Comment by Ed Weirdness

April 3, 2008 @ 11:41 am

I wonder how many of these landowners that are seeking to obstruct the survey of their property are doing so for less than altruistic reasons? Its common knowledge that rural landowners often erect structures or otherwise improve their property, without informing “tax authorities” regarding these improvements (most rural landowners consider this avoidance of taxes a “perk” to living way out).

I would also wonder how many of these landowners might find themselves subject to fines or fees for violation of pollution, clean water regulations or simple code violations if survey teams were granted access?

As for the City Leaders opposing the fence construction, I can only speculate that they might want to prevent close scrutiny as to how the “city government” came to control the property in the first place? Tax payers own public property, Cities don’t. I would note that any elected official who supports their cities land speculation practices, probably deserves closer scrutiny. Particularly those politicians who would “pick a legal fight” with the Federal government using tax payer funds. I doubt that many of these Mayor’s actually put their actions to a vote.

DHS is not “taking” property, rather they are only seeking access in order to determine the best, most cost effective route for fence construction. While dozens of landowners object to the survey, the overwhelming majority understand and support contruction of the fence. For many landowners it provides value for their unused or unuseable land adjoining the border.

Considering the public outrage over the eminent domain nightmare that Governor Perry will assert in building his hated Trans Texas Corridor, any sums being offered by the Federal Government for the small amount of a landowners property that might be required to build the fence would seem a much better deal. Why wouldn’t the largest “eminent domain land grab in history” (the TTC) have a negative impact on wildlife? Particularly seeing as how the TTC will be a quarter of a mile or more wide in some areas. Certainly a road thousands of feet wide might be environmentally more dangerous than a fence only a few meters wide?

Its my understanding that the fence is not going to be monolithic, but rather a series of fences, barricades, levees, etc,, located in areas where the terrain and the environment do not already present formidable obstacles to illegal entry. Personally, I remain sanguin for the long term prospects of any border wildlife species that cannot exist in proximity to a fence, intended, designed, and constructed to impede, specifically, bipedal foot and vehicular traffic. Arguably, eliminating or redirecting thousands of illegals crossing daily in certain areas might encourage the return of some species to these areas.

Also, the infrastructure and improvements necessary to constructing the fence (i.e. roads, water, electricity, telephones, etc,,,) and the jobs in building, patrolling and maintaining the fence, would be a boon to rural residents and communities. Indeed, bringing roads, water, electricity and phones to some rural areas would most likely improve the property values in that area.

Certainly the small businesses that invariably spring up around the “points of entry” the fence would create would have value to these rural populations.

No one suggests that errecting the fence is the entire solution. However; no one can argue that deterring illegals by placing impediments in their path (fences & barricades, levees, etc,,,), using employer sanctions with strict interior enforcement, and eliminating the jobs and benefits magnet, in combination, will significantly aid in addressing the problem of illegal immigration.

Given the success of the San Diego fence (some estimate that illegal entry at this location has declined by 50 to 70%), if only 20% of illegal aliens are deterred by the fence, the savings in health care, social services, law enforcement, depressed wages and increased tax burdens would more than justify the expense of construction and maintenance of the fence.

Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, pollution, diminishing natural resources, crumbling infrastructure, overcrowded schools and emergency rooms, vanishing farm land and green space, lack of affordable housing all have negative environmental consequences, and all to a great extent are the result of unconstrained immigration. I am skeptical that the environmental consequences of building a narrow fence corridor can be any more negative than the continued overpopulation of our country as a whole! I daresay that many of the tax payer dollars going to service the costs of unsustainable immigration might be better spent addressing the environmental threats confronting our Citizens, and improving and advancing green energy and renewable energy sources!

Further, I would argue that given recent political beligerance south of our border (i.e. events in Columbia, Ecuador, and Venezuela), and in view of present world wide economic conditions, building a fence and barriers is vital to our economic and security interests.

Indeed, one need look no farther than the daily news to understand the havoc that a refugee crisis or military confrontation can have on neighboring nations. Our workers and our economy are usually only a week away from disaster. The “choke points” that a fence and barricades would provide in the event of a “refugee crisis” or “military action” south of the border might be the only thing standing between us and world economic depression and perhaps war.

Comment by Matt

April 4, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

I don’t like the idea of a fence breaking up wildlife migration coridors or destroying archaeological sites. But everytime anything else is proposed such as throwing out the anchor baby loophole, deporting illegals, punishing businesses that hire illegals, etc we hear the same old “human rights” garabage again and again. You do not have a right to sneak into another country. We could skip this whole fence idea and save the environment that will be impacted with an easy solution. Put all that time, money, and manpower into rounding up the 20 million illegals in this country and get rid of them. But the Amnesty International/ACLU/La Raza crowd will never let that happen. So, as a consequence, jaguars will never be re-established north of the border. The gopher tortoise population will be impacted. Ocelots, jagurundi, and a lot of other wonderful creatures will be impacted. And all because Mexico is a terrible neighbor.

Comment by Mark Wright

April 4, 2008 @ 11:35 pm

Fixing what is actually a foriegn trade and manufactoring diametric with a fence makes about as much sense as tying a leg up, then going to an @ss kicking contest.

In the meantime…and considering the DC corp club visible display of communist tactic type posturing throughout the USA system now….this is a fence that in the future will most likely be used to keep people IN…not out.

Comment by No Border Wall

April 5, 2008 @ 10:53 am

Obeying the law is not voluntary, it is mandatory, and Secretary Chertoff cannot claim that he is sweeping aside a host of laws on the border in defense of immigration laws. In a nation of laws all laws must be respected, not just those that are convenient.

Equal protection under the law is meant to be a fundamental right shared by every American, but the Real ID Act makes the legal rights of citizens who live near the border conditional on Secretary Chertoff’s whims. Section 102 of the Real ID Act of 2005 states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.” No one else is granted this extreme power under any circumstance. The president cannot waive our nation’s laws even in times of national crisis, and Secretary Chertoff cannot waive the laws that protect citizens who live away from the border. Only border residents may have their legal protections waived.

Secretary Chertoff claims that the Secure Fence Act mandates walls along the border, and he therefore has no choice but to build border walls no matter the cost. The walls that are scheduled for construction in 2008 will destroy homes, businesses, and farms, will slice through communities, parks, and wildlife refuges, and will cost tens of billions of dollars. Border walls will not stop anyone from entering the United States, and in July 2007 the Congressional Research Service concluded that the California border wall “did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego.” Recognizing this fact language was inserted into the 2007 Omnibus Spending bill that allowed Secretary Chertoff to decide whether or not walls would be built in a given area based on tactical considerations, and required that he consult with local stakeholders. Despite the fact that his hands are no longer tied, Secretary Chertoff prefers to act as though the Secure Fence Act is still the law of the land, and it is apparently the only law that he continues to respect.

In announcing the Real ID waivers Secretary Chertoff said, “Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation.” The waivers are essentially an admission that the border wall will itself violate up to 36 federal laws, making construction of the wall a criminal act. If Chertoff is genuinely concerned with criminal activity he should ensure that the agency that he oversees complies with the law.

The only reason for Secretary Chertoff to waive these laws is because he knows that the border wall will violate them. In setting these 36 federal laws aside Secretary Chertoff sets himself above the law. If congress allows unchecked power to remain in the hands of an unelected administration appointee they are complicit in fundamentally undermining the rule of law. Leaving the Real ID Act on the books and allowing Chertoff’s waivers to stand sets a precedent that should outrage the American people. If our nation’s laws can be set aside to build a border wall today, they may be similarly set aside for whatever crisis politicians discover in the next election cycle.