| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Westernmost Stretch of U.S.-Mexico Border to be Fortified |
| 2005-09-15 |
| SAN DIEGO – The Bush administration said Wednesday it will fortify the westernmost stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border over the objections of environmentalists and California regulators, who feared the project would harm a refuge for endangered birds... The move sets up the latest clash between the Bush administration and the state's Coastal Commission, which has denied the Border Patrol permission to proceed with the project... Plans call for two additional fences running parallel to the 12-year-old corrugated steel barrier along the border. A patrol road and series of lights would run between the first and second fences, and a maintenance road would run between the second and third set of fences. Sensors and cameras would track any movement. Previous estimates have pegged the project at $58 million, but [Border Patrol Chief] Aguilar said the final cost had yet to be determined... Concern over illegal immigration led Congress to pass legislation in 1996 requiring the Border Patrol to strengthen the westernmost 14-mile stretch of the border. Nine miles were fortified, but environmental concerns and lawsuits held up construction on the last 3Âœ miles leading to the ocean and 1Âœ miles farther east. Earlier this year, Congress gave [Homeland Security Secretary] Chertoff the power to sign a broad environmental waiver to finish the job, citing fears that terrorists could slip through an unsecured border. Mexico has objected to the fencing. A spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox said in May that the president lamented the project and said constructing walls was not the best way to solve the challenges on the common border. Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez has called the plans "inappropriate." The California Coastal Commission was particularly concerned about the Border Patrol's plans to fill a deep, half-mile long canyon known as "Smuggler's Gulch," with 2.1 million cubic yards of dirt, enough to fill 300,000 dump trucks. Commission members feared filling the canyon would erode soil near a federally protected estuary that is a refuge for threatened and endangered birds. The Border Patrol said it would take steps to reduce environmental harm... The Border Patrol said cutting off illegal border crossings will also stop foot traffic in the wetlands. Peter Douglas, the commission's executive director, did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The commission has also locked horns with the Bush administration over its plans to extend leases for oil and gas drilling off the Central California coast. Serge Dedina, executive director of Wildcoast, a San Diego based coastal conservation group, said the fencing would do nothing to deter illegal immigration and would only worsen the fragile Tijuana Estuary. "This project is just basically pork barrel and national security hysteria at its worst," Dedina said. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #15 so long overdue. I'd like to see illegals shipped back as well. We have so many illegals here and they don't seem to be worried anymore about being detected as an illegal as nothing is ever done. When will we start shipping them back! |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-09-15 20:46 |
| #14 rjschwarz: actually, the wetlands idea is not that far from a practical solution for large area denial. A combination of water-catchment trenches and hardy, very difficult to penetrate cactus and similar vegetation, would just make an area too difficult for most people to cross. The catchment captures the rare rain to support continued growth of the plants, and though it would only be effective in covering a small area, it would channel illegals into fewer routes of travel. Used in combination with natural and man-made obstacles, such area denial could have a major impact on the volume of traffic. And that should be the strategy: not trying to halt all illegal immigration, but to reduce its volume to the point of diminishing returns. That is, spending $10,000 to stop 10,000 illegals is far more efficient than spending another $10,000 to stop number 10,001. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-15 18:18 |
| #13 Border to be Fortified With 21 important vitamins and minerals |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-09-15 17:55 |
| #12 Actually the problem ws not the Maginot Line but at Sedan. Some idiot or traitor had decided that the Ardennes was unpassable so in that zone there was only a thin, thin line of troops (one divison for twenty kilometers, at that time the norm was one for three kiometers) and these were old (40 years and up) poorly trained and reservists with WWI equipment. Against that thin line the Germans launched 7 or their 10 armored divisions and a lot of infantry. In fact if before the war the French high command had sent even a single officer to "spend his holidays" into the Ardennes it would have known that there were a myriad tracks or little roads in it who made it easy to cross ven by mechanized units. Also a French historian who at that time was serving as captain, swears that prior to the attack he was sent to Corps headquarters and he saw a map who evidenced that the French knew about the big german concentration facing the Ardennes but he was told that the Ardennes were impassable and that the Germans would go north to meet head to head with the British and the main body of the French Army. |
| Posted by: ct 2005-09-15 17:47 |
| #11 Warning! Thread hijack! Actually, the Maginot Line was a sound defensive idea. It greatly reduced the area for open maneuvers, and the Germans were better than, well, anybody, at open maneuvers. The major problem wasn't the Maginot Line itself, but the way Gamelin deployed his army. The very best units were, of course, sent into Belgium to meet what they thought was the big offensive, but many other first-line units were actually deployed behind the fortresses, while some of the "Fortress" units (which had little artillery, since the forts had intrinsic artillery) were deployed in the open field, where they were torn to shreds. In short, they built this chain of fortifications, then deployed their army as if it didn't exist. Now, the French army had some major doctrine problems and such, but if you assume no improvement there, but simply move divisions around to strip the units manning the Maginot Line to the bare minimum, then put in a defense in depth in the Ardennes, you have a good chance of holding long enough to rescue the guys who went into Belgium. The superior German doctrine and training generally let them win eventually, but it's a lot longer and costlier battle, and with the Germans occupied in the West, Stalin might be tempted... |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-09-15 15:47 |
| #10 I'm curious just how far out to sea will these barriers run, 100 yards? Not even that far. You can photos of the border fence at supporters of the United States Border Patrol |
| Posted by: ed 2005-09-15 15:30 |
| #9 Fill smugglers canyon with water and create a massive wetland. Then prosecute anyone who tries to cross said wetlands under environmental protection laws. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-09-15 14:30 |
| #8 I'm curious just how far out to sea will these barriers run, 100 yards? There are two easily bypassed areas at the Texas and California coasts that simply cannot be "Walled Off" As for the "Maginot Line" statements, they were bypassed, not breached. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-09-15 13:57 |
| #7 2 things. 1) As far as the maginot line goes, we are not talking Guderian and Rommel trying to get flank it. If thats the best counter argument you have, then you lose. Badly. We are talking about placing barriers to greatly reduce the ease of crossing illegally, not to stop an armored division. And also extending them across the entire border eventually. The lesson of the Maginot line is that you need defense in depth, and across the entire frontier, not in spots, and in a thin crust. This is just a start in one of the most vulnerable and easy places to cross. It forces the illegals into much more difficult areas, where they are easier to detect and less likely to attempt it due to hardships. This barrier is to ensure that those attempting to cross are at significant risk of being detected and captured. It needs to be backed up by internal measures against businesses who encourage illegals by hiring them, etc. And some teeth in the laws so that there are serious consequences to be paid for breaking the immigration laws, especially for repeat offenders. 2. The ultimate solution is for Mexico to provide a decent political and economic condition for its people. This will not happen until the Mexican government is completely changed - and that will not happen until they are forced to fully deal with the full consequences of their corrupt socialist policies. And that itself will not happen until they no longer have the US economy as a pressure-relief or as a crutch. Hence, building a fortified border area, and patrolling it to prevent illegal immigration, is the best thing we can to to help Mexico in the long run. ON our side, it slows down the illegal immigrants problem, enables a "green card" type guest worker program (with appropriate controls anc checks), and increases the security of the nation. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-09-15 12:13 |
| #6 Good fences make good neighbors. R. Frost |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-09-15 12:05 |
| #5 illegals leave trash, diapers, empty water containers and start wildfires. The "conservation" groups oppose federal efforts to stop illegals and have been the water-carrying whores for open borders, totally against their "principles". By the way, there was no "clash" - Feds won free and clear |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-09-15 12:03 |
| #4 No shit? How about stemming the tide on the Mexican side of the border? Just a thought They'll clean up their destructive corruption which undermines their economy at about the same time Louisiana does. Till then, there's no motivation to implement real change to the situation. |
| Posted by: Gleretch Glearong1491 2005-09-15 11:45 |
| #3 "A spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox said in May that the president lamented the project and said constructing walls was not the best way to solve the challenges on the common border." No shit? How about stemming the tide on the Mexican side of the border? Just a thought. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-09-15 11:15 |
| #2 I'd suggest some light reading on the Maginot Line. Well, we'll have to make sure they don't outflank us by going through the Ardennes. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-09-15 08:44 |
| #1 Sombody needs to read some history. I'd suggest some light reading on the Maginot Line. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-09-15 07:12 |