Arizona’s new immigration law has been widely characterized as an
unprecedented, racially insensitive assault on civil liberties.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is leading the charge. A reliable
mouthpiece for the cause of lawlessness on the U.S.-Mexico
border, Grijalva has called for a boycott of his home state where
70 percent of the voting public supports the crackdown, according
to a Rasmussen survey.
“The law violates due process, civil rights, and federal
sovereignty over immigration policy. While I believe the courts
will quickly overturn it, I am concerned that the damage to my
home state’s credibility has already been done,” the congressman
wrote in a recent editorial.
The outrage is real, the rationale is feigned. Grijalva feels
slighted not because he has suddenly developed a concern for the
constitutional order, but because the Arizona legislature has
intruded upon his ability to scuttle meaningful enforcement
efforts and facilitate illegal immigration.
There’s history here. Under the guise of environmental
protection, Grijalva has introduced legislation that would
restrict the movements of border security agents and create safe
havens for criminal elements transporting illegal aliens and
narcotics, critics point out.
Grijalva has proposed extending federal wilderness protection to
approximately 84,000 acres of the Tumacacori Highlands within the
Coronado National Forest, which is located adjacent to the
Pajarita Wilderness that runs along the Mexican border.
This wilderness designation would effectively push the Mexican
border 30 miles to the north of its present location, Zack
Taylor, a retired U.S. Border Patrol officer, has observed.
Just as the linebackers of football team must mirror the shifting
movements of an opposing offense, U.S. border security personnel
must have the flexibility and dexterity to move laterally along
the southern border, he explained.
H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act, would
preclude border security officials from operating on federal
land, while H.R. 3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act,
would establish a wilderness zone at the precise point where one
of the largest illegal entry points into the U.S. exists.
“Coyotes on the other side of the border know the national forest
is a corridor to promote their agenda,” Bonner Cohen, a senior
fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research
(NCPPR), said. “Having a new wilderness area placed adjacent to
the existing corridor will just open the floodgates.
Environmentalism is being used as a pretext to harm national
security.”
Federal lawmakers who are genuinely serious about enforcing the
border can audition for public support and state compliance by
offering up new legislation that expands the scope and reach of
border security agents. As it now stands, agents can only react
to movements and incursions from the other side.
“Right now, it is the smugglers and illegal aliens who decide
where the Border Patrol works, not the Border Patrol,” Taylor,
the retired agent, said. “They simply move laterally along the
border line once they are stopped in a certain area. Grijalva’s
legislation would do great harm to our national security because
they would restrict our agents from operating in key corridors
and make it easier for smugglers to predict the movements of our
agents and make adjustments.”
The Sky Island Alliance (SKI), an environmental group formed in
1991, has been the major impetus behind the wilderness protection
legislation and is opposed to motorized activity in the Coronado
National Forest.
Mike Quigley, the group’s wilderness campaign coordinator, does
not view border security and environmental protection as “an
either or choice.” The rugged nature of the terrain is a natural
barrier against illegal crossings, he has argued.
Kent Lundgren, chairman of the National Association of Former
Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), is less sanguine about public
policy measures that would remove agents from the security
calculus.
“It is imperative that the authority vested in agents and their
ability to defend our borders remain seamless and unencumbered,”
Lundgren wrote in an open letter to policymakers. “It is obvious
that a wilderness designation, the most restrictive of all
federal land designations, along our international border would
create adverse impediments in efforts to perform these difficult
and dangerous responsibilities.”
But even where there is a nexus between national security
initiatives and environmental concerns, federal lawmakers have
found a way to position themselves at points that erode both
simultaneously.
Congressional critics of the proposed border security fence who
have argued against the project on the basis of environmental
concerns somehow manage to avoid any discussion of the ecological
fallout from illegal immigration.
Rosemary Jenks, director of governmental relations for Numbers
USA, attended a field hearing in Brownsville, Texas, where the
security fence was discussed back in April 2008. The
congressional figures who took part in the hearing appeared to be
more interested in protecting illegal aliens than they did in
protecting natural resources, she laments.
“If all they do is restrict border security, while allowing
illegal immigration to continue unabated, they will be complicit
in destroying those public lands for future generations,” she
observed at the time. “The environmental devastation caused by
the illegal flow is far greater than the environmental impact of
a security fence at the border.”
While Grijalva tries to undercut immigration enforcement under
the guise of environmental protection, immigration politics may
have undercut a bigger part of the green agenda. The repackaged
global warming bill that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had crafted
in concert with Sen. Kerry and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was
dealt what is perhaps a fatal blow thanks in large part to
pending federal action designed to short-circuit the Arizona law.
“As I have previously indicated, a serious debate on energy
legislation is significantly compromised with the cynical
politics of comprehensive immigration reform hanging over the
Senate,” the South Carolina Republican declared in a released
statement.
Conservatives may be divided on the subject of immigration
reform, but perhaps they can agree such turnabout is fair play.
