Saturday, August 1, 2009

U.S. must tell landowners affected by border fence how they can access their land, federal judge says

U.S. must tell landowners affected by border fence how they can access their land, federal judge says

BROWNSVILLE — A federal judge has ordered the U.S. government to clearly tell property owners affected by the fence along the Mexican border how they will be able to access their land.

It has taken weeks for the government to hammer out such an explanation for five landowners east of Brownsville who have been fighting in court for specifics and clearer language.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen told Justice Department lawyers that they need to do the same for the approximately 255 other South Texas landowners who have not settled their cases.

"I think the landowners deserve that," Hanen said. If the government is taking their land they should know exactly what is being taken and how they will get to it, he said.

Nearly all of the promised 670 miles of vehicle and pedestrian barriers are complete, but the government has run into stiff resistance in South Texas. While the fence segments in the area run in relatively straight lines, the Rio Grande twists and turns — leaving thousands of acres stuck between fence and river.

Friday’s status hearing, a step toward trials scheduled for early next year in which juries will decide how much the government should pay landowners, also revealed a significant change by the government as it tries to finish one of the last segments of the fence seven months after it was supposed to be completed.

Until now, the government has bought for the border fence only strips of land on the north side of levees that protect low-lying areas of South Texas from the Rio Grande. But after struggling to sort out access rights for property owners, the government decided it will also condemn the land directly under the levee.

Kimberli Loessin, an attorney for several property owners east of Brownsville, said the government planned to take the land under the levee for the easternmost 13-mile border fence segment. It was unclear whether the government planned to condemn the levee land in other areas, but an assistant U.S. attorney said the government hopes to begin filing amended papers to condemn land in August.

While Border Patrol and other federal agencies have the right to drive along the top of the levee, they did not own it. That made it impossible to guarantee property owners rights to drive along portions of the levee to access land that was stranded in the no man’s land between the fence and the Rio Grande.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Holes in the Wall

AUSTIN -- As the Department of Homeland Security marches down the Texas border serving condemnation lawsuits to frightened landowners, South Texas residents Eloisa Tamez and Daniel Garza wonder why their modest homes are being condemned while the property of their wealthier neighbors remains untouched.

In Hidalgo County, a 1.73-mile proposed fence will cut through the tiny town of Granjeno then stop abruptly at the property line of a 6,000-acre development owned by a wealthy Dallas oil baron, and a close friend of President George W. Bush. In Cameron County a 1.63-mile proposed fence will cut through the backyard of several modest homes and stop at the edge of a resort and golf course.

The Observer's investigative reporter Melissa del Bosque traveled up and down the Texas border, speaking with landowners, local officials, congressional offices and Homeland Security officials about the border fence. What she got from Homeland Security was a barrier of secrecy and unanswered questions about the methodology used in the placement of a fence that targets the powerless.

Chad Foster, Mayor of Eagle Pass, a city being sued by Homeland Security, summed it up best when he called the border wall a $49-billion boondoggle that is enriching private companies at the taxpayers' expense.

The Texas Observer previews this investigative piece today on its Web site at www.texasoberver.org

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Border Fence Would Slice Through Private Land

"I'm not going down without a fight," says Eloisa Tamez, whose property -- in her family since 1767 -- would be bisected by the proposed fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Photograph by N.C. Aizenman, Washington Post.

"People in the rest of the U.S. just don't understand the reality of what's going on here," said Fred Garcia, whose family's farmland would be divided. Photograph by N.C. Aizenman, Washington Post.


Border Fence Would Slice Through Private Land
Families on U.S.-Mexico Line Fighting Plan

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post
Saturday, February 16, 2008; A01

EL CALABOZ, Tex. -- In the 240 years since the Spanish Crown granted Eloisa Tamez's colonial ancestors title to this flat, grassy expanse along the Rio Grande's northern bank, her family has steadily lost its holdings to the Mexican War of Independence, the U.S. annexation of Texas and the Great Depression.

Now Tamez faces what could prove the final blow: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed building a section of the U.S.-Mexico border fence mandated by Congress directly through the last three acres of the family's original 12,000-acre tract.

But the 72-year-old nursing professor has a message for any government officials who expect her to leave quietly. "I'm not going down without a fight," Tamez said, her dark eyes narrowing as she gazed beyond her back yard toward a field where she used to pick tomatoes as a child. "My father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather farmed this land. This is the land that gave me my life and my spirit. . . . I will fight this all the way."

Across South Texas, dozens of landowners and municipal leaders are making similar vows, mounting a concerted effort to prevent government surveyors from even examining their properties, let alone erecting the fence on them.

Their resistance raises questions about how quickly the Homeland Security Department would be able to build an effective border fence at a time when politicians across the spectrum insist that it must be completed before further solutions to the presence of millions of illegal immigrants can be considered.

Under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the department was instructed to secure about one-third of the 2,000-mile U.S. border with 700 miles of double-layered fencing. However, department officials have since whittled that down to a plan for about 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers to be finished by the end of 2008.

Last year, the department completed the first 123 miles of vehicle barriers and 165 miles of fencing, much of it on federally owned land in Arizona, California and New Mexico. This year, a substantial portion of the remaining miles of fencing probably will be installed in Texas, where much border land is held privately -- and where ties to Mexico remain strong.

In December, officials sent warning letters to 135 private landowners, municipalities, universities, public utility companies and conservation societies along the border that had turned away surveyors. Landowners were given 30 days to change their minds or face legal action. More than 100 of them -- 71 in Texas -- let the deadline pass.

Over the past several weeks, U.S. attorneys acting on behalf of the Homeland Security Department have been filing lawsuits against the holdouts. Already, federal district judges have ordered one landowner in California, 11 in Arizona and 11 in Texas -- including the small city of Eagle Pass -- to temporarily surrender their properties. The mayor of Eagle Pass, which is located about 100 miles southwest of San Antonio and stands to lose 233 acres of city-owned land, said the city is planning to appeal. Suits are also pending against 14 landowners in California and 44 in South Texas, including Tamez.

News of the lawsuits has sent a chill through the chain of tiny centuries-old South Texas settlements that dot the Rio Grande like beads on a necklace. Like Tamez, many residents of these hamlets are descendants of the Spanish settlers who colonized the region in the late 1700s. But significant numbers of them are now impoverished, and even those who have become middle-class professionals, such as Tamez, lack deep pockets for a legal battle.

Nonetheless, many are following the example of Tamez, a widow who has sought free legal help from the Los Angeles-based nonprofit Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

Much of their determination stems from practical concerns. According to preliminary maps, large stretches of the proposed fence would be located more than a mile inland from the river, cutting off substantial swaths of land.

In at least some cases the landowners' stubbornness appears to be paying off: For Daniel Garza, 74, who lives with his wife in Granjeno, a one-road town of fewer than 500 residents about 55 miles east of Tamez's home, the fence would require demolishing their modest two-bedroom ranch. The prospect had kept Garza pacing at night. Though the town cemetery holds the graves of his ancestors, by the time Garza was a young man, the family no longer owned enough property from which to make a living. So for the next 35, years he and his wife traveled to California every season to work as migrant farmers, harvesting and canning vegetables. Yet they never considered settling there.

"This is my home," Garza said recently, crinkling his weathered face in a sad smile as he stood on his front porch, a few feet from the exact spot where he was born. "How can I ever leave it?"

A week ago, homeland security officials announced that Garza will not have to. Under a compromise brokered by local officials, the department will help build up levees in the area to 18 feet high -- eliminating the need for 22 miles of the proposed fence, including the stretch that would have run through Granjeno.

Still, that plan does nothing for most other South Texas landowners, including siblings Nydia and Fred Garcia. The fence would mean that 25 acres of the 80 acres of farmland that they and another brother jointly own would be on the Mexican side.

"Look at all this," said Nydia, 41, as she drove in one of the family's white pickup trucks through a field of sprouting sugar cane that stretched to the horizon. "All this would be behind the fence."

The Garcias, who work as project manager at a construction company and as manager of an Internet phone network at a hospital, acknowledge that they derive only a small portion of their income from the rent they charge a farmer to raise crops on their land. Like Garza, their opposition to the fence, they said, is ultimately rooted in something much deeper than economics. It is about preserving the Mexican American border culture that is their heritage.

Reminders of that way of life abound in the boxes of sepia-tinted photographs of sober-faced forebears they keep stacked in one of the family's garages. And despite the intrusions of modern life, the Garcias, like Tamez and the Garzas, have managed to keep up many of the old rituals.

Every Sunday they crowd into their tiny Catholic church, where parishioners whose family trees have been intertwined for generations join in the Spanish service under the benevolent gaze of a coffee-skinned statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe. And when the Garcias walk their land, every step seems to bring back a memory.

"Over here, this is where we used to ride our horses when we were kids," said Fred, 38, pointing. "Oh, and that palo blanco tree is where we still hold our annual Labor Day barbecue and dove hunt. . . . And there, that's where we used to swim in the river. Right on the other side, that's Mexico."

Their anger at being asked to sacrifice all that, Fred said, is that much greater because they believe the fence would deter neither terrorists nor illegal immigrants -- who many here are convinced would simply tunnel under the fence, climb over it with ladders, or avoid it by heading for the sections of the border, including large stretches of South Texas, that will remain un-fenced.

"People in the rest of the U.S. just don't understand the reality of what's going on here," he said.

In addition to building up the levees, local officials have suggested a variety of alternatives to the fence, including deepening the Rio Grande with dams so that it is more difficult to cross and can be patrolled by boat.

Fred Garcia thinks it would be enough to maintain the beefed-up Border Patrol presence that he has noticed in the region since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Every time I come out here, they're on me in minutes," he said.

As if on a cue, a white sport-utility vehicle with the Border Patrol's distinctive green stripe loomed in the rearview mirror, lights flashing. In the distance, three more SUVs converged, and several men stepped out, wearing uniforms of the National Guard, which has supplemented the Border Patrol over the past year.

Nydia stopped the car and rolled down her window as an agent walked up.

"Hi there," he said, leaning into the window. "May I ask what you're doing here?"

"This is my property," she answered.

"Really? All of this?"

"Yup," she said, a slight edge creeping into her voice. "All of this is my property."

As the officer strolled away, Fred rolled his eyes.

"My God, what's next," he said. "Are we going to have to bring our passports every time we come back here?"

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

They Hate Us For Our Thongs

[A U.S border patrol vehicle cruises along a road that follows the fence separating the United States and Mexico in southeastern Arizona near the Mexican town of Naco. Associated Press photo by Guillermo Arias.]










[The U.S.-Mexico border fence near Naco, Mexico. For $1.2 billion, the United States will be able to erect a barrier a little less than 700 miles long to seal off 2,000 miles of the southern American border. Associated Press photo by Guillermo Arias.]

$1.2 billion fence adds little or no security

By Luis Alberto Urrea

Sunday, February 10, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle

The Border Patrol agent was a 30-year veteran. He walked me across a patch of desolation to the Mexican border. There was no border fence there yet. Just Arizona desert, a dusty dry creekbed, and Mexican desert beyond, indistinguishable from the United States.

If you want to hear philosophical reflections from an agent, you have to talk to old-timers. The hundreds of new Homeland Security-era officers who have flooded the border are extremely well trained - the Border Patrol academy is a monster among law enforcement training programs - and they are certainly gung-ho. But the old guys will tell you the new ones don't know the territory very well. There are fine points it might take 30 years to learn.

"My dad was a rancher," the veteran agent said. "I'm a rancher. I come out here and you know who I chase? Ranch hands and farmers." He wiped his brow, toed some possibly Mexican dirt. "Buddy, I am chasing my own people."

This hotly contested stretch of sand and cinders stands to become a beneficiary of the $1.2 billion border fence that will seal off the southern American border. Well, it will seal off part of it. OK - it will seal off small areas of the border. Just east of where we stood, for example, the fence will stop. There are big scary mountains in place that will be included in the plan as natural immigration barriers. These are the same mountains over which many of the undocumented are already walking to avoid the good men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol.

But, the thinking goes, we have to start somewhere. On the Mexican side, among much gnashing of teeth, there is a joke that has been circulating the whole time. The gist of it is: Let them put up a fence! They'll hire us to build it! Then, when it's done, we'll run the tourist concessions and the taco stands. Then, when they get tired of it, they'll hire us to tear it down!

What are you getting for your 1 billion tax dollars? Well, you're getting a little less than 700 miles of fence. Much of it double-fencing, but substantial segments to be single-fence. That's the kind of security that has so successfully kept kids out of closed softball fields and skinny-dippers from midnight visits to neighborhood swimming pools.

Al Qaeda will weep with frustration when they encounter it and just go home.

Critics like to point out that the plan had originally called for triple-fencing, but somehow the folks who brought us Katrina relief can't manage that on a budget. Critics also seem to enjoy reminding us that the border is 2,000 miles long. Of course, that would be as the crow flies. If you ironed out the Southwest, spread its many mountains (Homeland Security Immigration Barriers) flat, then pulled the squiggles and turns of the Rio Grande straight, how long would it really be? Buddy, that's a lot of fence for them ranchers to ride.

What is a border? According to Webster's, it is a margin. If one were to look at the margins of the United States, 700 miles of rockin' chain-link might not seem like enough. Although it's macho - it lends the desert a sense of WWF Steel Cage Death Match - a glance at the Canadian border suggests that it's even less secure than we hope. That same Border Patrol veteran pointed out to me that the one real terrorist they caught was coming out of Canada with his trunk full of bombs. And, of course, those 9/11 bastards were "legal aliens."

However, if we keep staring at the map with Zen clarity, a new revelation offers itself. I'll warn you, it takes work. But we suddenly see there is another border of the United States. It's called a coastline. Talk about unprotected. Why isn't somebody fencing in Miami? They hate us for our thongs, people. Where is the fence at Malibu?

Of course, terrorism is only part of the paradigm - it's illegal immigration, stupid. California has long struggled with remaining a good neighbor while bringing the hammer down. It might have rankled to read the insensitive Mexican jokes about the border fence, but the Golden State Fence Company actually did hire "illegals" to build border fences in San Diego. Not only that, of course, but they seem to have used the undocumented to build fences at military bases, immigration jails and Border Patrol stations. They were fined $5 million in 2006; if you think about it, when you combine the cost-cutting involved in the illegal workforce and the hefty fine, the actual cost of the border fence might have shrunk by several percentage points. Voters and columnists might express outrage, but federal border agents are realists and ironists - they shake their heads and laugh. They know a snafu when they see it.

It's one thing to fence off a few miles of California or Arizona. It is quite another to try to fence off the meandering bed of the mighty Rio Grande in Texas. Somehow, much of the border has remained, for all its media and political notoriety, invisible. Nothing reveals this more than the Rio Grande. (Or, as those darned Mexicans call it, El Rio Bravo - the untamed or brave river.) One of the most interesting border books to appear in recent days is Keith Bowden's "The Tecate Journals." He somewhat maniacally canoes the entire length of the river. The book shows a major American riverine ecosystem that remains ignored and reviled - perhaps because it is also the border barrier of record. Beavers and deer - who knew?

Strangely, a coalition of Texas mayors came up with a proposal to strengthen the border while avoiding the fence. They suggested that the river itself be dredged and deepened and widened. The natural demarcation line between our nations, in other words, could be revived and cleaned up to do its ancient work. Fences? We don't need no stinkin' fences! A plan due to fail.

The problem in Texas is simple - 180 miles of proposed fence must follow the river, but not get too close to the river, because the river itself is the classic illegal alien and will change course, wiggle under fences, even erode banks and topple fences and open big gaps. Obviously, Mexico will stop at nothing - if an old truck won't bust the fence, they'll send a river. So the fence must, at certain points, be built up to a mile from the banks of the river.

Unfortunately, landowners (ranchers and farmers again) have lived on this land for hundreds of years. Some farm plots along the river have been in the same families since 1767. Mexicans were living there eating frijoles before American revolutionaries ate baked beans at the signing of the Constitution? That's awkward.

Although it is true that everyone ought to be willing to suffer for the security of the nation, in Brownsville, the fence line has cut off a section of the college's soccer field and given it back to Mexico. Gen. Santa Anna is rising from his grave, rubbing his hands in glee: He's actually getting back some of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The Chicago Tribune quoted the mayor of Brownsville on Jan. 16: "To appease people in middle America, they are going to kill our communities along the border. The rest of America has no idea how we live our lives here. We are linked by the Rio Grande, not divided by it." Linked? By a border? Not divided? What a concept.

If Americans want security, then they should get real security. If you really want a border fence, build a real border fence. I have some nephews in Tijuana who need work. But please, Mr. Chertoff - fence off Cannery Row while you still can.

Luis Alberto Urrea is the author of "The Devil's Highway" and "The Hummingbird's Daughter." He teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
His blog is http://lavistaluisurrea.blogspot.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/10/IN25UJSCR.DTL

This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle.