Today Julie Myers came by the Dallas Morning News to chat with the editorial board. Here's a partial transcript of the meeting. I'm the one asking the questions in boldface:
Kevin Stephens, a Border Patrol official, said in a recent interview that a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border would act as a “force multiplier,” making it easier for the Border Patrol to do its job. Why does the administration oppose a physical, as distinct from virtual, fence along the border?
I am not the fencing expert. I do think the Border Patrol, those guys are down there and they have a much better understanding of what’s effective. My understanding is they think fencing works really well in some places, works not so well in other places. It depends on a number of things, so it’s important to have a layered strategy. But I would not pretend to be the final authority on fencing. Certainly we’ve seen it to be useful in some places. Some urban areas. In the rural areas, it’s not as effective, and some other things – surveillance or personnel – are more effective there.
You said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program after the president’s speech that this administration is not in favor of physical fencing. Is that correct? What’s the policy?
In that very same answer, I said that fencing is part of the solution, it’s a layered approach. It’s my understanding that the administration believes that in some places we need to think about infrastructure fencing, in some places surveillance, in some places enhanced personnel. And so I think my comments there were completely mischaracterized and taken out of context, to be frank.
What is the case for no physical fence across the entire border? Why does the administration believe it wouldn’t be effective?
Once again, I am not the expert on fencing. My understanding is that the administration believes fencing is valuable in some places but not in every place. As we sit here today, I’ve not spent much of my time on where fencing is most effective, so regrettably, the Border Patrol is in a better position to answer those specific questions.
Is it just me, or do you agree that the head of the second-largest investigative agency in the US Government, the one responsible for arresting illegal immigrants, should be able to explain and defend a basic element of the administration's border enforcement policy. Right? Personally, I think it's indefensible, as does Hugh Hewitt, but shouldn't an administration official of that rank, and in that particular department, be able to talk knowledgeably about this matter?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
More language like that, Border Guard, and you'll be banned from posting here.>
You know, I'm not all that against a big fence, in principle, it's just that if it'd ever been *worth* it, they'd have done it already.
Two thousand miles of fences and a military deployment is an awful lot of levees and other security not being done, considering most illegals actually just take the bus and overstay their visas.>
Hey Sport
Trust me, I won't be back>
I think Michelle Malkin's discussion and critique of Ms. Myers before her placement has proved prophetic. She is obviously incompetent in her position. When you cannot explain your position clearly, you just don't know what you are talking about. It is that simple. Even if nuanced, the tone and fuzziness of her responses show her inability to communicate well and you would think someone in that high a position would do a better job. I don't get from her that she really supports the idea of fences at all, but only begrudgingly. I was embarrassed for her (and then angry) when I heard her interview with Hugh Hewitt.>
Cusidh: "...most illegals actually just take the bus and overstay their visas."
I hear that it's one-third of illegal aliens who overstay their visas and most of those cheats arrived by airliner, not bus. Those on non-resident visas are supposed to have their return ticket in hand when they arrive, the Feds should be able to know instantly when that visa holder isn't on the scheduled flight home. So why is enforcement so difficult?
Why aren't tourists, students, and other temporary visitors here on a visa expected to report where they are visiting, studying, and staying then being periodically checked up on?
Long-term visitors should be required to have a sponsor who must post a sizable bond that is forfeited if the sponsored visa holder doesn't depart by the visa's expiration date or commits other violations of the visa's restrictions. This has the advantage of engaging all the positive energies of personal responsibility on the side of self-enforcement.
For instance, some congregation wants to give some refugees shelter in the USA? They can put up bonds for as many as they want to take - mortgage their meeting hall, even the homes of willing congregants. Want to import gastarbeiters to pick lettuce for $50 per hour at Ranchero McCain? Post your bonds and make sure you get your braceros back across the border three months later when their temporary guest worker visas expire.
Why make this harder than required?
>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.