Lou Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President

The cost?

One report says that the cost of repatriating them would cost 3.2 trillion dollars over the long haul including SS bennies. Also, if you read the bill it would do away with our gun rights. Those are costs we can't afford. Instead of sending arms to Fatah which has been taken by Hamas, just fund the Mexicans to take back their country from the drug lords.
 
He can pick up his magic wand and use it to dial his office phone directly to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He then says "I order you immediately to secure the borders of the United States".

And whoever receives this order will probably want to know where the money is supposed to come from. A President can order just about anything, but without appropriate appropriations (like that one, didn't ya), the order means nothing, because it takes money to carry out the order. And what entity has the power to allow appropriations?

Congress.
 
It doesn't cost as much as people say . It's smoke and mirrors . We see this all the time and most people believe it . The huge part of the cost of many military ops can be written down as the pay of the soldiers involved . Well , this money is paid if they hang out on the border or hang out on post doing "stuff" to pass the day . A big manuever happens and nobody notices . You call them out to do a job and the cost is "staggering". Those that sweat the cost are actually just those that don't want it done .
 
Lou Dobbs is a genuine conservative. Bush and his neocon buddies are not.

While Lou Dobbs may sound something like a Johnny-One-Note, this is a very important issue -- perhaps the most important to US national security.

The US is not located in the Middle East; we're right here in North America. So why are all of our so-called security efforts taking place halfway around the planet? If terrorists can't get into the US, then they can't harm anyone here! As things currently stand, anyone can leave the Middle East and sneak into the US.

If I were in charge, I'd pull the troops out of Iraq and reassign them to border patrol duty (let the search for Osama continue, however). Not only would that greatly lessen the infiltration of our borders, it would also lessen the hatred of the US that leads to terrorism in the first place. It would kill two birds with one stone.

If I wanted to make another major terrorist attack in the US as likely as possible, I wouldn't change a thing about US policy, either foreign or domestic.
 
And whoever receives this order will probably want to know where the money is supposed to come from. A President can order just about anything, but without appropriate appropriations (like that one, didn't ya), the order means nothing, because it takes money to carry out the order. And what entity has the power to allow appropriations?

Congress.

2001-2006, (R) controlled, did NOTHING.

2006-2007, (D) controlled, doing NOTHING.

It's the Demicans and Republicrats. Don't blame just the new bosses, they're just the same as the old bosses. None of them want to control illegals, none of them want a secure border.
 
And whoever receives this order will probably want to know where the money is supposed to come from. A President can order just about anything, but without appropriate appropriations (like that one, didn't ya), the order means nothing, because it takes money to carry out the order. And what entity has the power to allow appropriations?

Congress.

Completely disagree. The President can move troops to the border. They are funded on a continuing basis by the budget that supports our military. Most of this is no more expensive than normal state side military maneuvers. If he did issue an order no soldier is going to ask where is the money before they move...dosen't work that way. Also, a fraction of the cost of Iraq war would easily take care of the cost. So just another poor excuse not to protect this country.

Although you present an interesting idea. I guess when I was in the Army and my 1st. sgt. asked to to dig a ditch, I should have asked "hey sarge is this a funded operation?. Me being here is proof that never happened!
 
The funding excuse is a load of pig slop. If the President were to place real troops on the border in the interest of national security the Congress would NEVER have the cajones to deny long term funding. We have a Congress dominated by the left now that was put in power with the sole order to get us out of Iraq and they didn't even have teh stomach to force that issue and deny funding. Does anyone think they would have the resolution to deny funding to troops actually protecting our border?
 
A load of pig slop, huh?

For the President to Order troops to the border, specific appropriations would have to be approved by congress to house, feed, and run the mission. And don't forget about all of the illegal aliens who are detained, either. They will have to be housed, provided with medical treatment, monitered, and go through an adjudication process. The U.S. army can't just put these expenses on a credit card, or spend its budget that has already been appropriated for other specific purposes (such as the war on terror) on the new border enforcement mission.

At least I think I'm right. Perhaps Anti or another member with more knowledge of the appropriations process and can confirm this. Anyway, the President can't just order something that is long-term like this without the funds to pay for it. Those funds have to come from congress. Think Nancy Pelosi will be willing to fund such a mission?
 
At least I think I'm right. Perhaps Anti or another member with more knowledge of the appropriations process and can confirm this.

Actually you are wrong.

1) The President can deploy troops without anyones authorization.

2) Soldiers pay stays the same 24/7....no matter what duty.

3) The cost for normal military garrison operations is not a lot different than deployment to our border. Even in Garrison you spend most time on practice maneuvers, expending fuel, field rations, etc.

4) Any additional long term cost would easily pass Congress. Unless some want to deny our right to protect our Country.

5) Nancy Pelosi is not the Commander & Chief.

6) Option "B". Bush can deploy troops to the border...like he did in Iraq, then ask for funding because he knows they are committed and anyone dare not support.

The real truth is this. Bush did not secure our borders because he wanted a carrot to offer to get his & Kennedy's flawed immigration bill to pass. This has nothing to do with money for troops to secure the borders. Bush knew if he protected this country the way he should have then he would have lost his only bargaining chip for the immigration bill. I am a Republican and I think he should be impeached for failure to up-hold his oath of office.
 
Yeah, you go ahead and join the libs in a call for impeachment. A Republican, huh? :rolleyes:

Here's an interesting article I found this morning:

On Tuesday, the president made a rare visit to the Capitol to ask Republican senators to give the bill a second chance. Two days later, responding to a request from pivotal GOP senators, he threw his support behind $4.4 billion in immediate funding for "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site." As drafted, the legislation called for the money to become available over a period of several years.
 
A Republican, huh?

Yes I am. Have been voting as such since 1958. Bush is a disgrace to his party & Country.

BTW, not all lib's want him impeached. His pal Kennedy is in bed with him on this immigration bill. You know that guy that wants to take our guns away.
 
Sorry to lump you in with the libs, Mad. That was outta line. There's no worse insult to a Republican. :D

But I don't think that you can state that the border enforcement mission is comparable to a normal training mission. It'll be a lot more expensive and long-term, and the funds have to come from somewhere.

And I also don't think that you can assume that a Democratic-majority congress is just going to rubber-stamp funds for border enforcment legislation that is devoid of a plan for the disposition of illegal aliens. The Democrats can (and will) decry a border-enforcement-only-bill as inhumane, insensitive, and unjust, and it won't pass. Heck, it won't even be voted on. That's just the reality of a Democratic-majority congress.
 
WHERE'S THE FENCE?
The fence is a ridiculous idea that will not work. Fences and walls are easily climbed or broken through if there is noone there watching it. The Berlin wall did not stop people. The huge faction of communist soldiers that manned it stopped people. People were more than willing to crawl across barbed wire and scale walls. It was the bullets that stopped them.

The fence idea is just another huge payoff to companies like Haliburton and it's subsidaries. The fence would end up costing billions and solve nothing. All it would do is once again divert a big chunk of tax payer money into big business' pockets. Screaming for this fence is just falling into the diversionary trap that has been laid in front of you.

The same type of security the fence would provide could be obtained with simple motion detection devices for a fraction of the cost. Then the extra money could be much better spent on increased border patrol agents, more helicopters, infared cameras, etc. The technology would alert border patrol forces where activity was taking place and they could respond quickly.

This way you have a small fraction of the money spent on hardware and the majority of it going into the pockets of working Americans that take jobs with border security.

Plus, this way you have a patrol force large enough and well enough equipted to deal with whatever wanders across instead of the small ill-equiped group you have now. Even if there was a fence today we would not have the man power or recources for the patrol agents to actually make contact with each breach, patrol the perimeter, or deal with those actually caught.
 
Last edited:
Well, I found this interesting article about the authorization/appropriation process. I have no idea about the source, but it's the best I can do for now. Here's a couple of quotes from the article:

Before money can be spent, Congress must authorize the expenditure first, and then must appropriate the money to do so. Without these two steps, nothing can be done. For example, last Fall Congress authorized the construction of a fortified border fence between the U.S. and Mexico. Everyone thought it was done and that the fence could be built now. Congresspersons went home for Election Day and touted their achievement. But wait. They authorized the fence, but nothing had yet been appropriated to actually build it. Pretty clever; they got the credit (or blame) for the action but never spend the money.

A large majority of what Congress does involves introducing, debating and passing authorizing legislation. Authorizing legislation provides for the authority to do something. It may create a new Department or Bureau, devise a new program, and outline responsibilities of some government entity. Basically, authorizing legislation is what most people think of when they think of legislation. Most of the regular committees of Congress only deal with this type of legislation. If you want to get the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to change how your cable provider bills you, you ask your Congress person to introduce a bill to do so, or have him or her amend some other bill to get it done. Everything in government has been authorized in some form at some time. The FCC was initially authorized way back in the 1930s and people still go back to that dusty bill to check its authority. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every Cabinet Department, the Army, Navy, the Post Office - everything was created by authorizing legislation in Congress at some time. Maybe it was a hundred years ago, but it was authorized. In fact, not only authorized but re-authorized over and over again.

The other side of the coin is appropriations. Appropriations bills do not authorize, (though in some cases authorization bills can appropriate, though for simplicity's sake, let's keep the two separate). In order to appropriate money, the program (where the money is being spent) must be authorized.

Back to the border fence example. The Homeland Security Authorization Bill authorized the construction of the fence. Now it is up to the Homeland Security Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees to actually pony up the money. (Technically they don't create the money; they give the authority to the U.S. Treasury to make the expenditure).

So, I'll guess that the president is already authorized (by his inherent power of commander in chief of the armed forces) to deploy troops to the border, but an appropriation committee would still have to authorize the funds to fund the border-enforcement issue.

Let me know if you folks find something different, because this is really interesting learning how this stuff works. Good thread!
 
And I also don't think that you can assume that a Democratic-majority congress is just going to rubber-stamp funds for border enforcment legislation that is devoid of a plan for the disposition of illegal aliens. The Democrats can (and will) decry a border-enforcement-only-bill as inhumane, insensitive, and unjust, and it won't pass. Heck, it won't even be voted on. That's just the reality of a Democratic-majority congress.

Fremmer, that's exactly what the REPUBLICANS in congress did for five years. The Democrats are continuing it.

Care to answer why the Republicans didn't do a damned thing for the entire time they had control of both houses?

I know it's painful for any Republican of the Goldwater sort to actually accept that what's in there now is not Republicans, it's neo-liberals who are saying "screw you" to the will of the American people and have for five years. It's a difficult thing to accept.

Hopefully you will, eventually. Or you can stay in denial, blame the Democrats, and laud the neoliberals-in-Republican-clothing who did just as badly.

And as for George...

WASHINGTON, June 15 — President Bush and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, pledged today to work for passage of the suddenly revived immigration bill, with Mr. Reid saying Senate Democrats would sacrifice their Fourth of July break, if necessary.

“Each day our nation fails to act, the problem only grows worse,” Mr. Bush said at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast here. “I will continue to work closely with members of both parties to get past our differences and pass a bill I can sign this year.”

President Bush, in his remarks to the prayer breakfast today, went out of his way to praise two senators who have worked hard on the immigration bill, Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida.

:barf::barf::barf::mad::barf:
 
Last edited:
But I don't think that you can state that the border enforcement mission is comparable to a normal training mission. It'll be a lot more expensive and long-term, and the funds have to come from somewhere.

Again. It is not a problem of funds. If Bush sent troops to the border tonight, then no one, not Democrats or anyone else would deny funds to keep troops at the border. No one is really go to say we will not allow this country to be protected. When confronted with the problem of funding after Bush sent troops to the border, then even Democrats would vote for funding.

The problem remains the same. Bush has not taken the step to secure the border because he does not want to secure the border.

I ask again for people to stop and really think about what we are saying. Can you believe that the only way the United States can secure it's borders is to pass the present immigration law? We are simply powerless on this issue? even though the IV amendment of the Constitution and the Presidents executive power gives complete authority to secure our borders.

So, we only have two choices? Pass the immigration bill or leave or borders un-secured.

Smacks of blackmail to me.
 
It's actually kind of difficult to figure out what they're all thinking. Here are my guesses:


Senate Democrats:

1] Most Mexicans will vote Dem if made citizens
2] America is wealthy/guilty and must pay
3] Bringing in lots of non-white people will improve America


Senate Republicans:

1] 20 years from now, this will be like the Voting Rights Act, so don't get on the wrong side of history
2] Trade support for this bill for something Republicans want


President:

1] ????
2] Can't stop globalization. America competes with countries that have huge pools of low cost labor (China, India). We need to import our own huge pool to compete in the 21st century.
 
Back
Top