"The benefit to national security is so minimal when you compare it to the cost of destroying habitat and opening up the area to further erosion and flooding," said Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), whose district includes the affected land. "Nobody asked me what to do, and this is my area."
In February 2004, the California Coastal Commission voted unanimously to oppose the project as planned, ruling that it was overly damaging to the environment. Commission officials urged the government to replace the primary fence with a larger, stronger one that would run from the canyons west to the beach and add a secondary fence only in places where illegal immigrants tend to cross, a plan they say would accomplish the security goal while mitigating environmental impacts.
| ___ Guide ___ Personal Preparedness Guide
 Dirty bombs, anthrax and smallpox: an informative guide to understanding the threat and protecting you and your family.
| | |
|
Federal officials refused. Commission officials are frustrated by what they see as a lack of willingness by government negotiators to compromise.
"We're not trying to stop projects that are in the interest of national security. No one is saying don't fortify the border," said Mark Delaplaine, one of the commission's coastal planners. "I just don't see why they can't bend a little."
Bruce Reznik, executive director of San Diego Baykeeper, one of several environmental groups suing the U.S. government over the fence, said: "You've just sent the message that whenever we want to do a project as a government, we'll do whatever is convenient despite the laws that are here to protect Americans. It's a bad precedent to set."
But Border Patrol officials insist that additional fencing would prevent thousands of illegal immigrants who walk through the wetlands from continuing to damage the habitat, along with the agents who chase after them.
"The fact that we have a large number of people illegally crossing the border is damaging the environment," Bonner said. "We could protect the environment and protect our borders from potential terrorists coming across."
A decade ago this was a no man's land. Gangs roved the area. Illegal immigrants faced robberies, rapes and death as they crossed the largely unprotected border. More than 450,000 people were arrested by San Diego border agents when the primary fence was erected in 1994. Last year 138,608 arrests were made.
Deterrence Factor
Just beyond the fences, million-dollar tract homes have been erected. A shopping center has been built. Horseback riders and hikers are regular sights, their paths crossing with border agents whizzing by.
"The normalcy of life that has returned to that area is directly attributable to that fence," Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who has advocated the fence for more than a decade.
In fiscal 2004, border arrests nationally jumped 7.9 percent over the previous fiscal year, but arrests in the 66 miles that make up the San Diego sector's portion of the border dropped 27 percent, to 35,539. Agents here say the fence is deterring crossers from trying, or at least pushing them farther east.
But they say there is still a danger.
"We've caught people from North Korea coming through that portion of fence. We've caught people from nations who sponsor terrorists coming through that portion of the fence. All Americans now understand that you have to know what's coming across your border and who's coming across your border," Hunter said. "This is something that is long overdue."
