Anonymous - 2-7-2005 at 08:38 AM
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,66521,00.html
Feb. 06, 2005
WASHINGTON -- A ragged fence and a canyon called Smugglers Gulch mark the westernmost stretch of the California-Mexico border, a crossing point for
illegal immigrants and drug runners.
The federal government and a powerful local Republican congressman have been pushing for years to fortify the 3 1/2-mile stretch of border just north
of Tijuana, Mexico. Their plan is opposed by California coastal regulators and environmentalists who say it could harm a fragile Pacific estuary.
Now supporters may be getting closer to victory. A provision in an immigration bill expected to pass the House next week would give the homeland
security secretary authority to move forward with the project regardless of any laws that stand in the way, and would bar courts from hearing lawsuits
against it.
"We need to get this thing done, and we need to do it for security reasons, and at some point we just need to do it," said House Armed Services
Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-California, whose district is just north of the border.
But environmentalists and the California Coastal Commission, the independent state agency that regulates the state's coastline, say the plan promoted
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection is too extreme.
Among other provisions, it would level the peaks lining Smugglers Gulch and fill part of the deep canyon with 2 million cubic yards of dirt in order
to build a road across it. The Coastal Commission voted down the proposal a year ago, saying it would erode soil near the federally protected Tijuana
Estuary that's home to marshes, California brown pelicans and rare plants and birds.
"We're going to destroy our environment in the name of fear," said Peter Douglas, the commission's executive director. "Frankly, there are ways that
we can do both, protecting the environment and meeting the concerns of border control and homeland security."
Coastal Commission officials contended Customs and Border Protection didn't meet them halfway when they proposed alternatives, including switchback
roads through the gulch.
A spokesman for Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to calls for comment Friday. But Hunter said environmentalists' demands were
unreasonable.
"You could run a thousand plans past some of these people. I don't think they understand the issues and I don't think they care," he said.
Rep. Bob Filner, D-California, whose district encompasses the border, disagreed. "The waiving of all environmental rules for this is just criminal,"
Filner said. "It's just too extensive a trade-off for the limited security advantage."
More than 10 miles of the border between the Pacific Ocean and inland hills have already been fortified with fences, lights, motion sensors and
beefed-up patrols. The border agency's apprehensions of illegal immigrants declined 88 percent from 1994 to 2003.
The provision to finish off the border barriers is part of immigration legislation introduced last week by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James
Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, that would also prevent illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses and make it harder for them to get political
asylum.
The measures passed the House last year as part of the intelligence bill, but were struck from the final package. The bill is set for a House vote
next week and is expected to pass. How the fence provision would fare in the Senate is unclear. California's two Democratic senators have not
announced their positions.
Bruce R Leech - 2-7-2005 at 09:13 AM
Anonymous I can not figure out how you get your Joelly' s from posting so much mis information?
elgatoloco - 2-7-2005 at 09:17 AM
Mr. Leech, I have been following this story for months. Please advise re: mis-information.
Thanks in advance.
Mateo
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+border+fence+san+die...
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by elgatoloco]
TMW - 2-7-2005 at 02:04 PM
I don't think congress can pass a law that prevents a court from hearing a lawsuit. Only the courts can decide if laws are constitutional.