Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Fence by Date Act, H.R. 4987--now up to 28 co-sponsors!

Rep. Walter Jones, of course, first submitted this critical pro-Sovereignty piece of legislation, and now he has been joined by these legislative leaders.

Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R-FL]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R-FL]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. Samuel Graves [R-MO]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
Rep. Peter King [R-NY]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R-IL]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-AL]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Rep. Edward Royce [R-CA]
Rep. Bill Sali [R-ID]
Rep. Michael Simpson [R-ID]
Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY]

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Fence by Date Certain Gains Momentum!

H.R. 4987, the Fence by Date Certain Act, is taking off!

We are now up to 20 sponsors. Here's the honor roll:

Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), Mike Rogers (R-AL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Peter King (R-NY), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) , Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Dan Burton (R-IN), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Virgil Goode (R-VA), Sam Graves (R-MO), Ed Royce (R-CA), Bill Sali (R-ID), Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Ed Whitfield (R-KY).

And more soon!

Sunday, January 6, 2008

The Republican Presidential Candidates on Border Security--A Fence by Date Certain

I was pleased to see that the Fox News "Ticker"--you know, the little news squibs that travel along the bottom of the screen--featured an extensive treatment of the Fence By Date Certain Border Security Pledge: Specifically, the news that Cong. Walter Jones (R-NC) was the first Member of Congress to sign it.

But in addition, at the Republican Presidential debate at St. Anselm's College in New Hampshire, some of the hopefuls weighed in on the topic. Rudy Giuliani, of course, is still talking about a "virtual fence." And John McCain was still defending "guest workers." And the immigration plan of Ron Paul, of course, is to abolish the welfare state.

On the other hand, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney both seemed solid on immigration and related concerns.

But the best answer came from Mike Huckabee, who used powerful historical analogies to remind us how easy, in a relative sense, it would be to build a wall, as the archstone of an overall border security/sovereignty vision:

The fact is Americans are upset about this issue because they feel like that we've violated the rule of law. Every one of us, I think, agree that you have to secure the border, and until that's done, nothing makes sense. That ought to be done. It ought to be done with American workers, with American products, and it ought to be done immediately. Eighteen months ought to be the outside length of time. If the Empire State Building can be built in 14 months, if some of the great works of this country can be built in a record period of time, I'm convinced we can secure our borders. And I agree with Senator Thompson; it's an issue of national security more than it is anything else. But it's a matter of sealing the borders of our nation in a responsible way.

I think we ought to have a period of time in which people then return to their home country and get in the back of the line. Now, the reason I've come to that conclusion is for a variety of focus, but here's part of it. When people live in the United States, they ought to have their head up. They ought not to live in fear. Every time they see a police car, they shouldn't run and hide. Nobody ought to live like that in this country. And the only way we're going to fix that is that people do it right. And in order to do it right, they're going to have to go back and get in the back of the line. It's not an inhumane way. I think it's the only way that makes sense.

And I want make one final point that I think ought to happen. When we say, well, we can't round these people up and take them home -- we don't have to, Charlie. You give them the option. If you don't do it the right way and then we catch you, you would be subject to deportation. But if you do it the right way, then you're going be able to live with your head up and live free in this country properly.

And it won't be that we have this huge problem and the resentment that goes with it.

And the final reason that's important -- I know you're wanting me to finish and I'm doing it -- the reason that we've got to do that is that when people say we can't get them -- we don't have to for this simple principle: The government didn't escort them over the border in the first place, so the government doesn't have to take them back. They got here on their own, and people can go back and start the process legally for their benefit and for everyone else's benefit.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

“It’s that simple: Either you want to build a fence to protect our homeland security...

...and our national sovereignty--or you don't. Sign the Fence By Date Certain Pledge, nor not. Soon, all Americans will know the truth about you."

Below is the text of an FBDC press release, embargoed for release on January 4:


Washington DC – Cong. Walter Jones (R-NC), became the first Member of Congress to sign the “Fence By Date Certain” Pledge.

The Fence By Date Certain Pledge can be summed up simply—in 32 words, to be exact: “I pledge to vote for, fully fund, and speedily expedite the construction of a secure double fence across the entire US-Mexican border within six months after the convening of the next Congress.”

In signing the Pledge, Jones said, “I am proud to sign the Fence By Date Certain Pledge, because it reflects what I have believed for a very long time: Americans must unite to solve this urgent national concern—our under-defended border with Mexico—as part of our overall commitment to enhanced homeland security. I yield to no one in my admiration for the excellent job that our Border Patrol has been doing, under difficult circumstances and with inadequate support from Washington DC. So the time is past due to send in reinforcements—big reinforcements. We need more resources for the protection of our security and sovereignty. And the centerpiece of that strategy is a foolproof barrier on the border, so that everyone, and everything, that enters into the USA arrives here as part of a transparent legal process of scrutiny and safety. And so I urge all my colleagues in Congress to consider signing the Fence By Date Certain Pledge.”

Gratefully receiving Jones’ Pledge was James P. Pinkerton, acting chairman of Fence By Date Certain. “Walter Jones is a courageous man. As a longstanding opponent of any form of amnesty, and of any and all attempts to diminish America’s hard-won sovereignty, the Congressman continues to demonstrate that there is nothing ‘virtual’ about his rock-solid commitment to safeguarding America. At a time when many politicians—including presidential candidates in both parties—are refusing to acknowledge the gravity of immigration and security issues, and at a time when others seem determined to cloud those issues, Cong. Jones is stepping up and showing his true bold colors: Red, White, and Blue.”

Pinkerton continued, “I hope that all Members of Congress, as well as this President and the next President, will sign the Fence By Date Certain Pledge. The polls show that the American people want to be secure in their own homes and homeland. So soon enough, millions of activists across the country will want to know which of their ‘leaders’ failed to show true leadership on this critical concern.”

Founded in 2007, Fence By Date Certain is a non-partisan, non-profit group of Americans, dedicated to one clear-cut goal: To persuade the U.S. government to build a secure double fence across the length and breadth of the US-Mexico border. Fence By Date Certain wants federal politicians to pledge to accomplish this goal six months after the convening of the 111th Congress. As Pinkerton noted, “We must be secure and sovereign in our own homeland. Fences and walls have always been part of successful national strategies for survival. Today, fences are working or other nations, including Israel—they will work for America.”

“And oh yes,” Pinkerton concluded, “the fence should be built by American workers, using American materials!”

Contact: Jim Pinkerton, 202-352-5721, or fencebydatecertain@gmail.com.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Congressman Walter Jones, Defending America.

Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) has signed the Fence by Date Certain Pledge. He is the first Member of Congress to sign the Pledge.

The Pledge, of course, can be summed up simply--in 32 words, to be exact. Here are those 32 words:

I pledge to vote for, fully fund, and speedily expedite the construction of a secure double fence across the entire US-Mexican border within six months after the convening of the next Congress.

It's that simple, that profound, that powerful. Either America will be protected, or American will not be protected. Either politicians sign it--or they don't. Either way, the truth about each and every one of our leaders will be revealed, soon enough.

So no more fiddle-faddle about a "virtual fence," or some other kind of dodge.

As Cong. Jones told me, "I signed this Pledge because it reflects what I have believed for a long time, and what I have fought for in Congress--a secure border, protecting America's freedom and sovereignty."

Cong. Jones continued: "There is a growing crisis on our border. The old complacency, and the old approaches are no longer working. What's needed is a bold stroke of leadership to safeguard our nation's frontiers. In this new century, filled as it with new and terrible threats, American patriots must resolve once again to defend their country."

Cong. Jones added, "We don't fear the world. We don't fear foreigners. But since 9-11 Americans have woken to the reality that around the world, evil people really intend to do us harm. And we must stop them" But, Cong. Jones observed, many politicians in Washington have shied away from actually doing anything about the border and border security.

Cong. Jones, of course, has distinguished himself through his unstinting activism on behalf of many border-security issues. He has called for an immediate review of the unjust prison sentences handed down to Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, and he is probably the strongest opponent of ill-inspected Mexican trucks pouring across our border as part of the NAFTA agreement. For those actions, Cong. Jones had already earned the admiration of millions of Americans.

And now, in signing the Fence By Date Certain Pledge, he has shown still more leadership and vision. He is one of those rare leaders who is willing to walk the point on tough issues. because, as always, he stands up for North Carolina constituents.

For his bravery, and for his unswerving commitment to protecting America, all of us who advocate a Fence By Date Certain salute Walter Jones.

We honor him as what he is: American Hero.

Monday, December 31, 2007

Rudy Giuliani Doesn't Get It--It's the Physical Fence, Stupid!

"Border security is about more than just physical borders" -- that's a revealing quote from Rudy Giuliani's essay, "The Resilient Society: A Blueprint for Homeland Security," appearing in the Winter 2008 issue Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Why is it revealing? Because Giuliani proves, yet again, that he is not really serious about protecting American security and sovereignty. He might wish to combat terrorism, and that's much needed, but what's also needed is a plan for securing America. And in Giuliani's mind, that's NOT needed.

Surely, if the topic is homeland security, well, then, the idea of a wall or a fence along our border should figure prominently in Giuliani's article, right? WRONG! The word "wall" does not appear in the 3786-word article (except for references to bureaucratic walls), and the word "fence" appears just once, included in the same clause with the "virtual technological fence" idea that the open-borders crowd has always pushed as an alternative to a real fence. The open-borderers like "virtual" fences because a) they are glitchy and thus don't always work, and b) if they do work, they can always be switched off. Either way, the open-borderers will be happy. Now all that the global elites have to do is bamboozle the bubbas with Giuliani, their latest (although not their only) bait-and-switch candidate.

Of course, the idea of a "double fence"--you know, the kind of fence that really impedes unwanted border flow is not mentioned. And the magic words, "fence by date certain" are nowhere to be seen. With this article, Giuliani asks us to trust him. But as we shall see, Giuliani is operating from the wrong intellectual model of border security and national identity.

Giuliani and his intellectual and political mentors and allies have not earned our trust. They have earned our distrust.

With this article, Giuliani is signaling to the champions of the status quo--the Manhattan Institute, which published this article, is home to Tamar Jacoby, perhaps the single most tireless champion of open borders and unlimited immigration anyone on the conservative/neoconservative side of the spectrum--that he is still within the "enlightened" globalist consensus that prevails, still, in New York and Washington DC. What's needed is the tonic of Heartland common sense--It's the Fence, Stupid!

Giuliani was a great mayor of New York City, back in the 90s, but in addition to his personal problems, he seems unable to fully make the jump into the 00s. And that's ironic, because Giuliani was reborn after September 11, 2001.

As Rudy says with every breath he takes, that 9-11 changed just about everything. It certainly changed our view of the world, and the dangers lurking out there. The planet turned out to be a lot more complicated than just a bunch of countries waiting to get their first McDonald's franchise. Yes, of course, we must always interact with the world, but 9-11 sure reminded us that we needed to be safe and secure in our own country.

Doesn't it make sense to secure your little patch of earth first? Enjoy serenity and sovereignty in your own home? That way, you can tend to your garden, and then venture out, and invite others in, as you might wish? Isn't that the way most people think and operate in their personal lives? They go out into the environment to work and play and worship, but then they come home to their own little nest, or castle, or retreat. Home Sweet Home. I mean, when was the last time that Giuliani invited you to just drop by house any time, unannounced, and stay for awhile?

So why should countries be different? If walls are good for the Giuliani family--however defined--then they good for your family and my family, too. And by logical extension, walls are good, too, for the American Family.

Giuliani sees 9-11 as a profound terrorist act, and of course, it was. But it was more than just the herald of a long war against Al Qaeda. It was also a signal to us that it's not only a few rogue bands of terrorists who are hostile to us, but whole cultures, dedicated to jihadism, Salafism, Islamism, Castro-ism, Chavez-ism, Putinism, whatever. How to deal with such cultures? The first answer: keep a safe distance apart. On our own good time, without the sort of riots that have perplexed France in recent years, we should consider our best options for countering terror.

But in the meantime, let's double-down--and double-fence!--here at home. As the San Francisco Zoo now knows, if experts tell you that the wall around your tiger cage isn't high enough--build it higher. People will thank you for your foresight--or, in the case of the recent tragedy--curse you for your fecklessness.

Moreover, many cultures that aren't obviously hostile are, well, different. There's nothing wrong with foreign cultures, of course, but trying to meld different cultures is oftentimes troublesome, and best done in small doses, so that the host country can effectively and humanely assimilate newcomers. When in Rome, do as the Romans do--there's good practical political wisdom in those words of St. Jerome.

But Giuliani, as mayor and even now, seems blind to these larger cultural-historical concerns. In New York City, he was a champion of bilingual education, for example, in addition to supporting all manner of services for illegals. Has he really gotten the message that NYC is a special place in America, separate and distinct in many ways--central to our country, of course, but neverthess not the model that most Americans wish to emulate in their own communities? This piece in City Journal tells me that he is still looking at the world through Brooklyn eyes.

And so, for example, while bilingualism is still an article of faith to The New York Times and the Ford Foundation, most Americans recognize that it has been a disaster. Learning foreign languages is fine. But English is the language of America.

Furthermore, multiethnic societies are fine--Americans come in all colors--but multicultural societies are civil strife, even civil war, waiting to happen. As Giuliani himself said when he was running for mayor in 1993, there should be "one standard." He was talking mostly about criminal justice at the time, but the same principle applies to societies as a whole. Too bad he hasn't kept that "one standard" dictum in mind as he seeks to oversee America's overall destiny from the White House.

If Giuliani were still thinking about "one standard," he would see the value of one culture for a nation. The bitter lesson of the last 20 years: Multicultural societies flounder. Think the former USSR, think Yugoslavia, think Ethiopia, think Lebanon. Think Israel, if you include the Palestinians. And also a great many African countries, where the borders were carelessly drawn by divide-and-conquer colonialists; today, those same borders serve as cauldrons in which hostile ethnic rivals to duke it out in "elections." At last count, 124 people had died in the wake of Kenya's recent balloting. Tribal democracy is not democracy--it's just slowmotion war. So the answer is to replace tribes with nations. But that takes time and patience, and it can only take place if there's a "time out" on new fuel to the ethnic fire. And now, we might add to that list of ethnically riven countries, sadly, Iraq, Afghanistan, and oh yes, Pakistan.

All these sad countries deserve our compassion, and perhaps our aid. But what we should NOT do is import their ethno-religious rivalries here into the US.

And a big strong wall would symbolize our determination to preserve and protect the American way of life.

Even after months on the campaign trail, even after the failure of the Bush-Kennedy immigration "compromise" last spring, Rudy doesn't get it. It's obvious that he never will.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

We've Been Warned--Thanks to Frank Miele, Who Rightly Connects Border Security and National Sovereignty

Frank Miele, managing editor of The Daily Interlake in Montana, gets it right: The issues of border security and sovereignty are closely connected. If you don't have the first, you don't have the second. Sovereignty can't exist without border security. And without border security, there is no American sovereignty--which is to say, no America.

So Frank's piece is worth reading in full:

Fence fiasco: Or Feliz ano nuevo


The decline of American sovereignty would typically be a big story in any year, but with all the news coming out of Hollywood this year, maybe it was a bit overshadowed by more significant events.

I mean, how can the virtual surrender of a 231-year-old nation to the Pollyanna-ish forces of political correctness possibly compete with the dramatic real-life struggles of Briitney Spears, Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, and the nation’s hot new nymphet, Britney’s baby sister, Jamie Lynn Spears?

But every once in a while, when Fox News could get their cameras to focus a little higher than their blonde news anchors’ ankles and thighs, a significant story would slip through by accident.

Most recently, we learned that Congress — that hallmark of American integrity — had pulled a fast one on the voting public by undermining the border fence which it had so ostentatiously supported before the 2006 midterm elections.

Back then, Congress voted to approve two layers of reinforced fencing, as well as additional physical barriers, roads, lighting and electronic surveillance” across portions of the border totaling 700 miles.

The president signed the bill, too, even though he has generally been an obstructionist on any issue that involves the United States standing up to its neighbor to the south.

That’s because the voting public was getting restless, wondering how the government could justify allowing 20 million illegal aliens to take up residence in our country, utilize public services, and demand their “right” to U.S. citizenship!

Back in October of 2006, I wrote a column subtitled “Lies about the fence,” in which I warned that the bill authorizing the border fence did not provide any funding for it, and was just one more political shell game.

I was partly wrong. Despite my warnings, apparently FIVE MILES of the purported 700-MILE fence has actually been built in the last year, for which, I suppose, we should be grateful. At this “frenetic” pace, we can get the entire 700 miles built by the year 2147. Perhaps the descendants of Vicente Fox and George Bush can hold a picnic as the last fence post is put into place in the 22nd century while they toast the 100th anniversary of the founding of the United States of North America.

There has never been any doubt that President Bush was against the fence, and Mexico’s former president Fox said at the time the bill was passed in 2006 that the fence was an “embarrassment.”

Heck no, the embarrassment is that this country CAN’T build a fence.

Just as predicted by advocates of border security last year, the project has been met with one bureaucratic or congressional stalling tactic after another. The latest sleight-of-hand was seen in the $555 billion spending bill signed by President Bush last week.

Remarkably, the Republican senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, added language on a voice vote that essentially strips the 2006 Secure Border Fence of any teeth it had. Here’s what she added about funding for the fence:

“Nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”

In other words, it leaves total discretion for whether to build the fence or not to the administration that opposed the fence in the first place. Way to go, Congress, and feliz ano nuevo.

• Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com.

And one of his posters provides this useful photograph, from San Diego, above.