Thread: TX: Government to take testimony on border fence

Dec. 11, 2007, 1:01PM
Government to take testimony on border fence


By ELIZABETH WHITE
Associated Press

McALLEN — City business leaders had an unorthodox plan today to get residents to attend a federally sponsored town meeting on the planned fence along the U.S.-Mexico border: They sponsored a protest rally.

The McAllen Chamber of Commerce planned a "No Border Wall Rally" Tuesday to coincide with the open house, one of several ways residents can comment on the government's environmental impact statement. The environmental report assesses the effects of fence construction along 70 miles of border in the Rio Grande Valley.

Steve Ahlenius, president of the chamber, said community leaders wanted a crowd at the open house to testify and to "lay a foundation" that residents oppose the fence in case residents or city officials decide to sue the government over the fence.

The heavily populated Rio Grande Valley has been the center of opposition to the planned fence, a combination of steel fence and "virtual fencing" designed to stop illegal immigration and smuggling. But landowners and government officials complain the fence will cut them off from the Rio Grande, a historically significant waterway to Texas and the only source of fresh water in the region for livestock and crops. They also say it will do little to stop illegal immigration and smuggling and essentially cede miles of riverfront land to Mexico.

Federal officials, however, say that without immigration reform legislation, the fence is the only acceptable way to secure the border.

Some senators are questioning a decision by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to conduct an environmental impact statement for Texas, but skip one for Arizona, where the fence will traverse the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area.

In October, Chertoff invoked power given to him by Congress to waive 19 environmental laws after a court blocked construction of the 2-mile fence in the Arizona conservation area.

About a month earlier, the Homeland Security Department announced it was preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, to study possible effects of fence construction along 70 miles of the Texas-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley. An EIS requires public hearings and is a more thorough study.

Environmental assessments have been ordered for fencing planned on other parts of the Texas-Mexico border.

The Homeland Security Department did an environmental assessment for Arizona, a study that does not require as much public input and is not as in-depth.

The government will take public comment until Dec. 31 through testimony, and written comments, said U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Barry Morrissey.

Other open houses were set for Wednesday in Brownsville and Thursday in Rio Grande City, Morrissey said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 68954.html

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

While I understand some of the local issues about the border fence, this is not a McAllen, Texas issue only but a national issue. This could get costly for McAllen, Texas--technically couldn't all 50 states sue the city for denying them their Constitutional right to be protected against invasion?

A small leak can sink a great ship.
Benjamin Franklin

Poor McAllen -

They have been dealing with illegals for decades. They intended to sue the federal government years ago for failure to secure the border. Their schools were going broke, and they contended it was because of the illegal children and this government's failure to protect them.

Don't know what happened to the lawsuits, but Texas inacted the Robin Hood law. In essence, that took money from more prosperous school districts and gave to the poorer school districts. This was supposed to cover inequities in monies for poorer districts. In fact, it took money from other school districts to soften the blow of educating children of illegals.

So the idea to sue the federal government is not new and I believe every state could, and should, do so. Then I believe every individual who has been harmed, from those who have lost love ones, on down to the ones who are having trouble paying their property taxes and auto insurance, should sue the government.

This little town and other border towns have suffered greatly for a very long time because of this. The government has been aware of it but simply refused to do anything.

I think McAllen and other towns have some points here. They have been on the front lines for decades - don't dismiss them so quickly.