the 2004 election)
<
p>
And the “Middle” is just this Washington, D.C. consensus that “our borders are broken” and the illegal immigration is out of control. These sort of very emotional statements get made a lot–so often that it reminds me of the 2002-2003 talk of Saddam Hussein being a “threat.” There’s an echo chamber & a noise machine in that town, and John Kerry should be smart enough to play devil’s advocate and think critically about this wall being built.
… for instance, in Berlin.
Gee, Ron, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not out. Are you having a hard time discerning the difference?
Perhaps Massachusetts could use such a wall?
It’s not such a stretch. You might say we are building this wall to keep people out of our country, but you can just as well say that we are building it to keep people in Mexico. It’s a wall, and like all walls, it’s being built to keep some stuff on one side and some other stuff on the other.
<
p>
I’m failing to see why the difference matters. And why you’re reduced to sarcasm to make your point.
<
p>
And besides all that, as people have pointed out, the wall won’t make much of a difference. The problems here are policy issues, not physical barriers. A physical barrier might, at a wild-ass guess, keep out half of would-be immigrants, but that’s still a hell of a lot of people coming in.
Is it worth making such a big deal out of it? Or is Boxer sold?
<
p>
Jeez, get a grip on the reality. If passing this amendment which is harmless (as well as useless) allows to pass a bill that would regularize people that are in this country, fine with me.
<
p>
The amendment is useless. But some other amendments are harmful. I certainly prefer that Kerry opposes them, even if it includes pandering on this one (if he panders with Boxer, fine with me).
I’m for normalizing the people who are already here and massively boosting the amount of legal immigration we allow but there has to be a counterweight on the other side.
<
p>
This is the counterweight. If we’re not building this fence, we may as well abolish all immigration law.
If we’re not building this fence, we may as well abolish all immigration law.
<
p>
How do you figure that? This wall is unlikely to help enforcement in a measurable way, but it IS likely to push immigrants to take even more dangerous paths here, possibly resulting in more deaths in the desert. You see that as the essence of immigration law?
They will be co-sponsoring a bill to roll out an 870 mile red carpet at the border, instead.
NY Times: âBush Turns to Big Military Contractors for Border Control,â by Eric Lipton, May 18, 2006.
<
p>
<
p>
Has anyone else noted the acronymic similarity between SBI and SDI?
He was one of two votes that got Alito on the bench – and voted for the bankruptcy bill. Both of those are waaaaaaay worse than this stupid waste of money – which is exactly what it is, a waste of money.
<
p>
I’d give Teddy some props… but he’s still in the dog house for me with all his behind the door Cape Wind backdealing.
I don’t think the intent was to give any credit to Lieberman, but merely to highlight Kerry’s folly. When you can say “Even Lieberman voted against it, and Kerry did not,” that’s really saying something.
Dcsohl’s got it right. As a former CT resident, I give no credit to Lieberman, and I hope that Ned Lamont kicks his butt. But the fact that Kerry found himself to the right of Lieberman on this one is pathetic.
maybe one of you roll call counters could confirm or refute this;
but as i recall, kerry also took a powder on a couple of the early 2000 bush tax-cuts-for-the-rich votes too.
Quote:
*******************
“Red carpet is for military contractors”
*******************
I’d rather pay Haaaaaalllliburtin, than to have my children, and all subsequent generations, pay for the unchecked infestation of illegals (who contribute nothing) into our society.
“Unchecked infestation?” If you want to talk about people as if they were vermin, I’d advise you to find Rush Limbaugh’s website.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
infest; To inhabit or overrun in numbers large enough to be harmful, threatening, or obnoxious.
<
p>
You used the term vermin.
I didn’t.
Yes, I did use the term vermin. I wrote that while you didn’t use the word, you were talking about people as if they were vermin. And I did so because your reference to an “unchecked infestation of illegals” was the kind of language one generally uses when discussing vermin. You used very thinly coded language which showed a huge level of contempt. I find that offensive and inappropriate.
<
p>
You were also factually inaccurate in your statement that undocumented immigrants “contribute nothing.” For starters, the contribute an estimated a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ex=1270353600&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ei=5090&partner=kmarx”>$7 billion a year into Social Security, though they can’t claim any benefits. Follow the link to a New York Times article on the subject.
Looks like that link didn’t work–hre’s the post again with a working link.
<
p>
Yes, I did use the term vermin. I wrote that while you didn’t use the word, you were talking about people as if they were vermin. And I did so because your reference to an “unchecked infestation of illegals” was the kind of language one generally uses when discussing vermin. You used very thinly coded language which showed a huge level of contempt. I find that offensive and inappropriate.
<
p>
You were also factually inaccurate in your statement that undocumented immigrants “contribute nothing.” For starters, the contribute an estimated $7 billion a year into Social Security, though they can’t claim any benefits. Follow the link to a New York Times article on the subject.
I use words which are appropriate by definition, and I don’t quibble.
<
p>
Yes, I do have contempt for those who knowingly and intentionally flout the laws.
<
p>
Illegals are a net loss to our society, and I challenge anyone to put forth credible evidence to the contrary.
<
p>
The only ones who benefit from this criminal behaviour are the aliens themselves, and their crooked employers, all of whom belong in jail.
Yes, I do have contempt for those who knowingly and intentionally flout the laws.
<
p>
Good to know. Strangely, a search through your past comments didn’t find your expressions of contempt for underage drinkers, drug users, jaywalkers, tax cheats, or others who break the laws. And those folks are guilty of criminal offenses, not civil ones. Sounds to me like your enthusiasm for the law is a bit inconsistent.
<
p>
Illegals are a net loss to our society, and I challenge anyone to put forth credible evidence to the contrary.
<
p>
Well, for evidence, we could start with the NY Times article I cited above, which you seem to be ignoring…
I have not commented an all of your aforementioned topics, it is true.
<
p>
I don’t post a lot, I WORK a lot.
<
p>
However, I think you would be hard pressed to find any inconsistancies in the opinions that I have expressed on this forum.
<
p>
As for your NYT article – I read it.
Even if you take it at face value, it is immediately offset by the costs in California alone, for educating the children and anchor babies of illegal aliens.
This doesn’t even begin to take into account the social services, medical, law enforcement costs etc.
<
p>
No, there’s no question, we ALL PAY, and the system suffers, when illegal activity is tolerated.