HR 1505 Border Bill

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2011/0...m-environment/

Scariest part of this bill is that it waives 36 environmental-protection laws for a preceived threat to our freedoms when there is no threat to begin with.

The Idea is that Border Patrol Agents are not able to maintain roads or pursue suspects along the border because they have to get permission from land-management agencies when in reality they dont.

This is another example of Republicans trying to take away more freedoms from imaginary threats. Illegals are storming into this country so the Republican solution is to repeal water and pollution laws along the border to make the border regions so ugly and disgusting that immigrants wont want to come here.

While China invests in its future with infrastructure improvements we sit back and watch our country crumble, our roads degrade and congest. While China builds railroads and modern cities we wallow in our cars sucking pollution and drinking dirty water for the sake of border security.

WASHINGTON – A bill that would grant the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented access to federal lands near the border was sharply criticized Friday for giving the department unchecked authority.

The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would let DHS waive 36 environmental-protection laws for patrol activities within 100 miles of U.S. borders.

Opponents of the legislation went so far as to call the bill, HR1505, “particularly stupid” during Friday’s hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. They called it overly broad and said it opened the door for DHS to completely disregard environmental-protection laws.

“1505 may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson.

John Leshy, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, testified that the legislation would make DHS “immune from review by the courts, except for constitutional claims.”

Supporters of the bill, however, said the current setup — a memorandum of understanding between DHS and federal land-management agencies — makes it impossible for Border Patrol to do its job.

“There’s a problem here in that Border Patrol is being restricted,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the bill’s sponsor. “They are not the problem.”

The memorandum of understanding requires Border Patrol officials to get permission from land-management agencies before conducting operations on federal lands, from maintaining roads to installing surveillance systems.

Claude Guyant, founder of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the current system is an unnecessary distraction.

“Border Patrol’s focus must be on preventing illegal entry,” said Guyant.

While Border Patrol agents have the discretion to bend some rules in emergency situations, they typically have to comply with all laws affecting an area they want to access. In designated wilderness areas, for example, that would mean traveling only on foot or horseback.

Kim Thorsen, an Interior Department law enforcement official, testified that Border Patrol agents do have the latitude to do their jobs under the current setup.

“There is absolutely no restriction for Border Patrol to pursue anyone anywhere on federal lands,” said Thorsen, the Interior deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management.

In April, the Government Accountability Office reported the agreement had its flaws and the agencies were not always in full cooperation, but that most of the supervising officers surveyed said federal land laws were not affecting their areas’ security.

But Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher from Hereford, Ariz., told the committee he’s witnessed the impact of federal land laws on border security.

Thrasher, an Arizona Cattle Growers Association board member, said that more than once he’s had immigrants “crawl through the cat door” to spend the night in his locked barn.

Republicans on the committee said the bill was an attempt at keeping citizens like Thrasher safe, not a way of granting DHS unlimited power.

“All we’re trying to do is protect our nation, protect the people of the United States,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.

Leshy — referencing the unchecked power of the British king who moved the U.S. to declare its independence — said those who oppose the bill are also trying to protect the people.

“1505 would make DHS the George III of our age,” he said.

MAP of the proposed lands.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Youtube:

[HissingNewt]

I don't quite understand this. How does this infringe on our liberties, why does the border patrol feel they need this, and how will it lead to the degradation of the environment in those areas?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Border Patrol isnt really asking for it, afaik. Its a Republican bill in the House. By Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. Extending government powers and fear mongering when there isnt really a need.

Supporters of the bill, however, said the current setup — a memorandum of understanding between DHS and federal land-management agencies — makes it impossible for Border Patrol to do its job.

The memorandum of understanding requires Border Patrol officials to get permission from land-management agencies before conducting operations on federal lands, from maintaining roads to installing surveillance systems.

“There is absolutely no restriction for Border Patrol to pursue anyone anywhere on federal lands,” said Thorsen, the Interior deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management.

[HissingNewt]

Border Patrol isnt really asking for it, afaik. Its a Republican bill in the House. By Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. Extending government powers and fear mongering when there isnt really a need.

Huh. Especially interesting that it isn't even a representative from a border state asking for this.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah I noticed that as well. I dont want to go there and say this is a bill to help industrialists but might I find something like that were I to investigate this rep connections?

Found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bishop#Policy

In early 2011 Bishop was criticized by local hunting groups and wildlife professionals for his support of a plan that completely defunded the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), and the Land and Water Conservation fund (LWCF).[9] Through NAWCA, Utah has received $3.6 million in federal funding which has been used to stimulate more than $10.4 million in private donations.

and this:

In February 2011, Bishop introduced an amendment during the debate on a continuing budget resolution for fiscal year 2011 that would have prohibited the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from spending federal funds on the National Landscape Conservation System.

This guy has something against the environment.

He also voted on this bill which would

require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for other purposes.

[HissingNewt]

What the hell does this guy have against land and water conservation?

[Disaray]

What the hell does this guy have against land and water conservation?

Bould be a business angle. US enviromental standards beeing what they are cause some of the highest costs in sertan sectors of business, primarily in manufacturing. That is one reason you have seen a major off-shoring of jobs to China where the enviromental standards are basicaly nonexsistant and if by some stroke of chance you manage to violate one of their laws you can always put a little cash in the right palms and the problem goes away.

Border security, seemingly won't be helped much in any material way by this bill. The only pheasable way I have seen of doing that would be to crack down on the people and businesses that higher illigals. Remove the insentive for crossing and the means of supporting one's self and they will start leaving on their own and stop coming.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Bould be a business angle. US enviromental standards beeing what they are cause some of the highest costs in sertan sectors of business, primarily in manufacturing. That is one reason you have seen a major off-shoring of jobs to China where the enviromental standards are basicaly nonexsistant and if by some stroke of chance you manage to violate one of their laws you can always put a little cash in the right palms and the problem goes away.

So your solution is to allow US companies to pollute all they want? Have you ing seen the air in Peking and other major Chinese cities?

Border security, seemingly won't be helped much in any material way by this bill. The only pheasable way I have seen of doing that would be to crack down on the people and businesses that higher illigals. Remove the insentive for crossing and the means of supporting one's self and they will start leaving on their own and stop coming.

Crack down on companies that abuse illegals. But for those hiring illegal workers because Americans wont do the jobs is another issue entirely.

[Disaray]

So your solution is to allow US companies to pollute all they want? Have you ing seen the air in Peking and other major Chinese cities?




Crack down on companies that abuse illegals. But for those hiring illegal workers because Americans wont do the jobs is another issue entirely.

How is describing the curent situation in China the same as condoning it? Let alone advocating it as a solution of the US' current problems? The logic of some people is turely astounding some times. The obvious awnser to this off-shoring is to make it less profitable to ship sertan goods into the country. Things that can be made hear with resourses we have in plenty or are already importing: cars, microwaves, steel, ect.

Your second statment isn't accurate eather. Americans will do the jobs that are currently held by the illigal workers, simply not at the price and under the conditions the jobs are currently being doen at. The only reason you don't see a clamoring among Americans for agg. jobs and other such work is ecconomics. There is a fairly large pool of people willing and capble to do the jobs for next to nothing and bissinesmen are willing to break laws to exploit this opertunity. Cracking down on the laber is hard, there are lots of them and they are houd to find, companies and business operators on the other hand are comparitavly few and much easyer to find. If laws already on the books were enfoced that say it is illigal to higher people without proper documentation the problem would be largly solved. All it would realy take is catching a major operation exploiting illigal labor and take them down hard by the law and bussinesses will see that we aren't ing around with this and might start thinking twice about highering illigals. It might take puting some people out of business but that could just be the cost of doing business as a nation, but you sertanly won't find me weaping for a company that couldn't operate inside the law and still get things done.

[Mr. Scott]

How is describing the curent situation in China the same as condoning it? Let alone advocating it as a solution of the US' current problems? The logic of some people is turely astounding some times. The obvious awnser to this off-shoring is to make it less profitable to ship sertan goods into the country. Things that can be made hear with resourses we have in plenty or are already importing: cars, microwaves, steel, ect.

Your second statment isn't accurate eather. Americans will do the jobs that are currently held by the illigal workers, simply not at the price and under the conditions the jobs are currently being doen at. The only reason you don't see a clamoring among Americans for agg. jobs and other such work is ecconomics. There is a fairly large pool of people willing and capble to do the jobs for next to nothing and bissinesmen are willing to break laws to exploit this opertunity. Cracking down on the laber is hard, there are lots of them and they are houd to find, companies and business operators on the other hand are comparitavly few and much easyer to find. If laws already on the books were enfoced that say it is illigal to higher people without proper documentation the problem would be largly solved. All it would realy take is catching a major operation exploiting illigal labor and take them down hard by the law and bussinesses will see that we aren't ing around with this and might start thinking twice about highering illigals. It might take puting some people out of business but that could just be the cost of doing business as a nation, but you sertanly won't find me weaping for a company that couldn't operate inside the law and still get things done.

You know there's a far easier method that the government could do (and it would be easy to enact). This would be to simply remove the minimum wage. If these jobless Americans truly are willing to work for next to nothing, then let them work. Let them have the opportunity to compete for a job. The minimum wage is so inefficient and detrimental to society. It just creates a giant hole of DWL.

Because with the minimum wage, a manager will take 5 illegals for the price of the one American. And even if that American is willing to work for less, the government doesn't let him. So he doesn't get hired.

So your solution is to allow US companies to pollute all they want? Have you ing seen the air in Peking and other major Chinese cities?

For non shale oil reserves the US has something around 250 billion barrels. In shale oil it approaches 1.5-2 trillion barrels of oil.

The US has by far the largest coal reserves in the world, larger than China.

Yet we burn far far less then China.

When the economy is stagnating, do anything you have to to get it running. If this means polluting the environment a little bit more, so be it. You can re-regulate it when the economy is rolling again.

The principles of Keynesian economics are also applicable to commodities regulated by the government.

[MathiasOfAthens]

How is describing the curent situation in China the same as condoning it? Let alone advocating it as a solution of the US' current problems? The logic of some people is turely astounding some times. The obvious awnser to this off-shoring is to make it less profitable to ship sertan goods into the country. Things that can be made hear with resourses we have in plenty or are already importing: cars, microwaves, steel, ect.

Like giving tax breaks to certain corporations to produce goods here... Obama offered this up but the Republican controlled house wont budge...

You pointed out that environmental laws are sending jobs overseas which is plain wrong. Some goods can be made cheaper in China. Thats just a natural stage of development. China is developing its economy and naturally they are taking in a lot of non skilled jobs industrial jobs.

Your second statment isn't accurate eather. Americans will do the jobs that are currently held by the illigal workers, simply not at the price and under the conditions the jobs are currently being doen at.

True. You can find workers to pick grapes in the hot sun but its not easy.

The only reason you don't see a clamoring among Americans for agg. jobs and other such work is ecconomics. There is a fairly large pool of people willing and capble to do the jobs for next to nothing and bissinesmen are willing to break laws to exploit this opertunity.

As long as the worker isnt abused I dont care.

Cracking down on the laber is hard, there are lots of them and they are houd to find, companies and business operators on the other hand are comparitavly few and much easyer to find.

But it still takes a lot of money to investigate these companies. Usually information doesnt just show up online in the form of a job advertisement advertising black pay.

If laws already on the books were enfoced that say it is illigal to higher people without proper documentation the problem would be largly solved.

Laws dont always solve problems. Sometimes they create new ones. Writing laws that make it harder for businesses to hire illegals actually sends some businesses overseas.

Wouldnt it be better if businesses were allowed to hire illegals and properly identify them. As long as those workers were not harmed or treated unfairly then all would be left alone?

All it would realy take is catching a major operation exploiting illigal labor and take them down hard by the law and bussinesses will see that we aren't ing around with this and might start thinking twice about highering illigals. It might take puting some people out of business but that could just be the cost of doing business as a nation, but you sertanly won't find me weaping for a company that couldn't operate inside the law and still get things done.

Well the original topic is an HR bill threatening the environment by trying to make certain laws void. We are going a bit off topic with this discussion, unfortunately.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Hes on some crusade to eliminate funds for environment funding while he personally votes yes on bills that grant additional funding to the military. The USSR fell because it was spending more on its military than its own country. The less you spend on your own country, your infrastructure and your economy the faster your society degrades and crumbles.

[Mr. Scott]

You know when you got millions upon millions breaking the law around the same line, I think you can step on a few toes.

Also, China's polluting the out of its environment so I wouldn't use that as a good example.

[MathiasOfAthens]

You know there's a far easier method that the government could do (and it would be easy to enact). This would be to simply remove the minimum wage. If these jobless Americans truly are willing to work for next to nothing, then let them work. Let them have the opportunity to compete for a job. The minimum wage is so inefficient and detrimental to society. It just creates a giant hole of DWL.

Because with the minimum wage, a manager will take 5 illegals for the price of the one American. And even if that American is willing to work for less, the government doesn't let him. So he doesn't get hired.

Unfortunately, without a proper social system with healthcare and all it would be detrimental to society to remove the minimum wage. Thats part of the reason why countries like Sweden work without a min wage because they have a social welfare system.

For non shale oil reserves the US has something around 250 billion barrels. In shale oil it approaches 1.5-2 trillion barrels of oil.

The US has by far the largest coal reserves in the world, larger than China.

Yet we burn far far less then China.

When the economy is stagnating, do anything you have to to get it running. If this means polluting the environment a little bit more, so be it. You can re-regulate it when the economy is rolling again.
The principles of Keynesian economics are also applicable to commodities regulated by the government.

I disagree. When the economy is stagnating the best solution is not to allow companies to pollute. That doesnt really bring back the jobs. It simply removes operating requirements. Allowing companies to burn in a certain area or whatever. It doesnt automatically mean they will hire more workers.

A company brought forth a bill in CA, a prop a i believe, that would have allowed companies to pollute, claiming the economy is stagnating and the only solution is to allow companies to use dangerous chemicals.

Basically a company can now use a less expensive chemical that pollutes without hiring new workers.

IMO the best solution is for govt to make infrastructure investments.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Construction projects create a temporary boost that creates jobs and starts the economy. Spending in rail line extensions, roads, bridges creates thousands of jobs. A rail line for instance not only creates immediate construction jobs but creates jobs after the line is built in marketing, store fronts and logistics.

Cities could also plan communities and grant leases for apartment complexes which create more jobs than individual housing in suburbs. Rail lines for instance would create growth for apartment complexes.

[Mr. Scott]

Unfortunately, without a proper social system with healthcare and all it would be detrimental to society to remove the minimum wage. Thats part of the reason why countries like Sweden work without a min wage because they have a social welfare system.



I disagree. When the economy is stagnating the best solution is not to allow companies to pollute. That doesnt really bring back the jobs. It simply removes operating requirements. Allowing companies to burn in a certain area or whatever. It doesnt automatically mean they will hire more workers.

A company brought forth a bill in CA, a prop a i believe, that would have allowed companies to pollute, claiming the economy is stagnating and the only solution is to allow companies to use dangerous chemicals.

Basically a company can now use a less expensive chemical that pollutes without hiring new workers.

IMO the best solution is for govt to make infrastructure investments.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Construction projects create a temporary boost that creates jobs and starts the economy. Spending in rail line extensions, roads, bridges creates thousands of jobs. A rail line for instance not only creates immediate construction jobs but creates jobs after the line is built in marketing, store fronts and logistics.

Cities could also plan communities and grant leases for apartment complexes which create more jobs than individual housing in suburbs. Rail lines for instance would create growth for apartment complexes.

Countries like Sweden work because they are homogeneous and small. California is 4 times larger than Sweden economically and population wise.

Allowing companies to pollute a bit more would enable them to increase coal and oil production in the US. This would lower the costs of goods, increasing the standard of living for Americans, and would decrease the costs of industry in the us, bringing more jobs back to the US.

If you really think about it, when the government puts such heavy environmental regulation on the country, all it does is force the company to go pollute somewhere else. And this is a small world, so basically we're just sending the job to India without really fixing global pollution.

Infrastructure development is overrated. I really don't think having a slightly bumpy road will damage my town's economy. Now digital infrastructure is another story...

[MathiasOfAthens]

Countries like Sweden work because they are homogeneous and small. California is 4 times larger than Sweden economically and population wise.

Yeah good point I shouldnt have boiled it all down to one factor.

Allowing companies to pollute a bit more would enable them to increase coal and oil production in the US. This would lower the costs of goods, increasing the standard of living for Americans, and would decrease the costs of industry in the us, bringing more jobs back to the US.

Yeah but this isnt exactly right either. Costs wouldnt be lowered, at least not immediately or permanently. Allowing companies to pollute more and drive out wildlife in order to build more factories might create a few more jobs but the effects on the habitats and the environment is not worth the cost.

If you really think about it, when the government puts such heavy environmental regulation on the country, all it does is force the company to go pollute somewhere else. And this is a small world, so basically we're just sending the job to India without really fixing global pollution.

We could spend more to shorten the environmental review process or we could encourage habitat creation along with every mile of pavement laid. Think about the next time your driving to work. How many miles of pavement do you see. Wouldnt it be better to put more green in our cities. Build roads around the landscape not over it.

Infrastructure development is overrated. I really don't think having a slightly bumpy road will damage my town's economy. Now digital infrastructure is another story...

Its really not though.

Green Jobs creates more Jobs than Coal and Gas.

According to an analysis of 13 independent reports and studies of the clean energy industry by
UC Berkeley’s Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), renewable energy
technologies create more jobs per average megawatt (MW) of power generated, and per dollar
invested in construction, manufacturing, and installation when compared to coal or natural gas.
Over the course of a 10-year period the solar industry creates 5.65 jobs per million dollars in
investment, the wind energy industry 5.7 jobs, and the coal industry only 3.96.1 In the case of
coal mining, wind and solar energy generate 40 percent more jobs per dollar invested.2

Smart Transportation spending creates more jobs.

According to data sent by the states to Congress, the states that created the most jobs were the ones that invested in public transportation projects and projects that maintained and repaired existing roads and bridges. The states that spent their funds predominantly building new roads and bridges created fewer jobs.

Historically, investments in public transportation generate 31% more jobs per dollar than new construction of roads and bridges. Smart Growth America’s findings show that the payoff was even larger in ARRA spending, with public transportation projects producing 70% more jobs per dollar than road projects.

The Multiplier Effect

Direct impacts. Each $10 million that the HIT invests in construction activity can be expected to generate (on average) the following direct benefits:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. $4.2 million of additional investment in the project
2. 101 union construction jobs
3. $4.9 million in wages
4. $602,000 in local tax revenues
5. $1.8 million in non-construction business income

Secondary impacts. Each $10 million that the HIT invests in construction activity can be expected to generate (on average) these secondary benefits:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• 69 secondary jobs (indirect and induced jobs, as explained below)
• $2.8 million in wages
• $549,000 in local tax revenues
• $1.4 million in other business income

Study after Study shows infrastructure spending creates jobs. The largest job creating project is in Public Transport. Think about it.

[Admiral Piett]

This is retarded, Republicans are learning the art of inserting unrelated BS of other issues into a bill meant to resolve a specific problem like the Dems did with the stimulus and health bills.

I don't feel that this erodes anyones freedom's per say, that sounds more like a matter of perspective, but I have no idea where environmental law comes into play with immigration. It's retarded. We need a goddamned bill to secure the border and reform immigration, we don't need a bunch of horsecrap involved.

Then again, its a Congressman from Utah, so I'm not all that surprised. Probably the only legislation I'd take seriously is if it were proposed by a lawmaker in a border state.

[Stark of Winterfell]

Looking at the area affected by this bill, it seems to be either just plain stupid, or aimed at reducing environmental regulations in some areas under the guise of border security. After all, when our National Security is at stake, why should we care about the environment? Or at least some peoples' "logic" goes...

[Nationalist_Cause]

When discussing immigration with friends (most who claim to be "free market) they usually rail against illegal immigration. My only response is that if one favors the free flow of trade and goods how can one be against the free movement of labor?

The other typical reason people are against immigration, legal or not, is the huge burden it places on taxpayers in the form of propping up bloated social services. Shouldn't we instead abolish the public funded social services the immigrants are allegedly coming to take advantage of?

[Justice and Mercy]

When discussing immigration with friends (most who claim to be "free market) they usually rail against illegal immigration. My only response is that if one favors the free flow of trade and goods how can one be against the free movement of labor?

Because we don't live in a free society. That means that they have LEGAL power to harm us through votes (lots of poor folks usually vote leftist) and claims on welfare programs.

Further, even in a free society there would have to be a process to turn you into a legal citizen, though a far shorter one and certainly not one with quotas and the like.

The other typical reason people are against immigration, legal or not, is the huge burden it places on taxpayers in the form of propping up bloated social services. Shouldn't we instead abolish the public funded social services the immigrants are allegedly coming to take advantage of?

Yes. And also, minimum wage and legal union priveleges.