University of Texas at El Paso to host Community Forum on the Border Fence / Wall

The University of Texas at El Paso will coordinate a campus-community forum about the border fence/wall from 10 am until noon, Tuesday, July 15 in the Union Cinema, Union Building East, First Floor.

UTEP faculty member Josiah Heyman, professor of anthropology, will moderate the forum.

Panelists include Veronica Escobar, El Paso County Commissioner; Fernando Garcia, director of the Border Network for Human Rights; and Chief Victor Manjarrez, Jr. from the El Paso Border Patrol Sector. John Sproul, program coordinator/manager of the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park, Center for Environmental Resource Management, has been invited to join the panel.

"It is of vital importance to our community that we discuss the Border Bence, also called te Border Wall, in an open and civil forum," Katleen Staudt, political science professor and director of the Center for Civic Engagement at UTEP, said. "Condtruction will have huge impacts on our economy, environment, and relationship with Mexico."

Each panelist will provide brief remarks. A short question-and-answer session will cap the event.

The program is free. Parking is available in the UTEP parking garage at Sun Bowl Drive and University Avenue.

Protest El Paso's Sham "Community Forums" on the Border Wall

Border walls are currently under construction in the El Paso sector, but the Border Patrol claims that they want to hear from the public. Just because they have no intention of making any changes to their plans apparently doesn’t mean that they are not ready to listen. According to the Border Patrol agent given the thankless task of staffing their “SBI Information Hotline” ( 1-866-215-6551 ) public comments received at “Community Forums” will be compiled in after action reports and passed along to the El Paso Sector Chief. They will NOT be released to the public or the press.

Since the public comments received at the “Community Forums” will be lost in a bureaucratic black hole, we need to make our voices heard outside these events. Protest outside and let the Border Patrol, the press, and the rest of the public know that we do not want a border wall. Make it clear that sham “Community Forums” are not enough. Let them know that asking for comments about a wall that is already under construction is a bad joke. Tell the press that this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by DHS Secretary Chertoff to pretend that there is public input so that he can get construction funds from Congressional Appropriations Committees. Send the message that we are not falling for it.

While you can carry signs and banners outside, they probably will not be allowed inside. If you choose to go in and give a comment wear a No Border Wall t-shirt. You can order one from
http://www.cafepress.com/noborderwall
and all proceeds go to the fight to stop the border wall.

Here are the times and locations for the “El Paso Sector Border Patrol SBI Community Forums”:

May 24
10:00 am – 2:00 pm
Chamizal National Memorial Park
800 S. San Marcial St.

May 27
5:30 pm – 8:00 pm
El Paso Community College
9050 Viscount Blvd.
Administrative Services Center

May 31
10:00 am – 2:00 pm
El Paso Community College
Mission Del Campo Campus
10700 Gateway East

If you want to know what to expect inside, read the following article describing one in Arizona:
Border fence plans subject of feds' open house in Arizona
Arizona Daily Star May 14 2008

The Omnibus Spending Bill requires that DHS Secretary Chertoff convince the Appropriations Committees that he is listening to public input before they will release the funds that he needs to build the border wall. These meetings are nothing more than a cynical attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of members of Congress. Show him that we are not fooled!

Submit written testimony to the Congressional Field Hearing on the Border Wall

On April 28 a Congressional Field Hearing was held in Brownsville, Texas. Titled Walls and Waivers: Expedited Construction of the Southern Border Wall and the Collateral Impacts on Communities and the Environment, it was intended to investigate the impacts that the border wall will have on border communities if it is constructed. Brownsville Diocese Bishop Reymundo Pena, Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, and many other border residents testified, explaining the damage that a border wall would cause to the assembled members of Congress. The committee will continue to accept written testimony until May 16th. This is an important opportunity to inform members of Congress, and to ensure that our voices become part of the official record. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has announced that since he waived the National Environmental Policy Act there will be no Final Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements, and it is unclear what will happen to the hundreds of public comments that they received. That makes the comments submitted to members of Congress in connection to the field hearing even more important.

Here are the guidelines for written submissions to the U.S.Congressional field hearing record. They need to be in by Friday, May 16th.

1. Head your comments with the hearing name and date: Walls and Waivers: Expedited Construction of the Southern Border Wall and the Collateral Impacts on Communities and the Environment, April 28, 2008.

2. Do not exceed 10 pages.

3. No cover page is needed, although your name, title, and the organization that you represent (if you have one), should also be stated at the beginning of your testimony.

4. Please use typed single-space letter-size (8½ x 11) white paper.

5. Send via the postal service as they are not equipped to handle mass amounts of e-mail. The mailing address is:
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

6. If you submit attachments or exhibits to your testimony please include them as separate items at the end of your testimony. If attachments are more than 10 pages (in addition to your original testimony) or on paper larger than 8½ x 11, we will not accept them for printing. Instead, you should paraphrase or quote as needed. If including charts, tables, maps, or photographs, they should be included on separate pages, not within the text of a page.

7. THINGS TO AVOID: Underlining, footnotes, capitalization of the whole document or solid blocks of text.

Submit Comments on New Border Walls in San Diego, El Paso, Tucson, Yuma, and Marfa

Ignoring the growing opposition to the construction of walls along the border, DHS Secretary Chertoff is pushing for hundreds of miles to be built in 2008. This despite the fact that Chertoff himself said back in July,

"Fencing is not the cure-all for the problem at the border. I think the fence has come to assume a certain kind of symbolic significance which should not obscure the fact that it is a much more complicated problem than putting up a fence which someone can climb over with a ladder or tunnel under with a shovel.”

Instead of searching for substantive solutions to border issues, Chertoff is plowing ahead with the hollow symbol of the wall. To quickly lay the groundwork the Department of Homeland Security has once again hired a private contractor, e2M, to sell the wall. In the past month they have issued a steady stream of reports that are intended to give the impression that the environmental and societal impacts of the wall have been thoroughly evaluated, and that the National Environmental Policy Act is being complied with. One of the requirements of NEPA is public input and openness, so brief public comment periods have been established for each sector's report. It is vital that they hear from us, as our comments will become part of the official public record. DHS has recently taken to lying to Congress and the press about the inclusion of public input into the border wall process. A flood of comments opposing the wall will make it more difficult for them to lie about public support for the border wall.

Below is the information needed to access and comment upon each of the newly released reports.

San Diego, California
4 miles will be added to the existing wall.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/san-diego-sector-eis/
To submit a public comment:
Electronically through this website: SAN DIEGO SECTOR EIS COMMENT FORM
By email to: SDcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
By Fax to: (757) 257-7643
The public comment period ends February 11, 2008

Also near San Diego, California
30 more miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/san-diego-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment:
By email to: SDEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 5, 2008

In El Paso, Texas
24.5 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/el-paso-sector-sea/
To submit a public comment:
By email to: DSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: El Paso Sector, Deming Station, Tactical Infrastructure SEA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 16, 2008

In Tucson, Arizona
7.6 miles of new wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/tucson-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment:
Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 31, 2008 at the Tucson Convention Center, 260 South Church Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
By email to: TSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 16, 2008.

Near Yuma, Arizona
14 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/yuma-sector-sea/
To submit a public comment:
Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 30, 2008 at the Shilo Inn Hotel, 1550 South Castle Dome Avenue, Yuma, Arizona 85365, (928) 782-9511
Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
By email to: YSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Yuma Sector Tactical Infrastructure SEA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 20, 2008

Near Marfa, Texas
11 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/marfa-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment (if you missed the January 23rd protest):
Electronically through the Web site at: MARFA SECTOR EA COMMENT FORM
By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
By fax to: (757) 299-8444
The public comment period ends February 6, 2008.

Protest the Border Wall in Marfa, Texas on January 23

We invite all those in Big Bend who believe the river should unite us with Mexico and its citizens rather than dividing us to join in a press confernce and peaceful demonstration against the Border Wall on January 23, 2008, at 3:30 p.m. on the public sidewalk adjacent to the Paisano Hotel in Marfa, Texas.

Following the BIG BEND NO BORDER WALL COALITION press conference, Homeland Security will have an Open House in the Paisano Hotel which is hosted by their contracting environmental out-sourcing company.

To read the Draft Environmental Assessment on the Border Wall in Marfa, Texas, go to the website of the private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security:
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/marfa-sector-ea

Del Rio, Texas Border Wall Public Comment Period Open Until February 5

The Department of Homeland Security has announced that 4 miles of new border wall (or border fence, or tactical infrastructure) will be built near Del Rio, Texas beginning in the Spring of 2008. A Draft Environmental Assessment has been released, and public comments will be accepted through February 5th, 2008.

The Draft Environmental Assessment for the Del Rio Sector is available for download at. http://www.borderfencenepa.com/del-rio-sector-ea/ . A paper copy may be requested as well.

You can submit a public comment on the Del Rio, Texas border wall in one of the following ways:

a) Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time on January 24, 2008 at the at the Ramada Inn-Del Rio, 2101 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio, Texas 78840.
b) Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
c) By email to: DRcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.comd) By mail to: Del Rio Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
e) By Fax to: (757) 299-4101

When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as intended for the Del Rio Sector Draft EA.

All submitted comments are supposed to become a part of the public record. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act the Final Environmental Assessment should include responses to the public comments that are received.

In fiscal 2007 the Del Rio Sector, where there has never been a wall, saw a 45% drop in apprehensions of border crossers. In contrast, the San Diego sector, where there has been a wall for over a decade, saw a 7% increase. DHS has yet to explain the rationale for importing this failed and expensive project from San Diego to Del Rio, where they seem to be having great success without it.

It is especially important that the public comment on the Del Rio Draft EA because it is a fundamentally flawed document that in no way meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The most glaring deficiency is its description of the purpose for carrying out the proposed action. Rather than establishing national security or the reduction of illegal activity as the purpose, the Draft EA states,

“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP Del Rio Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (1.2 - 4)

The “proposed action” is described as follows:

“CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure consisting of primary pedestrian fence; concrete retaining wall; and associated patrol and access roads, and lights along two discrete areas of the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Del Rio Sector, Texas” (1.3 – 5)

If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose. This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.

The private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security is apparently more interested in pleasing their employer than complying with NEPA. Instead of producing misleading document with a predetermined outcome, they should go back to the drawing board and produce an unbiased assessment of the environmental and cultural impacts that the border wall will have. A project of this magnitude requires a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a far less rigorous Environmental Assessment. In either case, the final document should provide objective information rather than a sales pitch.

It is crucial that everyone with these and other concerns about the border wall submit them in writing. The Department of Homeland Security will interpret silence as a lack of interest.

California Border Wall Public Comment Period Open Until January 24

The Department of Homeland Security has announced that 44.6 miles of new border wall (or border fence, or tactical infrastructure) will be built near Calexico, California beginning in the Spring of 2008. A Draft Environmental Assessment has been released, and public comments will be accepted through January 24th, 2008.

The Draft Environmental Assessment for the El Centro Sector is available for download at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/el-centro-sector-ea/ . A paper copy may be requested as well.

You can submit a public comment on the California border wall in one of the following ways:

(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Pubic Open House to be held on January 9 2008 at the Imperial Valley Expo, 200 East Second Street, in Imperial, California.
(b) Electronically through the web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
(c) By email to: ECcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(d) By mail to: El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(e) By fax to: (757) 299-5585

When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as intended for the El Centro Sector Draft EA.

All submitted comments are supposed to become a part of the public record. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act the Final Environmental Assessment should include responses to the public comments that are received.

It is especially important that the public comment on the El Centro Draft EA because it is a fundamentally flawed document that in no way meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The most glaring deficiency is its description of the purpose for carrying out the proposed action. Rather than establishing national security or the reduction of illegal activity as the purpose, the Draft EA states,

“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP El Centro Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (ES-1)

The “proposed action” is described as follows:

“CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure consisting of four discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence, lighting, and roads; one section of lighting; and access roads along the U.S. / Mexico International Border in the USBP El Centro Sector, California.” (1.3 – 3)

If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” (2.3.1 – 6) may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose. This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.

The private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security is apparently more interested in pleasing their employer than complying with NEPA. Instead of producing misleading document with a predetermined outcome, they should go back to the drawing board and produce an unbiased assessment of the environmental and cultural impacts that the border wall will have. A project of this magnitude requires a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a far less rigorous Environmental Assessment. In either case, the final document should provide objective information rather than a sales pitch.

It is crucial that everyone with these and other concerns about the border wall submit them in writing. The Department of Homeland Security will interpret silence as a lack of interest.