Posted on 06/03/2007 8:39:31 AM PDT by Baladas
McALLEN - The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol told angry mayors, businessmen and environmentalists Friday the 700-mile border fence was law, and if his agency and local officials reach an impasse on where the fence should go, "then it's up to someone to make a decision."
Chief David Aguilar's address to the Texas Border Coalition - which was hastily arranged late Thursday after numerous cancellations by Homeland Security officials - was sprinkled with conciliatory "ifs" and "mays" about the location of the fence. But Aguilar made clear that the federal government would have the final say.
"The mission of securing this country is mission one," he said.
When David Guerra, an executive with a bank that does a lot of business with Mexicans, asked what recourse local leaders would have if the government went against their concerns, Aguilar said, "I think as a banker you know that sometimes things come to an impasse - and then it's up to someone to make a decision."
Local officials have been fuming over what they consider the secrecy concerning a fence they say will cut farmers off from water, harm wildlife, ruin recreational areas and send a hostile message to Mexico, Texas' biggest trading partner.
Within months of getting Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's assurances that decisions on the fence's location would not be made without their input, coalition members intercepted a confidential U.S. Customs and Border Protection memo that included a map of the fence.
Customs and Border Protection has since said things were badly handled and that the map is preliminary.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican who voted for the fence, got an amendment passed in the pending Senate immigration bill that would require Homeland Security to take locals' concerns into consideration when siting the fence.
But local leaders told Aguilar on Friday that poor communication persists, with all their information so far coming from intercepted memos, including a request for proposals for the fence contract.
"What is your plan in Texas? Where is the fence going to be built," coalition leader Mike Allen said.
"I can't tell you today," Aguilar said. "If I told you where the fence was going, that would mean we'd never partnered with you."
He said there were "no confidential memos."
But John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association who attended a separate fence meeting Friday between landowners and the Border Patrol, said agents rolled out maps of private property marked with lines showing exactly where the fence was being considered. The lines were drawn on the levees, which can be as much as 1 1/2 miles inland from the Rio Grande.
"When you listen to the chief of the Border Patrol say this morning that this all is subject to consultation with localities and then you go to a site meeting and you see big rollout maps with lines drawn on it, you begin to wonder what their definition of consultation is," he said.
Allen, former president of the McAllen Economic Development Corp., said he was insulted to learn that the Border Patrol was not publicizing the landowners' meetings.
"We'd like to know what you're negotiating," he said. "Let us know where these meetings are. We'd like to go to them," he said.
Good thinking, Drew - there is no reason to build expensive fences around prisons also because the fences “will get breeched over and over again” and prisoners will still sneak out through tunnels or “through legitimate transit points.”
While you are at it, you might want to remove the alarm system from your car and house, as well as the door locks and windows, after all, burglars will simply be breaking in when you are not there, so why have it anyway? You will save a lot of money not having to replace broken door locks when everything in your house is ripped off - probably by illegals. LOL!
I basically agree with everything you say Drew, But I feel the same frustration most of the others do about the way open borders advocates thwart any attempt to do anything in the interests of our country. While the "jobs and welfare" approach you suggest is far and away the most effective way to deal with the problem, a physical barrier constructed in the faces of our open borders crooks and creeps, and the oligarchs of that overflowing cesspool to our south would be worth the cost if only for the relief it would give to the frustration of me and others
BS! Tell them if they want cheap Mexican labor to move their damn company to Mexico!
Outstanding! That would be almost like justice.
The fencing and related security controls are an initial step. Many other methods must be used to solve the basic problem of illegal immigration.
If the fence is on the Texas/Mexico line, how does that cut farmers off from water, harm wildlife or ruin recreational areas? Sending a hostile message to Mexico doesn't hurt my feelings one tiny bit.
Being from Texas, I don’t see how the fence would bother any legitimate crossers-over. There are lots of places along the border to legally enter and leave the USA. It takes a few minutes and a show of identity, period. At worst, they’ll search you or your car.
AFAIK, animals don’t cross the border often. LOL
Why don’t we hire the folks that built the old DDR border emplacements? Those guys knew how to build a fence!
Watch towers with machine guns, raked sand death strips, attack dogs running free between fences, minefields, preregistered artillery, tank traps, dragon’s teeth, charges that fired vertically along the fences if touched.
They don’t seem to have been overly concerned about private property either.
Just blowing off steam friend, I’m sick of all the wrangling myself, I wish they’d show a seriousness of purpose and quit allowing all the filibustering and salami slicing designed to delay and impede the fence project.
My guess is eminent domain will come into play for land along the fence line. There is an eminent domain bill on the governor’s desk awaiting his signature now that will bring land owners more rights in the takings process.
Israel wonders why anyone in our country would not want to build a fence. It helped them tremendously.
Been there, seen where an average example of the fence would go, it is IBWC land that does not belong to the farmers anyway and the "wildlife" most affected will be the border "coyotes." No one needs access to the actual river. The water from the river is NOT bailed out by hand as the enviro-wacks would have it appear, it is pumped out via underground pipe systems and in many locations in Texas it would help keep out the tick infested mexican cattle.
And if there is an area that requires a fence the only "recreation" going on around there is stemming from the drug smugglers.
In short, they are “full of it.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.