Lounge of Tomorrow - Border Control

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Border Control (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=691)

Interesting story from Reuters.

Quote:

At a hearing of the House of Representatives subcommittee on immigration and border security, chairman John Hostettler noted that legislation passed by Congress last year authorized the addition of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over the next five years.

``I was therefore deeply disappointed that his budget calls for an increase in Border Patrol agents of barely 10 percent of that called for by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act,'' the Indiana Republican said.

That legislation was based on the recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Peter Gadiel, whose son was killed in the World Trade Center, said he and other family members of victims were shocked to read that Bush's budget proposal last month included funding for only 210 additional Border Patrol agents.

``We, who lost so much on that day, simply cannot understand why some in our government are still questioning the need for adequate resources, especially manpower, to control who is permitted to enter our country,'' Gadiel said.

The issue also came up on Wednesday at a hearing of a Senate subcommittee on homeland security, where Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that not one additional agent would be posted to patrol the 4,000-mile-long border with Canada.

Robert Bonner, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, acknowledged he could use more manpower, although the number of agents on the northern border had tripled since September 2001.

``We don't have enough agents; we don't have enough technology to give us the security we need. We need more agents and we need to do a smarter and a better job,'' he said.

At Thursday's hearing, Texas Democratic Rep. Solomon Ortiz said the southern border was under siege and there was a real possibility terrorists could exploit the holes.

``The Border Patrol will lose more than 210 agents to attrition -- the strength of the Border Patrol is dwindling,'' he said.

Just this week, Ortiz added, 24 agents were mobilized with the National Guard and sent to Iraq.

T.J. Bonner, a former border guard who chairs the labor union representing agents, said the Border Patrol stopped 1.2 million people last year trying to enter the country illegally.

``Frontline agents estimates that two to three times that number managed to slip by them,'' he said.

Bonner called the Bush budget proposal ``shameful'' and said morale in the force had never been lower.

I think it has become absolutely clear that President Bush really has no interest in increasing security at our borders, leaving us vulnerable to another terrorist attack. So much for making america safer.

eh, im not gonna comment on the bush bashing, because i dont care to get in a rep v dem debate, however, i have first hand experience with this as a good friend of mine just was hired on full time at Naco in Arizona, one of the busiest border crossings and areas in the country. Second only to Nogales/Douglas which is 30 miles west of there.

According to him, Border partol in that area is growing exponentially, there have been over 200 new hires and trainees within the past year. When he went to the academy for Border Patrol, there was an 8 month waiting list to get in.

Budgets this and reforms that. Bottom line, at least in Arizona (and i believe california) the number of border partol agents is increasing, the percentage of illegals caught, is diminishing, and at least when it comes to the mexican border, we are going in the right direction.

To me, this has nothing to do with Republican vs Democrat. I would be equally upset if the situation was reversed. I only mention Bush because he so frequently touts that only his administration can make america safer.

Concerning the information from your friend, if it is true, that is welcome news. I do have my doubts though, if only because it goes against every bit of information that I have heard, including an interview with a Border Agent on CNN last night. His view was that moral has never been lower and that the agents are completly puzzled and distraught over these bodget cuts.

I would feel much better if you are right and hope that is the case. I just can't find any source that backs up those claims. I'll keep looking though. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I only mention Bush because he so frequently touts that only his administration can make america safer.

That's pre-election talk, man. Bush doesn't discuss terrorism much anymore. Heck, he didn't even mention terrorism in his inaugural address. The votes have already been counted, baby. There's no need to scare the electorate at this time.

there may be a ton of new hires because a lot of the old guards left for other jobs. (just my thought, not based in fact at all.)

I also considered the thought that maybe the waiting list is so long because they can't afford to hire anyone right now. Again though, I don't know either.

All I know is that I keep seeing border agents say that they are ill-equipped and manned to do their job. I also don't hear our president mentioning it at all. I don't understand why that is when protecting our borders is so vital.

I dunno exactly how I feel about this, as I haven't been reading up on this enough, but doesn't adding 2,000 personnel a year over the next five seem like a steep thing to ask? We'd have to entice (ie., advertisements to make working the border seem like an awesome job), hire, train, and pay for those people to be there.

I'm not saying that I don't want more people on the border, because I really do, I just wonder how realistic a goal of 10,000 new hires over five years is, and would be, under any president. It would take a bigger budget to work with, and that component would really piss off a lot of conservatives. Plus, you have to convince 10,000 people that live in those areas that are near the border that they want to do this.

Again, I'm not saying this is how I want things to be, but reasons perhaps why they aren't. And I'm also not saying that I've been reading every little thing about the topic. Just my thoughts.. hehehe.. :evil:

My parents just spent some time in Ajo Az. They were warned ahead of time to keep everything locked tight and be very aware of your surroundings due to the coyotes and drug runners. They wanted to take a scenic drive on a trail set up through one of our national parks only to find that side of the park was closed to tourists because of all of the people trying to cross. She said they drove though one area and the BP had 30 people (kids too) lined up.

I know they are going to cross, but it saddens me to hear of the kids that die out in the desert from exposure...the parents are adults and can make their own choices, but the kids...

You make excellent points, Erica. I understand that this would cost a lot of money and be hard logistically. And yet, I can't help but think about the potential risks involved if we don't implement something like this.

I can't say for certain that adding all those agents would fix the problem either, but it is what that agency says that it needs to get a better handle on the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Yeah -- I think that's pretty much where I stand.

I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that we don't need these things, or that something better needs to happen.