Tuesday, April 8, 2008
It seems like the border fence, which will have dubious benefit in reducing undocumented immigration, is in the news every day. Adam Liptak of the N.Y. Times writes that "[s]curing the nation’s borders is so important, Congress says, that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, must have the power to ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all.
Last week, Mr. Chertoff issued waivers suspending more than 30 laws he said could interfere with “the expeditious construction of barriers” in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The list included laws protecting the environment, endangered species, migratory birds, the bald eagle, antiquities, farms, deserts, forests, Native American graves and religious freedom. The secretary of homeland security was granted the power in 2005 to void any federal law that might interfere with fence building on the border. For good measure, Congress forbade the courts to second-guess the secretary’s determinations. So long as Mr. Chertoff is willing to say it is necessary to void a given law, his word is final. "
Is it worth bending the rule of law for a fence of no value to effectively addressing immigrtaion control concerns AND results in deaths?
For an op/ed on how the border fence is indicative of American insecurity by Gregory Rodriguez, click here.