Can you guess which side liberals are taking?

In a lengthy analysis, the S.F. Chronicle reports: “A proposal to build a double set of steel walls with floodlights, surveillance cameras and motion detectors along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border heads to the Senate next month after winning overwhelming support in the House.”

The wall would be intended to prevent illegal immigrants and potential terrorists from hiking across the southern border into the United States. It would run along five segments of the 1,952-mile border that now experience the most illegal crossings.

The plan already has roiled diplomatic relations with Mexico. Leaders in American border communities are saying it will damage local economies and the environment. And immigration experts say that — at a cost of at least $2.2 billion — the 700-mile wall would be an expensive boondoggle.

The December House vote of 260-159 is the strongest endorsement yet for building a wall, which Rep. Duncan Hunter, a San Diego County Republican, has been pushing for two decades as a tactic against illegal immigration. Support for the wall was even stronger than for the bill it was attached to — a larger plan to curb terrorism and illegal immigration sponsored by Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner that passed 239 to 182.

“It is a tangible demonstration of the seriousness of the United States in not permitting illegal migration into the country,” said Jack Martin, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., that favors tighter immigration controls.

It’s good to see that Congressional Republicans are listening to the voters. We hope and encourage the Senate to do the same.

More details here. And the opposition is wasting no time.

In today’s paper, we find a dramatic headline warning: “Border protections imperil environment”

One of the last stops before you hit the Pacific Ocean on the American side of the U.S.-Mexico border is the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Here, amid watery grasslands bordered by bright yellow bush sunflowers and pale, feathery deerweed, snowy egrets dash their beaks into the shallow waters — just one of more than 350 species of birds that use the estuary as a nesting and breeding ground. Twenty kinds of fish also live in these waters, as do a plethora of endangered species.

Cue in the sound of singing birds and roll images of Bambi prancing playfully through the meadow. “Feathery deerweed”? Sounds like the stuff they smoke in San Francisco.

The reserve, a short drive from the grit of Tijuana to the south and the growing sprawl of San Diego to the north, is all that remains of wilderness in the area, a last refuge for many endangered birds, insects, reptiles and plants.

But in the name of national security, the Department of Homeland Security wants to build 3.5 miles of fencing just south of this federally protected land — a project environmentalists say could spell disaster for the sensitive ecology of the region.

And despite laws and regulations that could usually prevent such a project from going ahead, the department has new powers to sweep such protections aside.

Yes, in the name of national security. But why editorialize?

We will argue that most Americans would agree to living without a light-footed clapper rail, if it means curbing the crime and burdensome costs associated with illegal immigration.

Not to mention: with less careless foot traffic, the fragile wildlife might actually be better off.

(Photos here and here)

RELATED:
For more details on border security, see We Need A Fence

Rep. J.D. Hayworth: Immigrants Need
To Embrace U.S. Culture
U.S. and Mexico: What Border Security?
Judge Clears Way For Border Fence

More on immigration and homeland security

1. [...] RELATED: Border Security or Boondoggle? (Includes many more links) [...]

   Pingback by California Conservative » Only In America: Illegal Immigrants And Their Allies Rally To Protest Law Enforcement — March 26, 2006 @ 8:28 am

2. [...] And by offering “amnesty” or “guest worker” status before sealing up the porous and neglected border will only create more incentive for illegals to run over here. Just like any giveaway, people are going to run for it. [...]

   Pingback by California Conservative » Is It ‘Amnesty’ or ‘Earned Citizenship’? — March 30, 2006 @ 11:12 am

3. [...] RELATED: Border Security or Boondoggle? [...]

   Pingback by California Conservative » Building A Wall Is Too Expensive? Not If We Hire Illegal Immigrants — April 20, 2006 @ 6:15 pm

4. [...] UPDATE: Ironic Surrealism examines “trashing the border” How do the environmentalists feel about this? These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

   Pingback by California Conservative » Homeland (in)Security: Illegal Immigrants Today, Terrorists Tomorrow — November 30, 2006 @ 8:52 pm

1. *Chuckles*

   Have you ever lived down here in the desert? We get the whole “walking off of trails damages the environment for 20 or more year” speech all the time. But don’t think about building anything out there! Oh no!

   Sheesh, these folks are never happy no matter what. Now I hope they do more than just this wall. There’s so many other holes and needed security along the border the walls should only be a starting point.

   Comment by Gozer — February 27, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

2. Gosh, where to start on this? Let’s see, how about, if Mexico is so riled about us putting up a fence to make them come in legally, how about stopping the encouragement of them coming in illegally? I’m just real sure they’d get their sombreros in a twisted knot if we started ignoring Mexico’s laws. Matter of fact, they already do!

   And how about this one: If the libs don’t like the cost of the fence, eliminate the stupid union rules and “fair pay” rules, and let the project be bid to whomever can do the job? But, of course, the donkeys can’t let that happen. It makes too much sense, and the union plantation workers wouldn’t hear of it.

   Finally, here’s the biggy (and I’m a business owner myself, so don’t get after me for suggesting this): enforce the laws on hiring illegals that are already on the books, and stick those who hire illegals with fines heavy enough to get their attention! As long as the fines are held to the total of $100 - $1000, employers who want to take advantage of illegals will continue to do so. Make it hurt the first time, then double it each succesive time, and make it a fine for each illegal.

   Those who say the illegals only do the work Americans won’t are stupid, liars or both. Talk to those workers in the construction industry who don’t have jobs now because illegals are doing them for 1/2 the wages.

   Comment by Carlos — February 27, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

3. “Those who say the illegals only do the work Americans won’t are stupid, liars or both. Talk to those workers in the construction industry who don’t have jobs now because illegals are doing them for 1/2 the wages.”

   OMG! I HATE that argument. I’ve worked lots of crummy jobs in my life what’s to stop other Americans? This thought process only makes Americans weak and more like the sterotype of “stuck up” and not “hard working” compared to the rest of the world.

   I’m sorry, you pay a man a decent wage, and he will do it. Heck, ever see the show “Dirty Jobs?” There are jobs there I’d NEVER do but folks here in America do them every day! So anyone who uses this argument needs to shut up and get a brain. Sheesh.

   Comment by Gozer — February 27, 2006 @ 7:18 pm