Thread: Plan for Border Fence Proves Controversial

link

Plan for Border Fence Proves Controversial

April 26, 2005


Debate continues to swirl here in Southern California over whether the United States should complete a $58 million triple fence to wall itself off from Mexico as part of an effort to augment national security.

In the view of U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who has argued since the mid-1990s for enhanced border protection, "the existing border fence is a proven element of our nation's counter-terrorism strategy and any portion left uncompleted compromises the safety and security of the American people."

But one of his colleagues in California's House delegation, San Diego Democrat Bob Filner, says completing the last five miles of the project will endanger an environmentally protected area while doing nothing to make the border more secure.

"Putting up more fences doesn't mean more security," Filner said, pointing out that the upgraded barrier represents a tiny fraction of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

At issue is whether - and, if so, in what way - the Department of Homeland Security will complete construction of a 14-mile barrier that extends from the foothills of Otay Mountain to the Pacific coast.

The Border Patrol's plan calls for creation of an impregnable no-man's land of three fences, two access roads for official use and an array of floodlights and sophisticated surveillance equipment. Nine miles have already been completed, but the initiative was suspended in February 2004 by a ruling from the California Coastal Commission, which found that, as designed, the western portion would cause avoidable damage to the environment.

Proponents of the triple fence have fought back by way of a provision in the "Real ID Act," a bill from Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner that would effectively ban undocumented immigrants from obtaining drivers licenses, which was approved in February by the House of Representatives.

If approved by the Senate in its current form, the act would give the Homeland Security secretary authority to override any and all state and federal laws to complete the triple fence in California, seen as vital in stemming the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

"It is estimated that over 500,000 illegal aliens enter the United States through America's land borders each year," Hunter said last month in a statement. "As a result, our nation's security challenge in an age of terrorism is to ensure that the necessary protections and procedures are in place to prevent suspected terrorists and international criminals from penetrating our border."

The Sierra Club has spearheaded the push against the project, claiming that the federal government's environmental-impact study understated the threat to endangered species of birds and animals inhabiting the area.

Moreover, the group maintains, installation of the new fences and roads could lead to damage from mudslides on the Mexican side of the border during the rainy season.

Jim Peugh, head of the San Diego Audubon Society, said some of the species living along the path of the triple fence enjoy protected status under international agreements.

California state Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, a Democrat whose home is just a few miles from the fence, says the project has a "high environmental and economic cost."

Until around 1993, nearly 95 percent of illegal immigrants were believed to enter the United States across the 14-mile stretch between the mountains and San Diego, but stepped-up enforcement in California has shifted the migration corridors eastward into Arizona, which accounted for more than half of all detentions of undocumented migrants last year.

mag/dr
Source: Copyright (C) 2005. Agencia EFE S.A.

But one of his colleagues in California's House delegation, San Diego Democrat Bob Filner, says completing the last five miles of the project will endanger an environmentally protected area while doing nothing to make the border more secure.

NO PROBLEM! Let's let them drop a nuke and then we can see how much environmentally protected areas are left. Go for it you idiot.......what's worse is that he thinks Americans are idiots too.

PS: AMERICANS should be an ENDANGERED SPECIES and perhaps we'd get some action

But one of his colleagues in California's House delegation, San Diego Democrat Bob Filner, says completing the last five miles of the project will endanger an environmentally protected area while doing nothing to make the border more secure.

Shut your mouth you moron. What do you know about the environment? Nothing that's what. When the illegal aliens trash the desert and trash the streets of our cities, when the Mexicans are allowed to bring their junker trucks over here puking up smog all over our atmosphere, when China's factories puke out smog, etc, etc I don't hear a peep out of you clowns, but if we want to construct a fence along our border then you all of sudden pretend to be an environmentalist. Whatever jack? If fences hurt the environment so bad then how come we are allowed to build them at our homes within our property lines? How come we have gated communities? Wouldn't that cause harm to the environment? Not unless it harms illegal aliens I guess. This is why liberalism is a mental disorder.

"Putting up more fences doesn't mean more security," Filner said, pointing out that the upgraded barrier represents a tiny fraction of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

Gee that's odd. When they put up fences in San Diego and Texas the bulk of the illegal alien traffic shifted over to Arizona where there was almost no fence. What would be more easier to break into, an area with no fence or an area with a fence? I would wisely choose the area with no fence. This clown doesn't know what he's talking about. My god even a 3 yr old can debunk this logic.

The Sierra Club has spearheaded the push against the project, claiming that the federal government's environmental-impact study understated the threat to endangered species of birds and animals inhabiting the area.

Moreover, the group maintains, installation of the new fences and roads could lead to damage from mudslides on the Mexican side of the border during the rainy season.

Yeah so what? You mean to tell me that a bird can't fly over a fence? Even if not, who cares? Why should some dumb bird inhibit us from protecting our country? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If some terrorist comes through our porous borders with a nuke then we won't have to worry about birds now would we? Mudslides in Mexico's side of the border? That's Mexico's problem, not ours.

California state Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, a Democrat whose home is just a few miles from the fence, says the project has a "high environmental and economic cost."

Again no mention about the high cost of the impact illegal aliens have on our environment when they trash our deserts and our streets. I bet the cost would well exceed the cost of this alleged environmental cost of the fence. Give me a break. Also no mention of the cost illegals have on our economy, our hospitals, our schools, our social services and the cost of detaining and jailing them.

Until around 1993, nearly 95 percent of illegal immigrants were believed to enter the United States across the 14-mile stretch between the mountains and San Diego, but stepped-up enforcement in California has shifted the migration corridors eastward into Arizona, which accounted for more than half of all detentions of undocumented migrants last year.

So wouldn't it be common sense to complete this project?

"Putting up more fences doesn't mean more security," Filner said, pointing out that the upgraded barrier represents a tiny fraction of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

Doing less means less security.
This guy is starting to sound like a moronic girlie man.

The Sierra Club has spearheaded the push against the project, claiming that the federal government's environmental-impact study understated the threat to endangered species of birds and animals inhabiting the area.

And then they say that too much immigratrion is bad for the environment. You can't have it both ways.

The Border Patrol's plan calls for creation of an impregnable no-man's land of three fences, two access roads for official use and an array of floodlights and sophisticated surveillance equipment.

I like this already.

California state Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, a Democrat whose home is just a few miles from the fence, says the project has a "high environmental and economic cost."

If it keeps out illegals it is worth it.

Dman1200:
So wouldn't it be common sense to complete this project?

Since when did common sense and politicians belong in the same train of thought?