A Different View of the Wall

A good friend, Fernando Garcia, writes today in the El Paso Times.

Whether the construction of the border wall will be finished at the end of this administration is still unknown, but one fact that has a large degree of certainty is the profound damage already made by Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol officials to the public debate on issues concerning the rights and opinions of border residents.

In a desperate attempt to expedite the construction of the wall, current administration officials have not only been willing to bypass more than a dozen laws and provisions, but now they have tried consistently to convince public opinion, and themselves, of the community support behind the construction of the border wall.

Moreover, they have created a quite artificial consultation process to manage the congressional mandate of including border communities in the discussion of this issue.

Sadly, they have done all of that at the expense of misrepresenting the opinions and sentiments of people living on the border, specifically those in El Paso and Southern New Mexico.

Just recently, Border Patrol officials of the El Paso Sector, including Chief Manjarrez with a column on the June 8 Times Opinion page, have lined up to argue that border residents of our area have "overwhelmingly" showed support for the border wall at community forums they have organized.

But let's see.

For instance, the format of such community forums only had the intention to show case DHS projects and to inform about border fence plans and designs that had already been approved.

The possibilities to have substantial discussion and to get residents' opinions were conveniently minimized; since, of course, taking the risk to have critical community input might have derailed, or at least questioned the whole border wall strategy.

It is precisely here where the consultation becomes artificial.

As if by just mentioning the amount of such forums that had taken place without mentioning the formats and mechanisms will do the work.

Moreover, almost all community forums organized by DHS experienced a low turnout, showing a concerning disconnection between border residents and the Border Patrol.

Therefore, it is surprising and, honestly, quite daring to assume and publicly declare that the majority of border residents support the border fence based on a fictitious consultation process and on misleading perceptions.

Fortunately, facts and reality cannot be overshadowed just by mentioning unnamed and unscientific polls and surveys or by the sole intention of a government institution's propaganda.

Unfortunately, a real community consultation on the border wall was, is, and will continue to be missing, at least for now and for the rest of this administration.

Finally, DHS and immigration officials could take the political decision to ignore the dissenting expressions on the border wall. They could dismiss the multiple actions (lawsuits and resolutions) taken by many border counties and cities, including El Paso County, that questioned the DHS border wall strategy.

They could try to obliterate those 6,000 residents of El Paso County that, in just one week, signed a community petition to challenge the construction of the border wall and its impacts on their lives and rights.

They could, at the end, decide to complete the construction of the border wall against the will of border communities.

But what they cannot, and should not, do is to misrepresent the opinions of border residents to build an ill-conceived border wall.

At least, not in our name.

Fernando Garcia is executive director of th e El Paso-based Border Network for Human Rights.

bh