EPA raised concerns on border fence, environment

By Brandi Grissom / Austin Bureau, El Paso Times

AUSTIN -- The Environmental Protection Agency had serious concerns about how barrier fencing would affect habitat, animals and communities along the border near El Paso, according to recently released comments the agency prepared earlier this year.

The agency submitted comments in response to environmental assessments the Department of Homeland Security conducted of proposed fencing on the Texas border, including about 56 miles in the El Paso area.

The undated comments, which were obtained and released Wednesday by the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, show that federal environmental officials wanted the Department of Homeland Security to do more research and analysis on effects the border fence might have on wildlife, farming and water quality in the region.

That may be one reason why DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff in April signed a waiver that allowed the department to circumvent about 30 laws, including environmental regulations, in order to complete 670 miles of fencing this year, said Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

"From the EPA's comments, it was clear they weren't going to get any kind of go ahead anytime soon," Reed said.

(Continued here. The letter from the EPA is here.)

Immigration is a phony issue

Mexico's former foreign minister terms building a wall “profoundly stupid”

Leigh Pomeroy
The Mankato Free Press

Some candidates in [Minnesota's] 1st District congressional race want to make immigration an issue. This is not a new tactic, having been employed by politicians in nearly every country in nearly every decade since the dawn of governance.

While immigration has always created at least some societal friction, generally humankind has benefited from the exchange of cultures. Where is this truer than in Minnesota, where the population comes from a mix of Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, English, Vietnamese, Somalis, Hispanic and others? We must not forget that all non-indigenous peoples in the Americas come from immigrant stock.

Latin Americans come to the United States because they see better opportunity in this country for their families. How is this different from our European forbears? It is not.

Building walls and fences has always proven to be short-term solutions for preventing the movement of people across borders. Witness the Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall in Britain, the Berlin Wall and the virtual wall put up by the Soviet Union during the Cold War to keep its citizens from escaping. Today all of these exist only as historical artifacts.

Building a wall between the United States and Mexico will suffer the same fate.

Speaking at Minnesota State University Mankato in April of this year, Dr. Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister of Mexico, said bluntly that the United States is on the wrong track in its attempts to deal with immigration.

Castañeda called the Bush administration’s concept of building fences to keep out immigrants “profoundly stupid.” Instead, the United States should invest in Mexico much like the wealthier nations of the European Union have invested in poorer ones. “Why is Germany building highways in Spain?” he said. “Because it’s good for the German economy.”

The United States has only a limited ability to accept new immigrants as its population grows and its resources to absorb growth become more strained. This is why immigration controls are necessary.

Yet instead of throwing millions of dollars into a wall that won’t last — and that some critics say won’t work — we should be investing that money in Mexico, providing jobs and opportunities there so that Mexican families won’t view their only chance of improvement as coming to the United States.

Politicians can rail against immigration as a way to attract votes, but building fences and making enemies of immigrants only makes sense if the goal is getting elected instead of seeking lasting, long-term solutions.

Leigh Pomeroy is a former DFL candidate for the 1st Congressional District.