By Stewart M. Powell - The Houston Chronicle - May 16, 2008
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5785497.html
WASHINGTON — A drive by the Bush administration to build 70 miles of fencing along the Texas-Mexico border before leaving office could be sidetracked by a lawsuit filed by 19 border communities on Friday.
The Texas Border Coalition, citing what it called lawless conduct by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, asked a U.S. District Court judge here to force the federal government to halt construction of the barrier and land acquisition.
The lawsuit accused Chertoff and others of failing to notify landowners of their rights; failing to negotiate a reasonable price for access to their lands, and of exempting some wealthy owners from having the fence built across their properties.
Chertoff "has gone too far in his zeal to build this feel-good, yet ineffective Great Wall of Texas," said Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, the chairman of the border coalition, which represents cities from Brownsville to El Paso.
Brownsville Mayor Patricio M. Ahumada Jr. charged that federal officials "are determined to build a wall to appease mid-America."
Peter Schey, lead counsel in the case and executive director of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said Friday's lawsuit would be followed within days by a request for a temporary restraining order to block land seizures and fence construction.
The case is handled by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, named to the federal bench by President Bush in 2001.
The Bush administration is pressing to complete construction of 670 miles of physical barriers and high-tech virtual fencing along the 1,972-mile U.S.-Mexico border. But the legal wrangling could delay construction of the fence in Texas, pushing decisions on completion of the barriers into next year when a new president and a new Congress will take office.
Laura Keehner, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, called the lawsuit a delaying tactic and said construction will continue.
"There should be no uncertainty about our commitment to border security, and we've made no secret that fencing is a key part of our efforts at the border," Keehner said. "We're building 670 miles of fencing by the end of this year and are well on our way to meeting this goal."
The lawsuit was designed to force federal officials to restart a protracted survey process as a first step to federal purchase.
Chertoff has run "roughshod over the rights of property owners to build a border wall on a foundation of lawlessness," Schey said. "We hope that we are able to bring this lawless conduct to build this wall into conformity with federal statutes and the United States Constitution."
Federal officials intimidated some landowners along the border by sending Homeland Security officials and agents of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Border Patrol to try to arrange access to survey their properties, Schey contended.
The suit also noted that fence construction would bypass the River Bend Resort and golf course, in Brownsville, and border lands owned by Dallas billionaire Ray Hunt and his relatives.
Keehner, Chertoff's spokesman, rejected the lawsuit's allegations.
"We've nearly bent over backward to work with landowners," she said in a statement.
Keehner noted that yearlong discussions had taken place with landowners and state and local officials "about the placement of fencing."
Federal officials, she said, contacted more than 600 landowners, held dozens of town hall meetings and mailed hundreds of letters to property owners "requesting access to private property so that we could make operational and environmental assessments of the area prior to making any decisions."
Border fence construction has become increasingly contentious in Texas, with landowners' resistance forcing federal authorities to file lawsuits against nearly 100 owners in four states in an effort to gain court-ordered access to the land.
A family from Los Ebanos, Texas, awaits a hearing on July 7 before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on its attempt to block access by federal authorities.
The Texas officials' legal challenge is the latest high-profile effort to prevent construction of the fence.
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a request by environmentalists and members of Congress to hear a case challenging Chertoff's constitutional authority to waive compliance with three dozen federal laws in order to speed construction of the barriers.
Read more in the Houston Chronicle
Showing posts with label border fence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label border fence. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Border Fencing - Congressmen debate merits of border fence in public hearing at UTB-TSC
By Kevin Sieff - The Brownsville Herald - April 29, 2008
Construction of the U.S.-Mexico border fence might only be a few weeks away, but in Washington, D.C., the barrier continues to be a hot button issue.
The fence's significance - and its divisiveness - became clear on Monday, when eight congressmen and a number of local, state and national officials met at the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College for a congressional field hearing.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., introduced the hearing, titled "Walls and Waivers," as a forum on the expedited construction of the border fence and its affect on the environment along the border. During the five-hour hearing, the conversation shifted to a more general evaluation of the barrier's merits.
"To examine the history, culture, economics of the border and then to decide the only solution is a 700-mile fence," Grijalva said in opening remarks, "is simply a failure of leadership."
U.S. Reps. Tom Tancredo, R-Col., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., both former 2008 presidential hopefuls, disagreed with Grijalva. Hunter referred to the success of a double fence in his district, on the border between San Diego and Tijuana.
"Our fence put the border gangs out of business because they lost their ability to move back and forth," said Hunter, who authored the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Tancredo took issue with what he called "landowners' multi-culturalist views on the border."
"If you don't like the idea (of a fence), maybe you should consider building the fence around the northern part of your city," Tancredo said amid jeers from the audience.
The six other members of the congressional panel were outspoken in their opposition to the fence - and to the views of Hunter and Tancredo.
Perhaps the most substantial opposition to the barrier came from U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, a former Border Patrol chief, who called the fence a waste of the government's resources.
"For 10 percent of the border we need to consider the potential for fencing," he said. "I certainly don't think we need 700 miles of fencing."
Ronald Vitiello, chief Border Patrol agent in the Rio Grande Valley sector, said the barrier will decrease border crossings - but only if it is complemented with a boots-on-the-ground effort.
Reyes, who used to oversee the Valley's Border Patrol sector, said of Vitiello, "He's going to toe the party line - he's got to if he wants to maintain his job as chief of the sector."
To the dismay of the eight congressmen, the fence's architects at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declined an invitation to the hearing. The absence of a DHS official left a number of questions unanswered.
"We'll seek out these answers in Washington," Grijalva said after the hearing.
The presence of 13 witnesses, many of whom live and work along the border, marked the convergence of a national political debate and a local dilemma.
"We need federal legislation that will protect borders in a humane and Christian way," said Bishop Raymundo J. Pena, of the Archdiocese of Brownsville.
"It isn't really a border to most of us who live down here," added Betty Perez, a local landowner and activist.
The articulation of local attitudes toward the fence was echoed by most of the congressmen in attendance, several of which were born along the U.S.-Mexico border. U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, is a native of Brownsville.
"Nothing is going to change until immigration policy is taken care of," Napolitano said on Monday. "The fence is ludicrous."
Read more in the Brownsville Herald Tribune
Construction of the U.S.-Mexico border fence might only be a few weeks away, but in Washington, D.C., the barrier continues to be a hot button issue.
The fence's significance - and its divisiveness - became clear on Monday, when eight congressmen and a number of local, state and national officials met at the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College for a congressional field hearing.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., introduced the hearing, titled "Walls and Waivers," as a forum on the expedited construction of the border fence and its affect on the environment along the border. During the five-hour hearing, the conversation shifted to a more general evaluation of the barrier's merits.
"To examine the history, culture, economics of the border and then to decide the only solution is a 700-mile fence," Grijalva said in opening remarks, "is simply a failure of leadership."
U.S. Reps. Tom Tancredo, R-Col., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., both former 2008 presidential hopefuls, disagreed with Grijalva. Hunter referred to the success of a double fence in his district, on the border between San Diego and Tijuana.
"Our fence put the border gangs out of business because they lost their ability to move back and forth," said Hunter, who authored the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Tancredo took issue with what he called "landowners' multi-culturalist views on the border."
"If you don't like the idea (of a fence), maybe you should consider building the fence around the northern part of your city," Tancredo said amid jeers from the audience.
The six other members of the congressional panel were outspoken in their opposition to the fence - and to the views of Hunter and Tancredo.
Perhaps the most substantial opposition to the barrier came from U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, a former Border Patrol chief, who called the fence a waste of the government's resources.
"For 10 percent of the border we need to consider the potential for fencing," he said. "I certainly don't think we need 700 miles of fencing."
Ronald Vitiello, chief Border Patrol agent in the Rio Grande Valley sector, said the barrier will decrease border crossings - but only if it is complemented with a boots-on-the-ground effort.
Reyes, who used to oversee the Valley's Border Patrol sector, said of Vitiello, "He's going to toe the party line - he's got to if he wants to maintain his job as chief of the sector."
To the dismay of the eight congressmen, the fence's architects at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declined an invitation to the hearing. The absence of a DHS official left a number of questions unanswered.
"We'll seek out these answers in Washington," Grijalva said after the hearing.
The presence of 13 witnesses, many of whom live and work along the border, marked the convergence of a national political debate and a local dilemma.
"We need federal legislation that will protect borders in a humane and Christian way," said Bishop Raymundo J. Pena, of the Archdiocese of Brownsville.
"It isn't really a border to most of us who live down here," added Betty Perez, a local landowner and activist.
The articulation of local attitudes toward the fence was echoed by most of the congressmen in attendance, several of which were born along the U.S.-Mexico border. U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, is a native of Brownsville.
"Nothing is going to change until immigration policy is taken care of," Napolitano said on Monday. "The fence is ludicrous."
Read more in the Brownsville Herald Tribune
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Fence on the border
There are many parallels between Berlin and Texas.
Both were divided through war and political settlements of the border.
Families and bloodlines were divided into two separate nations.
Many of the people who fought or financed the war(s) found their families as citizens of two different nations.
Families faced dire consequences if they violated restrictions on free travel between the two countries without visa, passports, official papers, and special permissions.
I detested the Berlin Wall and all it stands for and I detest a fence at the border of Texas.
There are better solutions.
We have put men and women into space and walked on the moon.
We have helped broker peace in other continents.
We have cured some diseases.
We have managed to survive despite ourselves as a nation much longer than anyone envisioned.
Surely we can find a REASONABLE SOLUTION that doesn't involve barbed wire and prevent grandchildren from easily traveling to grandpa's house across the border.
Surely we can identify decent human beings who have settled in the USA, worked here for years, abided by all our laws except for having come here.
We used to be able to travel easily between the USA and Canada. It wasn't unusual for a US Citizen to go to Canada and work for a summer while in college. Travel was relaxed and free. Border security focused on CRIMINALS and folks who were REAL DANGERS. Then the Viet Nam War dragged on for decades. It was unpopular. Our government requested that Canada tighten their immigration and guest worker laws to make it very difficult for US Citizens to go to Canada and live and work. The border wasn't tightened to keep American safe. It was tightened to keep Americans in.
Fences work two ways. This one on the Southern border says more about predjuice and discrimination than it says about national security. It will not solve the immigration potholes. It will not identify real terrorists. It will not stop the cayotes from smuggling folks across the border. It may change the routes somewhat but it merely makes it more lucrative and rips off the vulnerable more.
To us 164 years seems like a long time; However, that is not all that long when you look at the history of people on this continent. Most politicians look at the peoples of Mexico and of the United States as two peoples -- but we really aren't. To my knowledge, I have no Latino or Hispanic bloodlines in my family. We came to Virigina from England and Ireland between 1630 and 1720 and most of my parents grandparents came to Texas between 1838 and 1870. We have benefited from the sacrifices of Navarro, Juan Seguin and others who helped forge this state and nation. It offends me when I hear folks assume that Texans with hispanic surnames migrated here from south of the Rio Grande. Many of them had families living in Texas long before my family arrived. Most of them also have relatives living in Mexico.
How different is a wall in Berlin from a wall at the border of Texas? Do we condemn communist governments who separate families who resided on different sides of the Berlin wall while urging US immigration and politicans to "tighten" the Texas /Mexico border? Should those who escape the poverty of Mexico and live underground working in the USA, raising their families and contributing to the US economy, risk incarceration and total loss of everything they have worked for during years of peaceful "illegal" residence by simply crossing the border to attend a parent's funeral or attend a family reunion? Is it truly moral to criminalize peaceful economic refugees while ignoring corporations who violate anti-trust rules and politicians who pass rules to legalize schemes that benefit corporations who fund their political campaign?
What difference is there between Germans who were restricted from visiting kin folks residing on different sides of the Berlin wall and families who are separated by the Rio Grande? Should it really be a crime to migrate back and forth across the border, to visit, shop and even work from time to time without extensive red tape and large outlays of money?
Somehow, I see a much stronger parallel than many seem to acknowledge.
Yes, I think we need to know who is crossing.
Yes, I think the cayotes need to be stopped.
Yes, I think we need to inspect cargo coming in and going out.
Yes, I think we need better guest worker programs.
Yes, I think that this nation has a right to vote and decide on citizenship and green card and guest worker immigration policy.
Stringing barbed wire and manning it with Soviet era style guard towers with soldiers armed with machine guns doesn't mesh with my view of America. To me, this is letting the terrorists of 9/11 win.
Surely we have better solutions than this.
Both were divided through war and political settlements of the border.
Families and bloodlines were divided into two separate nations.
Many of the people who fought or financed the war(s) found their families as citizens of two different nations.
Families faced dire consequences if they violated restrictions on free travel between the two countries without visa, passports, official papers, and special permissions.
I detested the Berlin Wall and all it stands for and I detest a fence at the border of Texas.
There are better solutions.
We have put men and women into space and walked on the moon.
We have helped broker peace in other continents.
We have cured some diseases.
We have managed to survive despite ourselves as a nation much longer than anyone envisioned.
Surely we can find a REASONABLE SOLUTION that doesn't involve barbed wire and prevent grandchildren from easily traveling to grandpa's house across the border.
Surely we can identify decent human beings who have settled in the USA, worked here for years, abided by all our laws except for having come here.
We used to be able to travel easily between the USA and Canada. It wasn't unusual for a US Citizen to go to Canada and work for a summer while in college. Travel was relaxed and free. Border security focused on CRIMINALS and folks who were REAL DANGERS. Then the Viet Nam War dragged on for decades. It was unpopular. Our government requested that Canada tighten their immigration and guest worker laws to make it very difficult for US Citizens to go to Canada and live and work. The border wasn't tightened to keep American safe. It was tightened to keep Americans in.
Fences work two ways. This one on the Southern border says more about predjuice and discrimination than it says about national security. It will not solve the immigration potholes. It will not identify real terrorists. It will not stop the cayotes from smuggling folks across the border. It may change the routes somewhat but it merely makes it more lucrative and rips off the vulnerable more.
To us 164 years seems like a long time; However, that is not all that long when you look at the history of people on this continent. Most politicians look at the peoples of Mexico and of the United States as two peoples -- but we really aren't. To my knowledge, I have no Latino or Hispanic bloodlines in my family. We came to Virigina from England and Ireland between 1630 and 1720 and most of my parents grandparents came to Texas between 1838 and 1870. We have benefited from the sacrifices of Navarro, Juan Seguin and others who helped forge this state and nation. It offends me when I hear folks assume that Texans with hispanic surnames migrated here from south of the Rio Grande. Many of them had families living in Texas long before my family arrived. Most of them also have relatives living in Mexico.
How different is a wall in Berlin from a wall at the border of Texas? Do we condemn communist governments who separate families who resided on different sides of the Berlin wall while urging US immigration and politicans to "tighten" the Texas /Mexico border? Should those who escape the poverty of Mexico and live underground working in the USA, raising their families and contributing to the US economy, risk incarceration and total loss of everything they have worked for during years of peaceful "illegal" residence by simply crossing the border to attend a parent's funeral or attend a family reunion? Is it truly moral to criminalize peaceful economic refugees while ignoring corporations who violate anti-trust rules and politicians who pass rules to legalize schemes that benefit corporations who fund their political campaign?
What difference is there between Germans who were restricted from visiting kin folks residing on different sides of the Berlin wall and families who are separated by the Rio Grande? Should it really be a crime to migrate back and forth across the border, to visit, shop and even work from time to time without extensive red tape and large outlays of money?
Somehow, I see a much stronger parallel than many seem to acknowledge.
Yes, I think we need to know who is crossing.
Yes, I think the cayotes need to be stopped.
Yes, I think we need to inspect cargo coming in and going out.
Yes, I think we need better guest worker programs.
Yes, I think that this nation has a right to vote and decide on citizenship and green card and guest worker immigration policy.
Stringing barbed wire and manning it with Soviet era style guard towers with soldiers armed with machine guns doesn't mesh with my view of America. To me, this is letting the terrorists of 9/11 win.
Surely we have better solutions than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
