In
the altar of National Security Democracy Erodes
An article written February 21, 2005, by Patrick
Osio, Editor of Hispanic Vista, sounded the alarm*that on the Real ID ACT
HR 418, Congressman Duncan Hunter had inserted a clause providing the
Secretary of Homeland Security with the legal right to wave off any state
or federal laws and denying usage of any court to attempt to overturn the
secretary’s decision. All that is needed to trigger off this clause is for
the secretary to declare the decision is based on “National Security”
grounds. Presto, wave all environmental, and property rights, and any
other legal hurdles any, and we mean any, project so deemed can avoid
legal scrutiny not just the “fence” along the US-Mexico border.
It is now coming to pass. Hunter’s words, “We need to
get this done, and we need to do it for security reasons…” resonates loud
and clear. Hunter was able to sell this due to his insistence that illegal
immigrants are a national security threat liking them to Al Qaeda
terrorists bent of destruction of life and property.
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff used the power given to him to bypass environmental hurdles and
private property rights to speed the construction of the 670 miles of
fence along the border.
Now we begin to hear from editorial from around the
country:
The San Diego Union-Tribune: “Beware of public
officials who hide behind alarmist rhetoric to justify acts of
bureaucratic heavy-handedness.
This whole episode is bizarre… we're doing all this
to defend our territorial sovereignty and illustrate that rules are to be
followed. So naturally, the first chance it gets, the government tramples
the sovereignty of individuals who oppose fencing on their property and
brushes aside the rules.”
Arizona Republic: "With the stroke of his pen,
he overturns 36 laws - some of which have been protecting our resources
and our health for more than a century - in an area stretching from the
Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean." …The fence, which won't stop illegal
immigration, is a high-cost PR stunt that makes defense contractors
salivate.
Boston Globe: The southern border fence
intended to keep out illegal immigrants is no longer just wasteful and
stupid. Now it is harmful as well.
Dallas Morning News: “…the land chosen
for the federal right-of-way is provoking additional skepticism. The fence
will divide the University of Texas campus in Brownsville, for example,
but it bypasses border property owned by individuals with close White
House ties.
El Paso Times: “But on top of that, Chertoff
waived a law that required a final report on the impact the fence would
have on the U.S.-Mexico border environment. That means even if the feds
find that there would be some catastrophic impact from the border fence,
they wouldn't be required to tell anyone. That is both absurd and
dangerous.”
Houston Chronicle: The waiver was initially
promoted by congressional supporters as a limited exception designed to
give federal officials flexibility in speeding the completion of a segment
of fencing across environmentally sensitive wetlands near San Diego.
Unfortunately, as with so many other instances in which the Bush
administration has asserted the right to ignore laws it found
inconvenient, the waiver now is being used as an all-purpose bludgeon to
flatten dozens of environmental and property rights statutes.” –
Lompoc Record: “So, our federal government
decides to thumb its nose at local rules and laws, essentially telling
states and private property owners that, no, they really don't have any
rights when it comes to government expediency”
Lufkin Daily News: “The government's
willingness to run roughshod over its own laws in order to address a panic
stirred more by hyperbolic demagogues than by facts is another example of
the ways that Americans are allowing hard-fought gains in everything from
personal privacy to environmental protection to be eroded by fear.”
San Antonio Express-News: “Border mayors,
however, should not be surprised by the latest move; federal officials
have shown a monumental arrogance toward the pleas of border communities.”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “The
spokesman for the Sierra Club in Texas responded that the waivers “pulled
the carpet out from under the community participation.” We can't help but
feel that that was precisely the point of these waivers: Back off,
America. This land ain't your land.”