No Fence?

[SHANEA]

http://www.delrionewsherald.com/story.lasso?ewcd=62d566872f2fd0c8

Chertoff: No fence needed on border

By Karen Gleason
Del Rio News-Herald  

Published February 22, 2007

Del Rio Mayor Efrain Valdez said a group of Texas border mayors won a major concession in Laredo Wednesday when Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff publicly agreed that Texas needs no border fence.

But the fight against the fence isn’t over yet, Valdez said.

Valdez and nine other mayors in the Texas Border Coalition met in Laredo Wednesday with Chertoff and Texas Sen. John Cornyn to address ongoing concerns about a number of border issues.

“I don’t think I can generalize for the whole state of Texas, but there are places where a fence makes sense, there are places where a fence doesn’t make sense,” Chertoff said Wednesday as he met with border mayors and business leaders to discuss the effects a fence could have on trade and tourism. “We want to have the tactics that fit the particular landscape and geography.”

“I believe our main goal was realized when Secretary Chertoff stated publicly after the meeting that Texas doesn’t need a fence,” Valdez said in a telephone interview Wednesday after he had returned to Del Rio.

Valdez said Chertoff made the statement during a press conference held on one of Laredo’s international bridges following the meeting with the Texas Border Coalition.

Valdez said the border mayors again told Chertoff and Cornyn that they support federal mandates to build border fences in states like Arizona and areas where no natural boundary like the Rio Grande exists between the United States and Mexico.

“We said we have nothing against a border fence where a border fence is needed,” Valdez said. “If you build a fence here you are taking away the livelihood of the ranchers along the river and you are hurting the ecosystem, so you can’t say what works in Arizona will also work in Texas.”

Valdez had been stranded in Del Rio by a winter storm that closed the airport and was not able to join the Texas Border Coalition mayors when they traveled to Washington in January to meet with Chertoff and Texas elected representatives to discuss the border fence.

Valdez said in Laredo Wednesday the Texas border mayors again told Chertoff and Cornyn that the federal government needs to invest more money in laser sensors and “boots on the ground” for federal law enforcement agencies on the border.

U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, said he’s helping draft legislation that would offer more options.

“Instead of Congress taking a crayon and drawing a line from Laredo down to Brownsville or Del Rio to Eagle Pass, we would rather have the experts have that input,” Cuellar said.

Valdez said the mayors also emphasized the need to put more technology and personnel at the ports of entry along the Texas-Mexico border.

“Eighty percent of all people in this country illegally cross at the ports of entry, so we asked for more technology and more manpower there,” Valdez said.

Valdez also said the border mayors agree that Congress needs to revisit immigration reform to establish a guest worker program.

Valdez said Chertoff also had a request for the border mayors.

Valdez said since the Secure Fence Act of 2006 has been passed into law, Chertoff asked border elected officials to continue asking elected officials at the federal level not to fund that portion of the fence slated for construction along the Texas-Mexico border.

“We need to keep communicating the message about what works and what doesn’t work here on the border,” Valdez said.

“My impression was that the meeting was very, very productive,” Valdez added.

[Daryl]

What  :shock: .  No fence along the Rio  :?:

I was hiking Santa Elena Canyon today and couldn't help thinking that a 40' wide gravel road with 8' concertena wire fences on both sides would sure make the hike easier. :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

In all seriousness now ... It's good to see some common sense being applied to the fence issue.  As noted in the article, a fence along the Rio would have many negative effects and very few positive ones.

As an alternative, we could just stock the Rio with pirranha and nile crocs  :shock:  :lol:  :shock:  :lol:

[presidio]

Chertoff: No fence needed on border

“If you build a fence here you are taking away the livelihood of the ranchers along the river

Without getting into the efficacy or presumed need of a fence, exactly how does a fence on the international border take away the livelihood of ranchers?

Does that mean they won't be able to employ illegals when they can't cross?

I think a fence/wall is a foolish exercise but the above is a most curious statement and justification for not building a fence.

[Daryl]

Chertoff: No fence needed on border

“If you build a fence here you are taking away the livelihood of the ranchers along the river

Without getting into the efficacy or presumed need of a fence, exactly how does a fence on the international border take away the livelihood of ranchers?

If the fence borders the river, it could prevent the cattle from accessing the water.  Of course, this could be mitigated by installing diversion channels or pump stations.  But at whose cost and what environmental impact?

Personnally, I'm much more concerned about the ability of wildlife to access and cross the river.  I thinks a fence makes great sense in many areas, but no sense at all in many others.

[presidio]

If the fence borders the river, it could prevent the cattle from accessing the water.  Of course, this could be mitigated by installing diversion channels or pump stations.

A good point. However, unless ranchers presently have their lands fenced near/on the border they would have no way to keep their livestock from wandering into Mexico. That would seem to be a significant management problem if it occurs. In that case, a fence would make herd/property management easier.

As to diversion and pumping; not likely...at least not legally. Unless the rancher has river water rights, that's not an option. Like most western rivers, every drop is oversubscribed by those with water rights. You just can't drop a pipe in or dig a trench to 'take a little'; not that it doesn't occur.

[Daryl]

As to diversion and pumping; not likely...at least not legally. Unless the rancher has river water rights, that's not an option. Like most western rivers, every drop is oversubscribed by those with water rights. You just can't drop a pipe in or dig a trench to 'take a little'; not that it doesn't occur.

You're absolutely correct.  It just seems that IF the feds blocked livestock access to water that they SHOULD be responsible to provide some alternate access.  Of course, the feds don't always abide by moral obligations.