HispanicVista Columnists
DHS protects against terrorist destroying us; environmental laws protect us from self destruction.
By Patrick Osio, Jr.
April 4, 2005
Republican Congressional leaders gathered at San Diego’s border to promote the construction of the final 3.5 mile of a 14 mile fence along the Mexican border at the Pacific Ocean, which according to Congressmen James Sensenbrenner and Duncan Hunter will keep Al-Qaeda operatives from entering the US.
Sensenbrenner and Hunter informed San Diego and the nation through CNN that CIA and FBI intelligence indicates that Al-Qaeda operatives are adopting Hispanic surnames to facilitate their sneaking across the border with other illegal immigrants. The possibility of their attempting to cross in this manner is eminent and thus the 3.5 miles of fence must be built now.
There was a time when most Americans didn’t question CIA or FBI intelligence, I know I didn’t. That changed with the failures of 9/11 and the WMD in Iraq that caused a war. So now it does behoove us to at very least ask questions when some things don’t add up. And Al-Qaeda adopting Hispanic names and zeroing in on a 3.5 mile section out of 2000 miles of open border is open for questions.
What purpose is there for adopting a Hispanic name? Taking a name without learning the language, about Mexican life, food, music, and a host of other details does nothing. Al-Qaeda operative if they bypass Mexican authorities are apprehended on the US side will not pass muster by simply having a Hispanic last name. Someone is going to interview him/her in Spanish. Regional accents, language mannerism, vocabularies are easily detectable. Since the Congressmen sponsors of the bill are monolingual they are obviously not aware of this.
It is understandable that Mexicans crossing to seek employment might risk jumping fences as they are mere obstacles and it saves paying human smugglers. And if detained, deportation is the penalty. It is quite another for an Al-Qaeda terrorist, they have but one shot at it – detainment is a life term.
Thus the question, why would terrorists choose to attempt crossing where there are already existing obstacles and Border Patrol presence instead of 20, 50, 100, or 1000 miles east of the fence where there are no obstacles and less policing? Why for people who are acclimated to desert heat not cross where it is easier for them? The obvious answer is – they will use the path of least resistance, and the 3.5 miles with 2 existing fences already is not one of those paths.
The Washington Post quoted Congressman Hunter on March 10th saying “The normalcy of life that has returned to that area is directly attributable to that fence” this in reference to the existing 2 fences in the 3.5 mile strip. So why the insistence on adding a third fence when in so doing, severe environmental damage to a highly sensitive estuary will result and the existing fences have done nothing to stop illegal immigration, simply pushed them farther east.
Congressman Ed Royce of Orange County, a pro-one-more-fence advocate, asked "Who should be in charge of counterterrorism policy? Should it be the California Coastal Commission or should it be the Department of Homeland Security?" (DHS) Of course, DHS is in charge of homeland security, but they aren’t the ones asking for the additional fence.
The Department of Homeland Security is mandated with protecting the country against terrorists destroying us; environmental laws are to protect us from self destruction. Both are equally important.
As part of the legislation mandating the additional fence, environmental laws are to be disregarded in projects classified as “national security.” Plus, local, state and federal agencies or individuals or groups will not be able to challenge the projects in courts.
At present, national security trumps other considerations so DHS already has the authority to disregard environmental laws, and President Bush could order the fence project built, even against court orders to the contrary. Thus, there is no need for the proposed legislation pending in the Senate.
If the Senate approves the bill and Bush signs it into law, any project dubbed to be “national security” regardless of environmental consequences and without debate or court interdiction can be approved.
And this I believe is the real reason why the extreme right seeks the approval.
_________________________________________________________
Patrick Osio, Jr is Editor of HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com). Contact at: POsioJr@hispanicvista.com