|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 23, 2008 10:20 PM CDT
COLUMN: Environmentalists failed to fool court on issue of U.S.-Mexico border fence
By HARRY REYNOLDS, Editorial page editor
hreynolds@jg-tc.com
The U.S. Supreme Court knocked down an effort Monday by environmentalist groups trying to stop construction of the 670-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Approximately 330 miles of fencing have been completed as of this month as the U.S. moves to curb illegal immigration and help slow the flow of drugs into this country
The high court’s rejection of the plea centered on a 2-mile stretch of real estate in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz.
A staff lawyer for the Defenders of Wildlife reacted to the court’s ruling, saying that, “It does send a surprising and disturbing message that the broadest waiver in American history, unprecedented in its scope, is not worthy of the court’s consideration. The only thing that can stop the construction of this very destructive border wall is Congress.”
Opponents of the fence — mostly champions of the right of illegal immigrants to flow into the United States unhindered — have been trying to kill the fence project since Homeland Security initiated it.
Following the court’s decision Monday, press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security Laura Keehner said the administration was pleased with the court’s refusal to consider the case.
“The American people expect this department to enforce the rule of law at the border,” she said. “Our efforts to do so sometimes result in lawsuits like this one, which the court rejected.”
Opponents of the fence based part of the argument on the tenuous grounds the fence would prevent wildcats from swimming across the Rio Grande to mate.
To which I make this equally frivolous reply: Why don’t they stay on one side or the other?
I’m all for preservation of wildlife, but I doubt a 670-mile fence will obliterate wildcats. If they’re not smart enough to find another way across the 2,000-mile border, they’re not going to make it anyway.
If you think this is an attempt to enrage fanatical environmentalists bent on facilitating the influx of illegal aliens into this country, you’re right.
If fact, I’m doing my best to enrage anyone who believes there’s something wrong with America enforcing immigration policies. The history of this nation speaks of a policy calling for the lawful entry of aliens seeking to become Americans.
Why we should allow illegal immigration on our southern border is something most Americans don’t understand. Many naturalized American citizens from Mexico — or other Hispanics going through the process of becoming U.S. citizens — resent giving illegal immigrants the keys to the door.
I realize we cannot kick out the millions of illegal aliens who have resided in the U.S. for a long time — many of them have children who are American citizens by way of birth. Surely, we can find a way to pave their way to citizenship.
The American government must shoulder a lot of the blame for looking the other way for years as Mexicans poured over our southern border. Even after Sept. 11, the government did little to close the border.
There is a certain irony in the government’s intensive efforts to prevent terrorists from countries across the Atlantic from entering the country while ignoring the real potential for terrorists skipping across our southern borders.
Mexican government officials react angrily anytime the U.S. does something to slow the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants. The fence has drawn comparison to the Berlin Wall. It bewails the thousands of Mexican who have died over the years while attempting to cross the U.S. in areas with desert climates.
The Mexican government engages in high hypocrisy considering the abuses it heaps on illegal aliens who try to cross Mexico’s southern border from Guatemala and other Central American countries.
Who in the U.S. champions illegal immigration from Mexico? Well, illegal Mexican immigrants living in this country. And there are affluent Americans who have little to worry about when it comes to competition for jobs.
Also encouraging illegal immigration are those businesses reaping large economic benefits from employing illegals who cannot complain of unfair treatment for fear of being sent back to Mexico.
An obvious signature behind the drive to allow unfettered entry into the U.S. are the attempts to legislate to allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. What are these champions of criminality thinking?
If it’s illegal for illegal immigrants to live in the U.S, how can it possibly be legal for them to legally obtain a driver’s license?
It makes about as much sense as returning a driver’s license to a DUI driver convicted of murder in the wake of a fatal traffic accident.
Running a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border may not be the only way to curb illegal immigration, but it appears to be working.
Fencing in conjunction with the posting of thousands of National Guard troops along the border has already slowed the flow.
The U.S. Border Patrol is being beefed up in preparation for the withdrawal of the troops.
Opponents of the fence, hiding behind the mask of environmentalists, apparently didn’t fool the U.S. Supreme Court.
Add your comments
Not already registered?
Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ed miller wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:27 PM: