HispanicVista Columnists

Building 3.5-miles of fence keeps terrorists away?

By Patrick Osio, Jr./HispanicVista.com

May 2, 2005

 

      I was having a tough time figuring out why it was of such national security importance to add 3.5-miles of fence on the western most section of the US-Mexico border. It was tough because there are already 2 fences along a 14-mile stretch and 3 fences along 11.5-miles, so the 3.5-miles would be a third fence to complete the 14-mile-triple fence.

The fence erections began in the mid 1990s with 14 miles stretching from the Pacific Ocean eastward. At that time, experts, not serving special interests, said the fence would not stop illegal intrusions, simply push them to other sectors. And it came to pass. So a second fence was added with the same results. Then came Operation Gatekeeper along the California border pushing crossings further east. Then came the third fence, but the 3.5-miles ran into environmental problems due to its intrusion and irreparable damage to one of the last 22 remaining national estuaries. The project remains in the state of limbo.

Meantime, illegal border crossings along the Pacific Ocean to East San Diego corridor have dwindled by 88 percent. But the illegal crossings have dramatically increased along the Arizona border by a far greater percentage. Overall illegal immigration has increased not decreased since the fences and Operation Gatekeeper.

Weve learned over time that elected officials not subject to term limits, excel at getting reelected and getting money from lobbyists, but now we are learning that many are also excelling at hiding non-related legislature in the bowels of must-pass legislation while convincing the electorate the hidden legislature is critical.

Since 9/11 the keywords are National Security. Do you want terrorists to come into the country to kill citizens and destroy our way of life? No, sir, I dont. Well, then this legislation will stop that from happening.

Those of us living along the US-Mexico border prior to 9/11 were silenced not so much by politicians as by border inspectors at ports-of-entry. It is not uncommon to cross the border into Mexico with some frequency, kind of like folks along the New York-New Jersey border, be it for business or pleasure. What has been an ordeal is returning, since 9/11 even more. Most times, the inspection line chosen turns out to be the slowest. Cars on the right and left are processed within seconds of each other, while you sit there slowly steaming. When finally reaching the inspector you ask, Why is this line so slow compared to the others?

You want drug smugglers to get in? the usual intimidating answer.

No sir, I was just wandering, did smugglers get in through the lanes processed faster?  Come on, Im not that dumb. I never asked the follow up question. Are you kidding, the inspector would have sent me to secondary-inspection with a cute note assuring another hour or two delay. Since 9/11, the terrorist threat makes one feel outright unpatriotic questioning anything done to stop such acts.

And that is precisely what some politicians count on with some blatantly disingenuous legislation.

Which brings us to the 3.5-mile-fence. We are told the missing link is a must for our security. Terrorists are salivating at the opportunity to cross along the thirdless-fence sector. To oppose it is to favor terrorists.

 And suddenly, wham! It hits its not the fence. They know adding 3.5-miles wont stop terrorists as they claim.  What they seek is circuitous approval for something far more sinister for the benefit of special interests.

Buried into legislation for funding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the Real ID amendment. In addition to federalizing state drivers licenses and prohibiting their issuance to non-document foreign aliens, the funding for the 3.5-mile-fence is included. As mentioned, the present status is embroiled in conflict with environmental issues.

So the stop the terrorist fence legislation authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to designate national security projects exempting them from environmental considerations, such as the 3.5-mile fence. It also prohibits municipalities, the state or other environmental agencies, groups or individuals from being able to bring suit in court to hear a case.

Talk about national security - Gas prices are up, we have OPEC conflicts, so we need more and cheaper oil sources. How about drilling in Pacific Ocean along the California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico? And for natural gas, how about the Rockies, and include a few LNG ports in our eastern and western coasts? All without hearings or consideration for citizens inputs or concerns.

Hey, you want to stop terrorists or dont you?

_____________________________________________________

Patrick Osio, Jr. is Editor of HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com). Contact at: Posiojr@hispanicvista.com

 

 

O