Arresting Babies on the Border

by Scott Nicol

“They’re arresting babies.”

The thought struck hard, and it kept echoing.  I had come to the border wall with a correspondent from National Public Radio to see its impact on the environment.  We had also seen evidence of the apprehensions that occur there daily.  Piles of shoelaces and belts that immigrants were forced to abandon before being taken into custody, and even a pair of plastic toy helicopters, littered the ground.

The Border Patrol agent said that they had captured eighteen people.  Most sat in a line in the dirt beside the rusting wall as agents took their names and bagged their possessions.  Only three or four were adults.

Inside a Border Patrol van, escaping the heat, were two mothers, each with an infant in her arms.  On the seats beside them were a pair of toddlers.

The Border Patrol would probably prefer not to use the term “arrest,” but the children were taken into custody along with the rest of their family.  All eighteen will be included in the sector’s apprehension statistics.

In 2013 the Border Patrol apprehended 26,027 juveniles in its Rio Grande Valley sector, 21,553 of whom were unaccompanied.  Border-wide 38,833 out of the 47,238 minors who were captured were traveling without an adult.  At least these children were not on their own.

Call it an apprehension, call it an arrest, for a child too young to walk or talk the terminology does not matter.

The United States of America, through elected Representatives who are meant to express the will of its citizens, spent $18 billion last year to keep these families out.  A few years back taxpayers spent $12 million per mile to build the border wall that stood nearby, and more than $3 billion was spent to wall off 652 miles of the southern border.  From 1995 to 2003 we doubled the size of the Border Patrol, then over the last decade we doubled their ranks again.  They carry out the mission that we have given them.

We are arresting babies.

And toddlers.  And teenagers.  And adolescents.  And their parents.

We have decided that the people I saw lined up beside the wall, parents who traveled hundreds of miles from Guatemala looking for work with children in tow, threaten us.

Like most who walk or swim across the border they are not terrorists, they are not smugglers, they simply want a better life.  They are parents struggling to feed their families.  They are children hoping to escape violence, go to school, live the American Dream.  So long as that desperation and desire remains people will keep coming. 

This is not a challenge to our nation’s defenses, it is a test of our conscience.

When the Senate took up immigration reform they failed to grasp this.  They made a “border surge,” with hundreds of miles of new border wall, a further ballooning of the Border Patrol, and tens of billions of dollars of new military hardware, a “trigger” that must be completed before anyone currently in the country could start on a thirteen-year-long pathway to citizenship.  The irrational fears of middle American voters who only see the border when they watch FOX News or Border Wars on TV had to be appeased.

Even with the “surge” Republicans in the U.S. House refuse to even debate immigration reform.  They are far less concerned with the children sitting in a line on the dirt beside the wall than they are about a Tea Party challenge in the next primary election.

The Border Patrol agents called headquarters to have child car seats sent out.  Older kids shuffled back into the green and white van, now lacking belts and laces for their sneakers.

After they drove off we began to walk back along the top of the levee.  Through the border wall’s rusting bollards we could see another mother being marched out of the brush, clutching an infant to her chest.

As the sun settled into the treetops the wind carried the baby’s cries.

Be Careful What You Wish For

by Char Miller

Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona, says the funniest things. Especially about immigrants. Ok, I’ll admit that SB 1070, the state’s vicious anti-immigrant legislation, is nothing to laugh about. But when Brewer went on local television in early July she cracked me up.

Why? Because she told astonished viewers that Arizona police have begun to stumble on bodies buried in the desert that have been beheaded. Beheaded by those nasty immigrants she has been warning us about. Really, she said that.

Of course there is no truth to this preposterous allegation. Nor is there any basis for her claims that the “terrible border security crisis…has gotten worse.” Quite the reverse: the U. S. Borderlands are among the safest places in the United States, and getting more so. Then there is Brewer’s remarkable assertion that the majority of immigrants crossing into Arizona are drug dealers, mules or addicts. Investigations by journalists, Border Patrol officials, and county medical examiners have produced not a shred of evidence to support this and other of her bizarre rants.

Just as baseless is Senator John McCain’s frenzied claims that the state he represents is the “No. 2 kidnapping capital in the world.” Arizona has experienced nothing like the wave of kidnappings that mar social life in Africa, Asia and Central America; indeed, its figures are dropping, which suggests that the once-principled presidential candidate has gone off the deep end.

In this he has good company in the wacky State Senator Sylvia Allen. She has been blustering of late that "in the last few years 80 percent of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal." Arizona police departments have been quick to denounce her false charges.

All these lies have a purpose: the GOP in Arizona and across the nation has been flogging anti-immigrant horror stories to terrorize voters. The party wants to whip up its political base and drive independent voters into its ranks. Its fearmongering tactics and eagerness to incite racial prejudice, aided and abetted by right-wing talk radio and television, are also designed to cut into President Obama’s popular support and the Democratic Party’s congressional majority. This summer’s GOP craziness is all about the November 2010 elections.

Yet in so operating Republicans are proving to be certifiably crazy. They swear they want to include Latinos in their “Big Tent” coalition; they recognize--or at least the savviest of them do--that being inclusive is the only way that the GOP can remain a national party; it cannot otherwise survive in our twenty-first nation of immigrants. Perhaps it does not wish to: how else explain its sanctioning of repeated and vicious assaults on Hispanics, the very voters with whom they claim such great affinity?

The political impact of GOP anger and hostility is captured in the latest LatinoMetrics poll. It shows that the economy is no longer Latinos key worry--immigration is. And this change in focus came about in just six months, the exact period of time when Arizona politicians and others began to lambast immigrants. Latinos have taken notice. As one commentator told the Los Angeles Times: “Latinos are feeling less optimistic and more under siege.” Embattled, they are ready to fight back. They “have taken offense to the way immigrants have been demonized by politicians and political interest groups,” said Brent Wilkes, LULAC Executive Director, “and are prepared to vote accordingly.”

Come November, a crazed Jan Brewer may be just what the Democrats needed to maintain power. How funny is that?


Char Miller is W. M. Keck Professor and Director of the Environmental Analysis Program at Pomona College, Claremont CA. He is author of Deep in the Heart of San Antonio: Land and Life in South Texas and a columnist for the Rio Grande Guardian, where this essay originally appeared.

Border War Rhetoric Has Real Consequences for the Borderlands

By Stefanie Herweck

This week Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst addressed an assembly of border residents and community leaders in Harlingen, Texas, less than 15 miles from the Rio Grande, and proclaimed that there was a war going on along the border. His assessment of the border was extreme: “We have two wars everyone talks about going on, one is in Iraq and one is in Afghanistan. We’ve got a third going on and that’s the border.”

Dewhurst made this announcement in the keynote speech for State Senator Eddie Lucio’s State of the District Address. With Senator Lucio looking on, Dewhurst went on to make his case for war on the border, speaking in vague terms about “transnational gangs,” “drug lords killing Americans,” and “border violence,” but providing little in the way of concrete details. He urged that more law enforcement be deployed in order to “close down this border.”

Dewhurst’s comparison of the U.S.-Mexico border region to war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan is offensive and absurd. His characterization of a border at war is based on ignorant hysteria instead of reality. And his portrayal of the border region as the dangerous fount of criminal activity for the rest of the state and the country is categorically false.

When pressed in an interview after the speech to provide the details that would support his claims, Dewhurst said, “We’ve seen incidence of gangs, drive by shootings, in Wichita Falls, which is a long way from the border.” The Lieutenant Governor is right about one thing here: 600 miles between Wichita Falls and the Texas-Mexico border is a long way. But declaring war on the border in order to fight crime in Wichita Falls is ludicrous.

Especially because most Texas border cities are actually safer than Wichita Falls. Although Wichita Falls has 30,000 fewer people than the border city of McAllen, its crime rate in 2008 was higher than McAllen’s. According to FBI statistics, Wichita Falls had 557 incidences of violent crime in 2008, while McAllen only had 371. El Paso was ranked as the third safest large city in the United States in the same year. And all of these cities saw a decrease in violent crime from 2007 to 2008, as did the nation as a whole. Dewhurst’s perverse fantasy of a chaotic crime-ridden border simply does not match the relatively peaceful day-to-day border reality.

In his speech, Dewhurst also cited briefings he has received from the Department of Public Safety and other law enforcement. When asked to elaborate on these briefings after his speech, he cited no official reports or criminological studies, but said “Virtually every city I go into I talk to the DPS and I talk to the local police and they have all seen a pick up of gang activity that they feel is related to drug cartels in Mexico.” While the views of law enforcement officers around the state are valuable, it is irresponsible to make policy recommendations based on their “feelings” rather than hard facts.

Furthermore, Dewhurst has apparently failed to consult with law enforcement officials in the border region. When interviewed by NPR this spring, Brownsville Police Chief Carlos Garcia noted that there had only been 3 homicides in his city in 2008, and that none of them were related to drug cartels. In the same article McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez provided some perceptive analysis that Dewhurst should heed: “The sky is not falling,” he said, refuting unfounded statements by pundits and politicians that cartel violence was spilling over at the border. "What's happening right now is we've got rhetoric that's driving the policy."

When it was pointed out after his speech that his talk of war might not be welcome at the border, Dewhurst quickly wrote it off as just a rhetorical strategy: “I use the word 'war' only in the sense to get people’s attention to understand that there’s a serious problem along our porous southern and northern border.”

Unfortunately, as Chief Rodriguez well understands, rhetoric drives policy. Dewhurst’s declaration of war on the border may be intended as nothing more than a metaphor, but it is likely to have real consequences for the residents of the Texas border.

In his own speech, Dewhurst called for more actual boots on the ground to deal with the war scenario that he later claimed was purely rhetorical. This same border war rhetoric is driving Governor Perry’s call for troops to patrol the border and military predator aircraft to fly up and down the Rio Grande. This month he stationed a specialized team of the Texas Rangers that will reportedly be patrolling the border region carrying automatic weapons, and wearing camouflage, helmets, and bullet-proof vests.

The governor’s action comes despite his own admission that crime along the border has been falling in recent years. And it has been deemed unnecessary by border law enforcement. Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño said, “We don't need the Texas Rangers to come to the border to quell any imaginary disturbance.”

Although sending the Texas Rangers or the National Guard to fight an imaginary war at the border might make for good sound bites in the rest of the state, it sends a shiver down the spine of border residents. Community and business leaders fear that their efforts to develop the border region will be undermined by the false perception of a dangerous, militarized border. Residents know that staging a war in their communities, parks, and farmlands only puts them more at risk.

Border war rhetoric like Dewhurst’s drives policy on the national stage as well. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina introduced an amendment to the 2010 DHS Appropriations Bill calling for more than 300 miles of new border wall. If the amendment passes, hundreds of those miles could be built in Texas. These walls are being proposed despite the fact that the hundreds of miles of border walls already built have not stopped people from crossing the border. Wayne Cornelius, Director Emeritus of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego, say that despite the walls at the border, between 92% and 98% of all those attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally eventually get through. This month, a report by the Government Accountability Office faulted the Department of Homeland Security for having no effective way to gauge the impacts that border walls are having on illegal entry.

But the myth of a border war trumps the reality that walls don’t work. In the press release about his amendment, DeMint says that more border walls are urgently needed because “our southern border has become a battleground.”

Too many walls already blight the Texas borderlands. Texas citizens have had their private property stripped away to make way for walls. Texas cities have seen their landscape forever marred by them. Texas natural areas, wildlife refuges and parks have been irreparably damaged by them. All of this destruction is rooted in the myth of the border war.

Dewhurst’s inflammatory war rhetoric may have been intended only to “get people’s attention,” but the consequences for his constituents along the border are very real. When our borderlands are decreed a war zone, politicians in Austin and Washington forget that it is a place that millions of people call home. They jump on the border war bandwagon, hoping to score political points and to burnish their law-and-order credentials. Like Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, they make the border a scapegoat for crime in the rest of the Texas and the United States. Like Gov. Perry and Sen. DeMint, they dream up absurd, and ultimately destructive, schemes to fight an imaginary war.

Border residents desperately need leaders who will reject the border war scenario, who will refuse to bear false witness against the borderlands and who will work tirelessly to represent the reality of border life at the state and national level. We need uncompromising leaders who will not be complicit in the border war myth, who will actively oppose the schemes based on this myth, and who will not sit silently by as the border region that they were elected to represent is mischaracterized, maligned and damaged.

No More Deaths Volunteer Convicted of Littering for Leaving Water in the Desert

The group No More Deaths has been working to save immigrants who are funneled into the Arizona desert by the border wall. In 2006, even before the Secure Fence Act led to the construction of hundreds of miles of Arizona border wall, the Government Accountability Office found that immigrant deaths had doubled as a result of the first walls built in California. A number of No More Deaths volunteers have been charged with littering for leaving water for border crossers. In the Arizona desert, where summer temperatures regularly top 110 degrees, it is virtually impossible to carry sufficient water. No More Deaths issued the following press release regarding the conviction of one of their members for leaving water in the desert for migrants:

Humanitarian Who Left "Life-Sustaining Water" for Migrants Convicted of “Littering”

Walt Staton, a volunteer with the Tucson-based humanitarian aid group No More Deaths, was convicted today of "knowingly littering garbage or other debris" after he left clean drinking water for undocumented migrants crossing the desert on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

In response to this verdict, No More Deaths released the following statement:

“This is a sad day for human rights and for all of us in southern Arizona. By penalizing life-saving work, the United States is showing callous disregard for the lives of our neighbors to the south, whose only crime is to seek a better life. No More Deaths will continue to provide life-saving aid to those in need, and to do our part to clean up the desert. The era of border enforcement that uses death and human rights abuses as a deterrent must come to an end.”

After more than four hours of deliberation on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, the 12-member jury first stated to the court that they were not able to agree upon a verdict. Magistrate judge Jennifer Guerin then ordered the jury to go back and attempt again to reach a unanimous verdict. Staton's attorney, William Walker, objected to the order, stating that it was coercive to the jury. The jury reconvened and met for less than an hour before returning a guilty verdict.

On December 4, 2008, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officer James Casey cited Staton and three other humanitarians for littering after being contacted by Border Patrol agents who were following the volunteers. The US Attorney’s office later dropped the charges against the other three. Staton refused to accept guilt and pay the original $175 fine. He now faces the punishment of this criminal misdemeanor that could include up to one year of prison time and a large fine. Sentencing is set for August 11.

In Staton's court testimony, he said that he was compelled by his personal experiences of encountering severely dehydrated migrants in distress. He also explained how the organization uses a strategic system of maps and GPS equipment to place the water in strategic locations. "We try to be conscious as an organization to be the most effective in order to save lives," stated Staton during examination.

During closing arguments, defense lawyer Bill Walker held a full gallon jug of water in the air and declared: "When the government tells you this case isn't about water or this isn't about saving lives, they're wrong! This is valuable, life-sustaining water."

During jury selection nearly one third of the original 31 potential jurors were dismissed after stating they had strong emotions about providing humanitarian aid to migrants and would be unwilling to convict someone who was engaged in humanitarian aid. Public support was also evident during the two full days of the trial as the courtroom remained full with 40-50 humanitarian supporters from local groups such as The Samaritans, Humane Borders, American Friends Service Committee and the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, among others.

Dan Millis, a fellow No More Deaths volunteer, received a similar ticket in February, 2008, for leaving water jugs on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Millis was found guilty last September after a bench trial before magistrate judge Bernie Velasco in Tucson. Dan appealed the case to the US District Court, where the original ruling was upheld. It is currently under appeal at the 9th Circuit Court. Staton also plans to appeal his case to the 9th Circuit.

“The Buenos Aires leadership needs to realize that we’re on the same team here,” Millis said. Millis works full-time for the Sierra Club’s Borderlands Protection Campaign. “They need to issue more permits allowing humanitarian groups to provide water and pick up trash on the refuge,” he said.

Letters of support for Walt Staton, Dan Millis and No More Deaths can be sent to media@nomoredeaths. org; they will be posted on our web site.

* Background on No More Deaths:

According to Pima County medical examiner's data, approximately 20 bodies of deceased migrants have been recovered from Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge since 2002. Dehydration is a factor that leads to many of these deaths. More than 5,000 bodies have been recovered from the US/Mexico border as a result of the U.S. Border Patrol’s strategy of deterrence, beginning in 1994 with Operation Gatekeeper.

Since 2004 No More Deaths has provided life-saving aid to migrants in distress along the Arizona/Mexico border. Thousands of volunteers have participated in these efforts, which include providing water, food and medical assistance. No More Deaths is a ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson and seeks to work with other religious groups, government, community partners, and individuals willing to work toward an end to the humanitarian crisis occurring in the Arizona desert.

No More Deaths is currently gearing up for its sixth summer of humanitarian action during the hottest, deadliest months of the year. We are accepting volunteer applications for the summer, and welcome any and all donations to support our work!

For an updated list of migrant deaths in Arizona, visit DerechosHumanosAZ. net.

Please take a moment to sign the following e-letter to participate in an international campaign declaring that "Humanitarian Aid Is Never A Crime!” This letter speaks to a case in which the Italian government is prosecuting two Germans for "smuggling" after they rescued a sinking raft in the Mediterranean Sea with 37 African refugees on board. Such prosecutions resonate with the efforts by the United States government, described above, to criminalize life-saving humanitarian work.

Friendship Park: A Place of Communion or a Zone of Enforcement?

By John Fanestil

We arrived Sunday as planned at 2:30 pm at the entrance to Border Field State Park . We hiked out the horse trail as we did last week and headed south on the beach. It was a stunningly beautiful day – the hike is about a mile and a half.

No two days are alike at Friendship Park , and two things stood out. First, there were a lot of people at the park – far more than usual for a winter weekend. Clearly, the word was out about this past Tuesday’s meeting – the one at which Customs and Border Patrol announced that the designs for Friendship Park had been finalized and that these designs would allow no public access of any kind to either Monument Mesa or to the border wall on the beach.

Second, the tide was extraordinarily low, and from a distance we could see that hundreds of people had gathered on the beach at Playas de Tijuana. Of these at least a hundred were standing down by the water’s edge, beyond the reach of the border wall (see photo).

As we approached, a Border Patrol officer checked in with us. It was clear that he had been briefed about our presence and was courteous and professional. He asked that we gather at the fence on the beach, but not congregate with the crowds down at the water’s edge as that would make it difficult for them to monitor border crossings. We sent some of our group ahead to talk with the folks on the beach, not wanting our celebration of communion to be confused for an event that invited crossings.

We also told the agent that we intended to serve communion on Monument Mesa, and this clearly surprised him. The mesa was closed, he told us, because it was a construction zone and was unsafe. We told him we were aware of this and that we intended to go to the top of the mesa anyway, as our people had been gathering there for years, in fact for generations. He told us that he would have to check in with his supervisor about this and we agreed that this would be good for him to do. We kept walking.

After waiting a while for the supervisor to weigh in, we decided to begin our celebrations on the beach. Many hundreds of people gathered on the Tijuana side of the fence. I shared with the crowd my belief that what is happening at Friendship Park is of historic proportions. Just as in 1849 the members of the first US-Mexico boundary commission gathered at this site to create the border out of nothing, we are once again at this location trying to decide exactly what the border will be.

At present the US Government is trying to impose a vision of the border that is characterized by fear and hostility and mistrust. They envision a “zone of enforcement” that will run the entire length of the border, and to which no one will be allowed access, from either the south or the north. This is why they have chosen to declare that all public access at Friendship Park will soon be eliminated – because they are trying to set a precedent that they hope someday to enforce along the entire length of the border.

We, by contrast, had gathered to celebrate a different vision of the future. We had gathered to celebrate the border we have come to know and love – a place of profound human encounter, a place of friendship, a place of communion.

After consecrating the elements and serving the crowd on both sides of the wall, a small number of us prepared to climb the slope of Monument Mesa. We had been warned that we would be cited for trespassing by officers from CA Fish & Wildlife, but we had prepared for there to be some consequence and we were committed to make it to the monument. We climbed up on to the mesa, stepped over the plastic meshing that now surrounds the plaza, and began to prepare to share communion. Another Border Patrol agent approached us, told us the Mesa was closed, again citing reasons of safety in a construction zone as the reason for its closure. We told him we understood that, but that we were going to stay and serve communion. He returned to his vehicle, and we shared communion with a small group of people who greeted us on the Mexican side of the monument.

When we returned to the beach below, one of our friends told us he heard a Border Patrol agent call in on his radio, “There are about eight of them (who went up on to Monument Mesa) and I’m not going to detain anybody with all these cameras around.”

We look forward to celebrating communion at Friendship Park next Sunday, January 18. We will meet at the entrance to the park at 2:30 p.m.

Adelante.

John Fanestil is the Executive Director of the Foundation for Change.

http://www.foundation4change.org/

Communion through the border wall at Friendship Park

By Jason Evans

Every Sunday afternoon, I head down I-5 towards the San Ysidro border crossing. I get off the freeway and head towards Border Field State Park. Within the park, at the most southwest point of San Diego county is Friendship Park, a monument to the friendly relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. When I come up to the monument I am met by familiar faces on both sides of the fence. Mexican men, deported from the U.S., women selling their handmade goods, and families separated from each other by the border, using this unique space as a place to meet, squeezing their fingers through the fence to touch each other; wipe away tears from each others faces. And there are clergy and activists too. We are gathered to celebrate communion. We are gathered to celebrate our unity through the work of Jesus Christ that surpasses fences and walls built by the State.


The Department of Homeland Security has elected to build a new border fence that will run through this special place. 35 laws and regulations have been waived in order to do this. Millions of dollars will go into this project. Several months ago, I went to the meeting with the Army Corps. of Engineers to see how San Diego contractors could get a piece of this work. I may disagree with most of the contractors present on this fence, but they aren’t dumb. Everyone quickly realized that the meeting was a simply a “dog and pony show.” There wasn’t any real work for San Diego contractors. No significant amount of that large amount of money was going back into our economy.

So, as I walk towards that fence every week, looking to the east and seeing the new fence encroaching on this peacable place, I am aware of the undemocratic manner in which it has been erected. I am aware of how unhelpful this is to our local economy. I am aware of the irreprable ecological damage it reeks on God’s creation in this place. I am aware that it will give coyote’s reason to raise prices for human smuggling, making a violent, inhumane industry even more so. I am aware that this means even more people will die in the eastern rural segment of our county, trying to cross in areas manned by fewer Border Patrol agents. I am saddened by this but I feel that our symbolic work every Sunday helps us imagine another world, a world that we continue to work towards establishing even in the face of this large challenge.

During winter months, the park is closed to vehicles. The roads often flood. Instead, my colleagues and I park outside the park gate and hike through the sticky mud, down to the beach and then south towards the monument. Altogether about a mile and a half walk in sand and mud. Not a big ordeal when considering the celebratory moment we are about to participate in. The Friendship Park monument segment in Mexico is part of urban Tijuana. People easily walk up to the Mexican side to meet us, eating cob corn on a stick as they meet with their loved one’s that have not been deported.

A plastic mesh fence was put around the monument the week before Christmas this year. The park was still open to pedestrians and no one has prohibited us from serving communion. So, this week we continued with our usual plan. We turned off the muddy horse path and on to the beach beginning our southward walk. About halfway from the horse path to the monument we were met by two Border Patrol jeeps. We were told that we would be given a citation by State Parks if we went any further. We asked why this wasn’t on their website. The agent did not have a helpful response. This was also curious as the Department of Homeland Security has declared this federal property. Why would the Parks give us a citation and not Border Patrol? We told the young agent that we had people waiting for us at the fence. We needed to get there. He told us he would have to “intervene” if we did that. He would not clarify what this meant. We asked to speak to a supervisor.

About this time, a Border Patrol helicopter flew over us a couple times. A curious show of force. A photo journalist from the LA Times was with us this Sunday. He decided to risk driving up to the monument and was stopped by the State Parks and cited. About the time that it was realized that he was a photo journalist, we were told we could approach the fence near the ocean to do communion, and the “man from the LA Times” would be driven out to meet us if we agreed to stay away from the monument. It seemed clear that they were willing to compromise with us as long as it didn’t mean a scene would be made for the photo journalist to report.

Communion was beautiful this week. It was cold enough to keep the orders of rotting fish, trash and kelp at our feet at bay. At the water, the fence has wider openings. The chalice was able to fit through the fence so that people did not have to squeeze their small bit of tortilla through the opening. I was able to fully grasp my friend Martin’s hand as we prayed. An honor to do with a man who–along with his family–has been through so much. The initial behavior of the Border Patrol ignited a fervor in my fellow clergy, Rev. John Fanestil who brought tears to eyes during his introduction to communion, smoothly moving between Spanish and English.


After saying goodbye to our friends, cleaning up and getting ready to start our walk back, we noticed a couple that had met us at the fence from the San Diego side walking back north. Around 10 people had started the walk back before them, several yards north of them. Two Border Patrol jeeps stormed down the beach cutting off these 2 specific pedestrians. The couple and their young son were brown-skinned Hispanic Americans. No one else had been stopped who had begun walking home. None of the rest of us were brown-skinned as they were… But the Border Patrol will say they do not conduct racial profiling.

It has become even more important for the tight-lipped posture of the agencies in charge of this project and area to be more transparent. At a minimum, it seems realistic to ask for plans for the park to be made public. To date, their has been nearly zero consistency between information released by State Parks and Border Patrol. It’s disconcerting and unlike the democratic society this country claims to be to not involve the public and it’s elected officials in the process of something that so drastically impacts part of the place we call home. We are a long way from Washington D.C. We should be allowed to have a voice in this project.

Even more deeply important to me, is that as a follower of the Great Liberator, Jesus Christ, I do not feel I can stand idly by while powers do not listen to their people, act inhumanely to people based on the color of their skin or place of origin, recklessly destroy God’s creation and line the pockets of corporations who have no intent on benefiting the people who live in the region effected by their work–further gouging the divide between the have’s and have-not’s in a variety of ways. Last night, I asked my faith community to pray for discernment, courage and wisdom as I work with my colleagues in determining how we will continue to respond to this situation. I ask those of you that pray to do the same. I also invite those physically able to join me next Sunday for communion at the border. It is uncertain how much longer we will be able to do this. You may even want to spend the day in Tijuana and meet us on Mexican side. We meet at the fence on Sundays at 3:00 p.m. It would be really great to see a large turn out. It would make a great statement to the people and powers of Tijuana and San Diego. Feel free to contact us for information.

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House.

His essay was originally posted at the Ecclesia Collective's website: http://ecclesiacollective.org/borderland/continued-border-activity

To see the results from the LA Times photojournalist who accompanied him, go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-tobar6-2009jan06,0,2887120.column

DHS Ignoring the Rights of Private Property Owners to Build the Border Wall

Texas RioGrande Legal Aid’s Communications Director Cynthia Martinez was invited to testify on TRLA’s work with border landowners at a hearing held by the Mexican American Legislative Caucus on November 13th. Below is the text of her statement before the committee. A copy is also available in pdf format.

*****
Mr. Chairman and members of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus-

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Cynthia Martinez and I am the Communications Director for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, also known as TRLA. TRLA is a non-profit organization that provides free legal services to low-income clients in 68 counties in Texas. We are the largest provider of legal aid in Texas and the third largest in the United States.

For more than a year now, TRLA has worked in Texas border communities where the wall is going to be constructed to educate landowners on their legal rights and fight on behalf of low-income landowners who are at risk of losing their livelihoods. Our work has focused primarily on the Rio Grande Valley and in Eagle Pass.

TRLA does not take a policy position on whether the wall should be constructed. Our focus is solely on the legal rights of border landowners and residents as the wall is being built and once it is complete.

Throughout our efforts, our work has focused on one primary belief - in the process to construct the border wall the federal government has chosen to sacrifice the basic legal rights of border landowners in the interest of meeting an arbitrary deadline.

Almost eighteen months ago it became clear that the Department of Homeland Security was developing plans for the border wall that would require private landowners to give up their land in the name of homeland security. To date, DHS has sued approximately 100 landowners in the Rio Grande Valley alone to survey their property or begin the eminent domain process.

According to their own public statement, Homeland Security anticipates suing more than 250 landowners to construct the border wall.

About a year ago, in an effort to make sure that landowners were aware of their legal rights before the process began, TRLA attorneys organized community meetings throughout the Rio Grande Valley to bring landowners together and inform them of their legal rights.

At these meetings, landowners were clear that they had several concerns. They wanted to know:

- Where the wall was going to be built
- If they could keep the government from taking their land
- If they would be compensated for losing their land or any inconveniences that occur as a result of the wall’s construction
- What a wall meant for their community and their daily life

They had questions and the government was not doing anything to give them answers. So we did our best to help. In fact, many times we brought maps and information to these meetings that the residents had never seen before.

As early as June 2007 federal officials began approaching landowners for permission to survey their land so that they could begin to plan where the wall would be constructed. They would approach these landowners with documents - only available in English - and tell them that the government would sue them if they did not agree to the survey.

Many of these landowners are Spanish - dominant and all of them have a sincere respect for our government and its laws. To be approached by a federal agent, with legal documents only available in English, and to be told that the government will sue you if you don’t sign the forms left many landowners feeling as though they had no choice.

So many of them signed these documents and did so not knowing what they were signing or what their rights were. Other landowners took the request and refused to sign or sought help from an attorney. Many of these families turned to Texas RioGrande Legal Aid for help.

At this point, TRLA has represented nine families in their border wall litigation and provided legal advice to a countless number of border landowners on their legal rights throughout this process.

While all of our clients are determined to keep fighting for their land, you’d be hard pressed to find a couple more willing to fight than Baldomero and Hilaria Muniz.

Baldomero and Hilaria Muniz are an elderly couple who live in Los Ebanos. They spent their entire lives working as migrant workers to save up enough money to buy a small plot of land, build a house, and raise their children. In their old age, they use their land to raise goats which they sell to have a source of income. Their land is literally their livelihood - and the government wants to take it.

Both the Muniz family and the family of Pamela Rivas were approached around June 2007 to sign waivers that would allow the government to survey their land. But both families decided to put up a fight. Neither family wanted to let the government survey their land and certainly neither family wanted to be forced into giving up their land for the wall’s construction. The government never even had a conversation with these families about the issue. So both families refused to sign the waiver - and they were sued.

From the beginning, their defense was simple - the government failed to negotiate a reasonable price for having access to their land - a process it is required to go through by law. Instead, without consulting with these families, the government set its own price - zero dollars. Zero dollars for the inconvenience of having to let federal officials have access to their land and possibly damage it in the surveying process.

The offer was disingenuous and disrespectful. So TRLA represented both families in appeals that took us all the way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Muniz family, with few resources, was unable to afford the trip to see our attorneys fight on their behalf.
Unfortunately, our efforts were not successful in stopping the condemnation process and both families are currently being sued by the government for possession of their land. At this time, the future of their property is unclear.

Five of our families in the Eagle Pass area have taken a proactive approach and sued DHS for failing to consult or negotiate with them before taking their property and beginning construction on the border wall. In their lawsuit, the families also pointed out that DHS did consult with wealthy, Caucasian landowners in the area and has avoided using their properties in its final construction plans. This is an allegation that many landowners and even the media have made - but that the government has not addressed.

One of our families, the family of Oscar Ceballos, fought the government’s attempt to take his land, which is located approximately two miles from the border in the Rio Grande Valley, by arguing that Congress intended the wall to be built along the border - not in the border area. We were not successful, but in his decision United States District Judge Andrew Hanen did state that “once again, the nation has placed a burden on the citizens of south Texas that is clearly disproportional to that being borne by other locales.” That statement is the only consolation Mr. Ceballos has as the government proceeds with the condemnation process. It should be noted that originally the government intended to offer Mr. Ceballos $1600 for his property. Because of his determination to exercise his legal rights, a federal appraisal has valued his property at more than $30,000.

Currently many of our families and border residents live in a cloud of uncertainty. Late last week, Homeland Security announced that it would temporarily be halting the construction of the wall in certain border communities. If media reports are true, this could leave room for a new Congress and administration to alter or even eliminate construction plans. However, at this point, this is all speculation. All we know for sure is that the federal government is continuing with its lawsuits against border landowners to condemn their land.

Other border residents have a handful of questions, but no answers. Once the wall is constructed, life for border residents will change in ways that have yet to be explored. Will their land be damaged during the wall’s construction? Will they have to travel several miles to have access to their land if their property is cut in half by the wall? Will they have to become accustomed to border patrol agents asking them if they are U.S. citizens when they are on their own property? If their neighbor’s property is protected by a wall but theirs is not, will they get help to protect their own security? If their land is taken, will they be compensated appropriately?

In a speech in February 2008 at the Kennedy School of Government, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff characterized border landowners as fighting the wall’s construction because they are concerned that the wall will spoil their view or inhibit their cattle’s ability to get to the river.

Such a characterization is wrong, naïve, and dangerous. And it is important that policymakers understand that this isn’t about being able to see sunsets or a cow’s freedom.

These families are fighting for their livelihoods and, in doing so, they are only exercising the legal rights that have been guaranteed to them by the laws of this country.

Homeland Security officials have not been silent on the issue - in the press they have made it very clear that the wall will not be finished by the end of the year as planned and that’s largely due to the fight that landowners such as our clients have waged.

As you can imagine, we have not apologized for this.

At TRLA we take our commitment to these communities very seriously and we remain dedicated to fighting alongside them as the construction of the wall proceeds.

If there is one decisive legal victory we have had in this fight it is that all the courts have agreed on one thing - these landowners have the right to question their government and fight for their property. And that’s what they’re going to continue to do, even if it comes as an inconvenience to the federal government.

Walkers Remember Migrants on Tohono O'odham Land

By Brenda Norrell

SAN XAVIER DISTRICT, TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION -- Walkers arrived at San Xavier District on the Tohono O'odham Nation on Saturday to remember the 183 migrants who died this past year in the Sonoran desert. Of those migrants, 108 were not identified. Nineteen could not be identified as male or female because so little of their remains were found. A large portion of those deaths were on Tohono O'odham land.

Walkers called out "Presente!" during the reading of the names at San Xavier, remembering those who died walking to a better life. The walk, organized by Derechos Humanos, was an 8-mile walk from Tucson, during temperatures that reached the mid 90s.

Although the elected leaders on the main section of the Tohono O'odham Nation, located to the west of here, have not welcomed humanitarian aid for migrants, the San Xavier District cohosted the Indigenous Peoples Border Summit of the Americas in 2006 and 2007. The border summits were cohosted by the International Indian Treaty Council and organized by Tohono O'odham Mike Flores.

Photos: Walkers arrive at San Xavier. Crosses carry the names of the migrants who died this past year. Photos Brenda Norrell. Please e-mail for reprint permission: brendanorrell@gmail.com

This originally appeared in Censored News: http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2008/11/walkers-remember-migrants-on-tohono.html

The Border Wall Violates Human Rights

On October 22, the two-year anniversary of President Bush's signing ceremony for the Secure Fence Act, the Organization for American States convened a hearing into allegations that the border wall currently under construction violates human rights. A multi-disciplinary working group of faculty and students affiliated with the Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at The University of Texas at Austin submitted a series of briefing papers to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an inter-governmental body of the Organization of American States which provide evidence of human rights violations. Their report is available here:
http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/humanrights/publications/




The situation on the U.S. – Mexico border is one in which fundamental human rights, environmental concerns, and the rule of law have been set aside to facilitate the construction of border walls which have, at most, symbolic value. The border wall's construction coincides with a rise in misinformation regarding the situation at the border, as well as the impacts and effectiveness of the border wall. We hope that the hearings that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights holds will help to bring clarity to the situation, and will spur the United States to adopt rational border policies that promote human rights and reverse policies which currently violate human rights.


Border Wall construction in south Texas


The No Border Wall Coalition is deeply troubled by the headlong rush to build walls along the United States’ southern border without meaningful consideration of the walls’ negative impacts on border communities and the environment, and without evidence that such walls will enhance national security or curtail illegal immigration and smuggling. The border wall is a monumental project that will severely impact the entire 1,969-mile southern border and the 11 million US citizens who live along it, as well as those who live in Mexican cities and communities along the border.

Building the border wall in urban areas is a priority for the Department of Homeland Security because they say that in such places it is “easier for an alien…to conceal themselves in a home or business.” In Texas border communities, the edge of the Rio Grande is already crowded with many homes and businesses that will have to be destroyed for a border wall to be erected. Like countless other human societies throughout history, these communities were founded on the banks of a river. In places like Laredo, Roma, and Brownsville, the river is still the heart of the community, its status as an international border notwithstanding. You cannot cut through the heart of a community without causing grave harm.

Border communities will be severely impacted by the border wall. In South Texas, the river that defines the border is also the reason that settlers originally came to the area. Land grants that were parceled out by the King of Spain in the 1760’s are in many cases still held by their original owners’ descendants. These grants included access to the Rio Grande, recognizing that without its water the area would be uninhabitable, and the river remains the source of water for irrigation and municipal use. If farmers along the Rio Grande can not access the river or the intake pumps that bring its water to their fields they will lose their farms.


Border Wall construction in Granjeno, Texas
Approximately one-quarter of the population in the counties along the border live at or below the poverty line. This is more than double the national poverty rate. In addition, most of the counties in the border region have majority-minority populations. Executive order 12898 (Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice [EJ] in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), provides that “each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.” The Department of Homeland Security has ignored its responsibility to address the Environmental Justice issues raised by the border wall.

The Lower Rio Grande Valley has double the poverty rate of rest of the state of Texas (In 2000, 35.7% vs. 15.4%). In many cases landowners facing condemnation proceedings cannot afford legal representation, so they decide to cut their losses rather than fight for their legal rights. Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid has stepped in to represent many low income property owners, but their resources are limited. The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law is representing other residents in suits against DHS challenging eminent domain proceedings.

Despite the mandate of the Omnibus Spending Bill of 2007, which requires meaningful consultation with local stakeholders before walls are built, the Department of Homeland Security has ignored the comments and concerns of those of us who will be directly impacted by the border wall. Meetings have been held in secret and are closed to the general public. All maps that have been released are claimed to be preliminary, despite the fact that DHS has been contacting landowners to gain access to private property and construction has already begun. DHS has gone so far as to tell members of the public and press that releasing information would endanger national security, because then smugglers and terrorists would know their plans. This is ludicrous, as once an 18 foot wall is built its location will hardly be a secret.

The most glaring abuse of human rights that is directly connected to the border wall is the fact that the wall has caused thousands of deaths. In 2006 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked at the border wall’s human toll since the erection of the first California sections in the mid 1990s. They found that, though the number of border-crossing deaths had been declining in the 1980s and early 1990s,

“Since 1995, the number of border-crossing deaths increased and by 2005 had more than doubled. […] This increase in deaths occurred despite the fact that, according to published estimates, there was not a corresponding increase in the number of illegal entries. Further, GAO’s analysis also shows that more than three-fourths of the doubling in deaths along the southwest border since 1995 can be attributed to increases in deaths occurring in the Arizona desert.”



Migrant trail through the Arizona desert


This increase in deaths occurred because the border walls did not stop people from entering the United States, they only rerouted them. Confronted with an 18 foot high wall near San Diego, desperate immigrants did not turn around and go home. They went around it. Rather than crossing in safer urban areas, thousands instead came in through the desert. As a result, more than 5,000 have died from dehydration and exposure, and it is estimated that thousands of bodies lie undiscovered.

The No Border Wall Coalition would like to thank the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for holding hearings on the abuses of human rights that are associated with the construction of the border wall. The fact that the United States has avoided a similar examination is shameful. We look forward to reading your conclusions regarding the situation on the border, and hope that they will be read by U.S. decision makers as well. So long as the discussion regarding the border and the wall that is being erected along it is dominated by demagogues, rather than a careful examination of the facts, there is little hope of improvement.

Rapoport Center Alleges that the Border Wall Violates Human Rights

A multi-disciplinary working group of faculty and students affiliated with the Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at The University of Texas at Austin alleges that human rights are being violated by the United States through construction of the border wall. The working group submitted a series of briefing papers to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an inter-governmental body of the Organization of American States composed of seven independent experts. The Commission’s mandate is to examine and monitor compliance by member States of the OAS, including the United States, with human rights obligations established in international law. Below is the full text of their letter. Their report on the human rights violations associated with the border wall is available at: http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/humanrights/publications/

August 27, 2008

Santiago A. Canton
Executive Secretary
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
1889 "F" Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
VIA FACSIMILE: (202) 458-3992

RE: Request for General Hearing on the Texas/Mexico Border Wall

Dear Secretary Canton:

I am writing to respectfully request that you schedule, during the 133rd period of sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the "Commission"), a general hearing on the human rights violations implicated in the construction by the United States of a border wall on the Texas/Mexico border. I am making this request in the name of the University of Texas Working Group on Human Rights and the Border Wall, a multi-disciplinary collective of faculty and students at the University of Texas at Austin, which has collaborated with individuals and communities affected by the border wall and Environmental Sciences faculty at the University of Texas at Brownsville, to highlight the human rights violations committed by the United States through planned construction of the wall. A list of working group members is attached to this request. The working group submitted a series of briefing papers to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in June 2008. Those papers can also be found at:
http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/humanrights/publications/

The working group now requests that the Commission urgently consider the matter of the Texas/Mexico border wall in a general hearing. Violations of human rights are already occurring as preparations are made for construction of the wall, and further serious violations are imminent as construction moves forward.

The United States Congress mandated construction of 670 miles of wall along the border between the United States and Mexico in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2008 and further mandated that 370 miles of that wall be constructed by December 31, 2008. The Department of Homeland Security plans to fulfill this mandate by constructing hundreds of miles of wall along the Texas/Mexico border before the end of 2008.

The United States' plans for the wall have generated significant opposition and clamor for further consultation and deliberation, coming from within the United States and internationally. Many small landowners living along the river, who would see their properties divided in two by the wall, have struggled to defend themselves against the United States government's condemnation proceedings. A number of municipalities along the Texas/Mexico border have joined a class action suit against the United States government asserting that the United States failed to properly consult with individuals and communities affected by the wall or to negotiate fairly regarding the taking of land. Mexico has adopted a formal position against the wall as an affront to the climate of cooperation and joint responsibility that it believes should exist with the United States and has received support for this position from other Latin American countries. In 2006, the Mexican government presented a declaration against the wall at the Organization of American States that received the support of 27 other countries. Mexico also obtained a resolution at the Summit of the Americas urging the United States to reconsider its decision to build a wall. Other State entities, such as the Senate of Chile, have condemned the wall as well. Yet, the United States has not modified its plans to move forward with the wall, making this situation urgent.

The violations of human rights resulting from the border wall plans, which will be presented at the general hearing if granted, include:

Articles II and XXIII of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man ("American Declaration") guaranteeing equality before the law without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor and guaranteeing the right to private property.

To build the wall, the United States is taking property that has been held by families for generations, in some cases dating back to Spanish and Mexican land grants from the 1700s and 1800s. Yet, the State is taking this property in an arbitrary and unjustified manner without properly considering other alternatives for controlling the border. The United States government has not explained why it is necessary to take property to build a border wall to meet the goals of impeding immigration and protecting national security. U.S. officials agree that the border wall will stop intending immigrants only for a matter of minutes and cannot point to national security breaches on the southern border of the United States. Nor has the U. S. government explained the rationale behind the placement of an intermittent fence in particular areas and not in others. The United States therefore cannot assert that the border wall, which violates property rights, is proportional and necessary to the goals it is said to meet.

In addition, the United States is treating property owners on the border unequally. Numerous small landowners will lose property to the wall while more lucrative developed properties and resorts are not included in the wall's path. A statistical analysis conducted by Professor Jeff Wilson of the working group demonstrates that the property owners impacted by the wall are poorer, more often Latino and less educated than those not impacted who also live along the border.

The wall will also negatively impact Native American communities, including individual landowners who are Lipan Apache and the federally recognized Kickapoo and Ysleta del Sur tribes that live and practice their traditional cultures and religions along the Texas/Mexico border. The InterAmerican system has repeatedly recognized the unique and vitally important rights to property and equal protection guaranteed to members of indigenous communities. Yet, the United States has not adequately considered the impact of the wall on indigenous communities in its construction plans.

Article IV of the American Declaration guaranteeing the right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination.

The United States has not acted with transparency regarding its plans to build the border wall. The United States has failed to provide specific information regarding the exact locations for the wall or to explain the rationale for those locations. It has been extremely difficult for anybody outside the United States government to determine even how much and what type ofwall is planned in which regions. In April 2008, the working group at the University of Texas filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act for documents and maps that would show the planned locations for the border wall and for records that might explain why the United States had decided to place the wall in certain areas rather than others as well as any information reflecting consideration given to the impact ofthe wall on Native American communities. As of this date, the United States government has failed to provide a single document or record, although federal law requires U.S. agencies to release information in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act in a period of 20 days. The lack of transparency violates the right to freedom of investigation and dissemination. The paucity of information also makes it much more difficult to define the exact contours of other violations of rights, such as the right to property, since it is not even possible to identify all victims and impacts of the wall.

The lack of information also negatively affects the right of impacted individuals to be consulted and to express an opinion about the border wall. The "consultations" carried out by the United States have been characterized by this lack of transparency regarding critical information as well as by a lack of possibility for discussion of the relevant issues. Attendees at the handful of public meetings organized by United States government officials have consistently reported that private citizens had no opportunity to enter into any sort of dialogue or question-and-answer discussion with government officials regarding the border wall. Rather, participants listened to prepared statements by officials, which lacked detail, and then were told to record their comments in writing or online.

The lack of transparency and dialogue violates Article IV and has also made it impossible for the United States to comply with its obligation under the American Convention to ensure that no less restrictive alternatives to the wall exist and its obligation under International Labor Organization Convention No. 169 to consult with affected indigenous communities.

Articles V and XIII of the American Declaration protecting the right to private and family life and to culture.

The construction of a wall will irreparably damage a centuries-old culture in which families live and work on both sides of the Rio Grande River, which now constitutes the border between Texas and Mexico. The wall necessarily makes a powerful statement of separation of a community that has traditionally treated the border as a meeting point rather than a dividing line. The communities along the border have also always treated the Rio Grande River dividing Mexico and Texas and its wildlife as an important part of their culture. According to experts, the wall will cause severe environmental degradation of these cultural treasures.

In addition, the wall impacts indigenous culture in violation of the norms guaranteeing special protections to the traditions of Native Americans. For example, the United States government's own analyses recognize that the wall will impinge upon traditional ceremonies conducted by the Ysleta del Sur tribe along the banks of the Rio Grande River.

Article XVIII of the American Declaration guaranteeing the right to
judicial protection.

The possibilities for a court challenge to the taking of property and construction of the border wall are extremely limited. For example, federal law gives the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") the authority to invoke the importance of border wall construction to overlook a long list of federal statutes that would normally apply to protect indigenous rights and the environment. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff has exercised this authority and has waived all applicable environmental laws and several laws guaranteeing indigenous rights, such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Thus far, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined requests to analyze the constitutionality of the broad grant of authority to the Secretary of DHS to issue these waivers. The United States has thus stripped away, in relation to the border wall, judicial protection that it otherwise provides.

Similarly, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2008 requires consultation with property owners, Indian tribes and local governments regarding the impact of the wall. However, the same provision clarifies that the consultation mandate creates no enforceable rights. Property owners and members of indigenous communities affected by the wall face a blatant lack of judicial protection against actions of the United States affecting their land and culture. In addition, through its waivers of environmental laws, the United States has failed in its obligation to consider environmental harm and to take measures to limit likely damage. See IIA Comm. H.R., Report N° 40104, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2004, para. 147.

Finally, the U.S. government is violating the right of indigenous communities to enforce treaties and agreements, as supported by Article 37 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Native American tribes of Texas affected by the border wall are parties to various treaties, which guarantee protection of their civil and human rights. Yet, these rights have not been respected. In addition, by agreement with the United States government, at least one indigenous tribe in Texas -the Kickapoo-has been guaranteed the right to cross freely back and forth from Texas to Mexico, a right which will almost certainly be derogated or limited by the construction of a border wall.

If this hearing is granted, a member of the working group at the University of Texas will testify regarding our findings on the human rights impacts of the Texas/Mexico border wall as well as the difficulties the group has faced in obtaining information from the United States. In addition, we will present a detailed analysis of the equal protection violations revealed in the statistical study of the properties to be affected by the wall. We also expect to present to the Commission the testimony of an affected property owner of indigenous Lipan Apache heritage whose land along the Texas/Mexico border has been held in the family for several hundred years. If possible, we will present testimony from additional impacted individuals. Finally, we hope to also provide information regarding human rights analyses conducted from within Mexico regarding the effects of the border wall. We respectfully request that the Commission invite the United States to be represented at the hearing.

Thank you for your kind attention to this request for a hearing on the Texas/Mexico
border wall during the 133rd period of sessions of the Commission. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may provide you with any further information regarding this request for a hearing or any other matter.