Posted on 03/20/2014 10:29:32 AM PDT by jazusamo
A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”
This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.
A 2006 federal law orders the construction of fencing or a wall along the most vulnerable portions of the nearly 2,000-mile southern border. This includes reinforced fencing along 700 miles of the southwest border with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determining the exact spots. Professor Gilman wants the identities of the landowners in the planned construction site to shed light on the impact the fencing will have on indigenous, minority and low-income communities. The feds refused to provide the information, asserting that it’s private.
The professor sued in federal court arguing that the public interest in how the fence will impact landowners outweighed any privacy concerns. The data will allow the public to analyze whether the government is treating property owners equally and fairly or whether the wall is being built in such a way that it disadvantages “minority property owners,” according to the professor. It will also help the public understand the actual dimensions of the wall and decisions related to where it’s placed.
Judge Beryl Howell, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama in 2010, agreed that the public interest is significant. Her 37-page ruling also seems to indicate that she bought the discrimination argument. “Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact on indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” Howell wrote.
This is simply the latest controversy to strike the border fence project since Congress approved it to protect national security and curb an illegal immigration and drug-trafficking crisis. In the last few years the mayors of several Texas border towns have blocked federal access to areas where the fence is scheduled to be built, an Indian tribe tried to block the barrier in the Arizona desert by claiming the feds were intruding on tribal land and a group of government scientists claimed the fencing would threaten the black bear population.
Last summer Mexican officials expressed public outrage over U.S. efforts to secure the southern border, calling it a human rights violation and an “unfriendly act.” The fact is, a number of government reports have confirmed that it’s not just Mexicans crossing into the U.S. seeking a better life. In 2010 DHS warned Texas law enforcement agencies that a renowned Al Qaeda terrorist was planning to sneak into the U.S. through Mexico. That same year a veteran federal agent accused the government of covering up the growing threat created by Middle Eastern terrorists entering the country through the vulnerable Mexican border.
Violent crime in the region has been well documented with heavily armed Mexican drug cartels taking over chunks of land that serve as routes to move cargo north. In fact, a few years ago a State Department report exposed a “dramatic increase in violence” along the Mexican border and warned of “violent attacks and persistent security concerns” in the area. The document also lists tens of thousands of narcotics-related murders attributed to sophisticated and heavily armed drug cartels competing with each other for trafficking routes into the U.S.
This judge needs medical attention.
He was talking about displaced minorities in the U. S. right?
That would be my counter. We have 25% of Blacks out of work, and you’re focusing on Mexican minorities? Really?
Agreed, a shrink and rubber room would be appropriate.
The Judge has a point, in that fences are just that, fences.
Fences with manned machine gun nests every 150 yards leave no doubt as to why they are there.
The Machine gun nests are the spines in the US/Mexican Border “Cactus Curtain.”
FUJUDGE, FUJUDGE.
Where’d ya get your law degree, from Harvard?
So we are disparaging our minorities from leaving the US?
There are openings in the fence Judge. It’s called a Border Crossing that most law abiding individuals use. The monetary factor maybe intimidating as it used to cost 1 US Penny to cross. It may have risen with inflation. Last time I crossed was in 1972. Does anyone have info regarding the freeholes in the fence? I may want to save some money if I decide to return.
Frickin Irish and Welsh ....
If they could only find opportunities on their plot of land.
It’s not like they live on an island with no resources or anything .....
"Obstacles which are not covered by observation and direct fire are only an annoyance to the enemy"
Sometimes the satire just writes itself.
Well, duh!
That’s why it’s supposed to be built in the first place!.................
Amazing the ancient Chinese constructed a 5,500-mile wall on their border, yet this country can’t even construct a respectable one on ITS border.
That is the intention. If you are illegal you do not belong here. Go home. There is no discrimination. The judge is a complete liberal idiot.
Does this mean that judges are immune from Treason?
Judge should be ignored or removed from the bench.
It will have a disproportionate impact on criminals, but since criminals are a majority in the Democrat party, a reasonable person would conclude it helps minorities.
Looking for the “Satire” keyword, goes away disappointed.
“Amazing the ancient Chinese constructed a 5,500-mile wall on their border, yet this country can’t even construct a respectable one on ITS border.”
The Chinese were attempting to keep others out; our government has made it clear it wants no such thing. The wealth transfer (via remittances) is a vital part of Mexico’s economy, and brings a measure of stability to a government that would be overturned in days if money from north of the border stopped flowing. Our government wants the Mexicans here to keep housing and school seats occupied; if they contribute to the tax base or social security that would merely be an added bonus (at this point they don’t). Our government and corporations are bending over backwards to accommodate the disolution of the border. At a time when terrorist threats have caused banking and the issuance of drivers’ licenses to come under greater scrutiny, we’re basically issuing them licenses and permitting them to easily transfer money across the border.
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.