Calexico, Calif. – Legislation passed by Congress mandating the fencing of 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico has sparked opposition from an array of land managers, businesspeople, law-enforcement officials, environmentalists and U.S. Border Patrol agents as a one-size-fits-all policy response to the nettlesome task of securing the nation’s borders.
Critics say the fence does not take into account the extraordinarily varied geography of the 2,000-mile-long border, which cuts through Mexican and U.S. cities separated by a sidewalk, vast scrubland and deserts, rivers, irrigation canals and miles of mountainous terrain.
They also say it seems to ignore advances in border security that don’t involve construction of a 15-foot-high double fence and to play down what are expected to be significant costs to maintain the new barrier.
And, they say, the estimated $2 billion price tag and the mandate that it be completed by 2008 overlook 10 years of legal and logistical difficulties the government has faced to finish a relatively tiny fence of 14 miles dividing San Diego and Tijuana.
“This is the feel-good approach to immigration control,” said Wayne Cornelius, an expert on immigration issues at the University of California at San Diego. “The only pain is experienced by the migrants themselves. It doesn’t hurt U.S. consumers; it doesn’t hurt U.S. businesses. It only hurts taxpayers if they pay attention to spending on border enforcement.”
Congress has decreed that five sections of reinforced fencing will be built along a third of the border, in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The biggest section is planned from east of Calexico stretching more than 300 miles to west of Douglas, Ariz.
