It’s not surprising that the national media has taken to covering the border fence on a fairly regular basis.  What is surprising is that the country’s most well-respected news outlets manage to consistently misunderstand one of the issue’s important nuances.  

There will be–as The Herald has pointed out–houses and businesses on the south side of the border fence.  But will they be on the “Mexican side of the fence?” No.

The Department of Homeland Security is not selling a sliver of the country to Mexico.  The land south of the fence will not be abandoned or informally ceded.  It will not become, as the L.A. Times suggests incoherently, “a holding site for prisoners of war.” 

At April’s congressional hearing, Border Patrol chief Ronald Vitiello confirmed that the land on the south side of the fence will be patrolled by BP.  In fact, the fence is being built north of the levee in order to provide BP agents with a pre-constructed road on the south side. 

In other words, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, will not be disregarded.  No land north of the Rio Grande will become Mexican territory.

Do reporters from outside of the Valley not understand these details, or are they referring to “the Mexican side of the fence” figuratively? 

The New York Times has done this at least twice: here and here.

The L.A. Times did it here.

Newsweek did it here.

The Christian Science Monitor did it here .

Are all of these reporters intent on extending the “Mexican side” metaphor?  If they are, some attention must also be paid to the dry details of sovereignty and ownership. 

After the fence is constructed, the land south of the barrier might be mistreated and environmentally degradated.  Its inhabitants might be marginalized and unfairly compensated.  But it will be American soil. 

The federal goverment is getting ready to construct the border fence, and some of the land it will be building on belongs to Cameron County and the city of Brownsville.  This puts local politicians in a precarious position.  Will they refuse to cooperate with DHS to show their disapproval?  Nearly all commissioners, city and county, have spoken out against the fence. 

The question of how local politicians should respond to DHS’ advances became an issue earlier this year,  adding to existing tension on the City Commission. 

Both commissions continue to deal with the topic of the fence, which is inevitably raised at monthly meetings.  At yesterday’s county meeting, commissioners chose not to join a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. 

At the city meeting, a commissioner mentioned that he had discussed the possibility of alternatives to the fence with DHS officials.   The specifics of these alternatives weren’t discussed, and the commissioners were hesitant to say much “before we see anything in writing.” 

During his presidential campaign:

John McClung, President and CEO of the Texas Produce Association

Ken Merritt, Private Citizen

Laura Peterson, Senior Policy Advisor, Taxpayers for Common Sense

Zack Taylor, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Retired), Association of Former Border Patrol Officers

McClung: “We’re not really talking about a border wall here, we’re talking about a ’south of the border wall.’”

“We haven’t been told how farmers will access the river…we have to have access 24/7; it’s a very practical kind of problem.”

“Nothing has been said about the value of land south of the levee after the wall is constructed.”

Merritt: Until last year, worked for Fish and Wildlife in the RGV. He worked for 30 years with F & W as a biologist.

“Level of surveys (at wildlife refuges along the border) did not allow adequate time for environmental “

“Ocelot Jaguarundi will be very much impacted by the wall.”

“We have over 300 fires on U.S. Fish and Wildlife properties every year. How will these fires be dealt with?”

Peterson:

“Border wall as currently envisioned will cost billions of dollars alone.”

“Procedural short cuts…almost guarantee misspending.”

“First fence in San Diego did little to stop immigration until Operation Gatekeeper added border patrol agents to the area.”

“The current border wall plan…is more likely to pump money into an ineffective project…”

And they are:

Bishop of Brownsville Raymundo J. Pena

Betty Perez, local land owner, member of the No Border Wall Coalition

Rosemary Jenks of Numbers USA, immigration think tank

Joan Neuhaus Schaan, Houston-Harris Homeland Security Advisory Council

Pena: “No wall is high enough or wide enough to wall out the economic forces that bring undocumented immigrants into this country.”

Perez, whose ancestors were recipients of a Spanish land grant: “The longer you hold onto the land, the more the land becomes who you are.

“The wall and levee-wall (in Hidalgo County) will devastate the Valley’s ecological corridor.”

Jenks: Shows a map of the impact of illegal immigration on the Cabeza Prieta refuge in Arizona.

“Illegal immigration turned a pristine refuge into a trash-strewn war zone.”

She shows photos of cars “often full of drugs” abandoned on the refuge.

Neuhaus Schaan: “Criminal organizations outman and outgun law enforcement.”

“Ranch owners have trouble leaving their ranches unattended.”

Q & A Time:

Grijalva addresses the bishop. “Do you think people who don’t live along the border perhaps have the wrong impression of what these border communities are?”

Pena: “I think that the sister cities that exist along the border in many respects are one city–most of them legally, some of the illegally, to visit family.

“The wall in Texas, like the one currently in Arizona, would be very destructive to our families and our businesses.”

Tancredo challenges Bishop Pena:

“Do you think a border should exist?” he asks. “A fence might be the most humane to protect that border–because it will stop rapes and murders.”

Before Pena can respond, Tancredo moves on to the next question.

Hunter also addresses Pena.

“Maybe you should talk to bishops in the San Diego area,” he said, alluding to decreases in crime after a double fence was built in his district.

The panels of congressmen and witnesses appear to be split when it comes to their positions on the fence–this should make the next few hours interesting.

Now it’s time for congressmen to ask questions of border patrol officials, among others…

Grijalva jumps right in. He asks why some areas along the border (like River Bend Country Club) have been exempted from fencing…

Vitello, the BP chief, says that the fence’s path was determined after evaluating where security concerns were present.

Now Bordallo asks questions–again of Vitello. It looks like it’s going to be a long afternoon for him.

She implies that the federal government did an inadequate job of meeting with communities along the border. The audience in SET-B is eating this up.

Vitello says there are 400 landowners who will be affected by the fence. Of those, he says, about 270 are ready to proceed. As far as the Herald knows, these are new numbers.

Now’s it Tancredo’s turn to ask questions…

He questions Ned Norris of the Tohono O’odham nation.

Norris’ tribe lives on the border in Arizona. He says environmental and archaelogical surveys have been inadequate. Tancredo wants to know if a fence won’t leave the tribe better off. He mentions intra-tribe drug problems.

Norris maintains that the only way to move forward is to be allowed to “come to the table with the federal government.”

Napolitano asks Norris “were you asked for input?”

“We had some impact to share thoughts and positions,” he said. Earlier, Norris mentioned that a tribal graveyard was destroyed by officials in charge of fence construction.

Napolitano wants Norris to discuss how his concerns have been ignored by DHS. Her own position on the fence is thinly veiled in the question’s language.

Hunter asks Norris almost the same as question as Tancredo did a few minutes ago. “What if the fence had points of entry?” Hunter asks. “Would that work for the tribe.”

“We didn’t cross the border, Norris tells Hunter. “The border crossed us.”

“We’ve had access to the river since time immemorial,” he said. “And we don’t think a fence is the answer.”

Cong. Reyes mentions his respect for BP agents, but says of Vitello:

“He’s going to toe the party line–he’s got to if he wants to maintain his job as chief of the sector.”

It might be the best line of the hearing so far. The crowd laughs. I can’t make out Vitello’s reaction.

Now it’s Cong. Faleomavaega of America Samoa’s turn. He asks the DOI rep. “If the fence is not built by the end of 2008, will all hell break lose?”

DOI rep: “Sir, I don’t have the answer to that question.”

Vitello responds with some more helpful numbers: of the 316 miles along the border in the RGV sector, there will only be 70 miles of fencing.

Now Ortiz’s turn.

“We have created a big funnel. WIth a 2,000 mile but 700 miles of fencing…they don’t think they can around those fences?” He asks the question to no one in particular. Now a question about the Canadian border.

Vitello: Might not be same kind of tactical infrastructure on the northern border, but it will be a part of the solution there, too.”

He reiterates: “The solution is not just walls and fences.”

Now Ortiz digresses, asking about OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) apprehended along the border.

Vitello: The policy of giving OTMs court dates (policy nicknamed “catch and release”) instead of detaining them has ended.

Ortiz’s point is that thousands of people came through during the life of the “catch and release” policy.  In the fence, he says, politicians have mistakenly “seen the light.”

First we hear from a member of the Department of the Interior, who calls calls the effect of the fence “a mixed bag of environmental benefits and adverse affects.”

Next is Ronald Vitello, head of RGV’s Border Patrol. Vitello discusses the fence’s importance to border security, though he says it won’t be enough on it own. It must be complemented by BP deployment.

He also says alignment has changed to reflect community and environmental concerns.

Chad Foster, mayor of Eagle Pass, has long been one of the fence’s biggest critics.  Eagle Pass was the first entity sued by the federal government over land for the fence.
“We’ve met with Sec. Chertoff…and he said Congress tied his hands (with waivers).”

“Most illegals enter through ports of entry,” Foster said. “No border fence will solve these problems.”

Dr. Juliet Garcia, UTB’s President,  is up next.

She outlines the university’s interactions with the federal government over the fence.

“We could not in good conscience sign the document granting right of entry (to federal surveyors).”

“Seizing land for a border fence poses a great risk to our property investment,” Garcia said.  “To support a plan that would build an 18-foot-high steel barrier between two friendly countries would directly contravene our mission and destroy the campus climate…”

We’re here at UTB, where the hearing has just begun. People are still trickling in, including local politicians, religious officials and landowners along the border.

Cong. Raul Grijalva brings the hearing (”Walls and waivers….”) to order.

“The issue behind the hearing today is a significant one,” he said. He thanks Cong. Ortiz for hosting.

Grijalva continues: “To examine the history, culture, economics of the border and then to decide the only solution is a 700 mile fence…is simply a failure of leadership.”

He gives Cong. Bordallo (D-GU) the floor.

Bordallo make a noble attempt to link her constituency in Guam to the fence’s construction–mentioning the importance of respectable public service.

Now Tom Tancredo has the floor for introductory remarks…

He speaks of the environmental threat caused by illegal immigration. “Tons of trash and human waste are left behind every year. Paths destroy fragile environments along the border…”

Now Duncan Hunter, who calls Cong. Reyes (D-TX) “the best border patrol chief in history.”

“One of the reasons I chose to be here is because I wrote the border fence bill of 2006, which established 854 miles of double fence.”

It was necessary, he said, as he found in San Diego.

In S.D.: There were criminal gangs committing an avg. of 11 murders per year, crossing back and forth along the border. The fence “put the border gangs out of business because they lost their ability to move back and forth.”

“With the fence, we took away their mobility.”

In Yuma, the fence decreased the number of arrests by 96% he said.

Now Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has the floor. Reyes is a former U.S. Border Patrol chief of 9 years.

Because of his BP connections, Reyes might the most interesting voice on the panel.

“Fencing should be utilized where it makes sense,” he says.

“For 10% of the border we need to consider the potential for fencing. I certainly don’t think we need 700 miles of fencing.”

In El Paso, the fence is splitting, individuals can walk across…

“We’re better off working with the Mex. government where we both co-manage the border.”

He discusses the Merida Initiative, a binational border security effort. Mexico had its own border patrol until the early 60s, he says–an interesting anecdote.

Now Grace Napolitano (D-CA) has the floor. “It’s good to be home,” she says. She grew up in Brownsville.

“Nothing is going to change until immigration policy is taken care of she says.”

“The fence,” she adds, “is ludicrous.”

There are cheers. The room is now packed.

Grijalva asks that the audience refrain from applause–the crowd’s bias has already become clear.

Now Cong. Falemavaeja:

37 fed laws have been waived by Chertoff, he says. “There’s an unwritten rule…that we should always respect the views of district representatives.”

It’s a 2,000-mile border line, he says. In CA there should be some fencing, but there seem to be some exceptions…there are little potholes.

“It’s my intent to look at closely on the treaty existing b/w U.S. and Mexico along the border lines. Are we honoring our treaty with Mexico considering the border line itself?”

The last speaker, Cong. Solomon Ortiz speaks briefly.

“Residents along the American border are the most affected by border security measures.”

South Texas has its culture to lose, he adds.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is hosting a congressional hearing on the border fence tomorrow morning at UTB’s SET-B auditorium. For those of you who can’t make it, On the Fence hopes to be blogging live.

We got the chance to meet with Congressman Grijalva along the Rio Grande this morning, and he was candid about the hearing’s importance. Because of its dense population along the river and several nature reserves that stand to be affected by the fence, Brownsville has become a flash point in the debate over the barrier. Grijalva, who serves on the House Committee on Natural Resources, readily admitted that these are the reasons the hearing was scheduled in the Valley.

With the presence of supporters of the fence, like Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), both staunchly anti-immigration former presidential candidates, the hearing will be more than an articulation of the Committee on Natural Resources’ complaints about the fence and a lack of congressional oversight.

There will be, Grijalva predicts, a lively debate. The hearing begins at 10 am.

In Sunday’s Herald we ran a story about landowners along the border who will find themselves behind the border fence.

Thanks to Pamela Taylor, one of the residents featured in the story, for sharing the map DHS sent to her earlier this month. The image shows exactly where the fence will run near Taylor’s property. By taking a look at the maps DHS has provided to individual landowners, The Herald is starting to get an idea of the path the fence will follow in the Brownsville area. A provisional map of the fence in the Lower Rio Grande Valley was released four months ago, but as DHS has long said, those plans will likely change.

Detailed maps provided to local landowners give us an idea of the properties feds will have to purchase before beginning the fence’s construction. The maps also make it clear–as today’s story notes–that some homes will be left between the fence and the Rio Grande.

And unless the fence is constructed on their property, these landowners could be left without access through the barrier, and without financial compensation.

Paul and Tim Loop stand along the bank of the Rio Grande Thursday. The two brothers farm 1,000 acres along the Rio Grande–nearly all of which will soon be behind the border fence. The Loops are concerned about access to their land after the fence is built. Brad Doherty/The Brownsville Herald