L.A. Sheriff Lee Baca calls for border fence

L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca supported the idea of building a border fence similar to the one in Israel. His remarks were made at the Los Angeles County Lincoln Club in Lancaster on July 22. The original report is "Baca: Israel-style wall terror deterrent":
"They have a big fence, and it works," Baca said. "The fences we have down on the border don't work."

...Baca added that he would support such a fence as a significant deterrent to terrorists attempting to cross the border through Mexico.

"Heck, yeah," he said. "What's wrong with that?"

The federal government, with the blame spread between Congress and President George W. Bush, lacks the political will to stop a tide of illegal immigration that clogs jails, ties up public resources and endangers the national security of the United States, Baca said.

"What we need is a national movement for a constitutional amendment on the security of the American border," the sheriff said. "We're not being prejudiced... we just want people to come here legally."

...Now, he said, "the immigration problem is just totally out of control. The Congress and President Bush are not doing a good job on this, and I am a very big Bush supporter."
The AP's report is derived from the one above: "LA County sheriff calls for bigger fence on Mexican border" or this. It's not only shorter, it also has made at least one interesting change.

In the original report we have:
Baca spoke Friday at a gathering of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Club, a group of politically active Republicans who underwrite activities that support limited government and free enterprise.
In the AP version that becomes:
Baca told a gathering of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Club, a group of politically conservative Republicans.
I guess they just needed to save space. Or something.

Comments

i certaily agree with the fence like isreal,hope gw will do something to help. this is where gw has fallen flat on his face. tom from florida.

There is also some major nonsense involved in the suggestion that defense of the border would require a change in our laws. The constitution requires the president to defend the states, and we can hardly be said to still have the United States, as a union under the rule of law, without this defense against foreigners crossing the border. Today the basic law of the union has been made into a rule of individual discretion for the president; it is claimed that national defense is optional.