Every time I go down to the Mexican border, I'm struck by a down and dirty realization: This beautiful land looks like a dump.
Recently I was at a waist-high border vehicle barrier in a valley northeast of Tecate, Baja California. As far as the eye could see, strewn past barbed wire or collecting knee-deep in culverts, were water bottles, food wrappers, used paper products such as toilet paper and maxi pads, even felt shoe covers designed to obscure tracks.
From California to Texas, illegal immigrants and drug runners leave such calling cards on their trek north.
"This was a beautiful refuge 10 years ago," Mitch Ellis, manager of Arizona's Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, says. "Just stunning." Now, he says, it looks like a "war zone." The refuge shares just 5.5 miles with the Mexican border but is a staging point near the Sasabe border crossing and is crisscrossed by highways that serve as pick-up routes. The sheer amount of foot and vehicle traffic — at least 200,000 to 300,000 crossers a year on the 118,000-acre refuge — makes endangered species conservation a losing battle.
As National Guard troops have been dispatched to the border and lawmakers grapple with the specifics of immigration reform, a proposed southern wall has ignited contentious debate. But while the primary intention of a fence would be homeland security and immigration control, a welcome byproduct of such a wall might be softening the blow on the environment.
Trashed terrain
Last year, 500 tons of trash was strewn across the Buenos Aires refuge, as well as human waste and about 100 abandoned vehicles. Wild animals are choking on plastic or getting tangled in trash, and crossers' campfires have sparked wildfires. Aerial photos, Ellis says, reveal a shocking web of 1,300 miles of illegal trails cut through the refuge.
How much trash do crossers leave in their wake? A report by a presidential advisory committee, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, says more than six tons of solid waste — about 8 pounds per border crosser — is dumped daily on the Tohono O'odham Nation, a reservation that spans 75 miles along the Arizona border.
The carnage makes one wonder why environmental groups aren't out lobbying for a sturdy border fence — instead of arguing against tougher enforcement.
"The unintended consequences of a restrictive border policy with Mexico have resulted in many park, wildlife and natural areas being trampled and trashed by migrants, but also invaded by enforcement activities such as new or upgraded roads, Border Patrol outposts and vehicle damage involved in pursuit and rescue operations," says Rob Smith, the Southwest representative for the Sierra Club.
The Border Patrol, which has a policy of sticking to appointed roads and trails except when pursuing illegal crossers, wouldn't be out there if it weren't for the deluge coming north. It's not the Border Patrol dumping trash, tagging majestic cacti with graffiti or defecating in the wilderness.
And don't forget, they have a job to do. "We have to balance our effects on the environment with national security," Border Patrol spokesman Todd Fraser says.
"The Border Patrol needs to follow the current (environmental) law, which right now they're ignoring," counters Jenny Neeley, southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation advocacy group, adding that "the damage is being caused by border policy." Tougher border enforcement near portals such as San Diego and El Paso, she says, funnels traffic into more remote and environmentally sensitive regions.
Defenders of Wildlife opposes a proposed border wall; Neeley says it would destroy habitat and cut off cross-border migratory routes for species such as jaguars. "Who's to say it would stop the trash? Who's to say it would stop the people?" she asks. "Trash can get picked up. Illegal trails can be revegetated."
Other environmentalists echo this opposition to a wall.
"The Sierra Club is neutral on the specifics of immigration reform policy, but we have opposed the construction of permanent walls where wildlife and natural areas would be harmed," Smith says.
The environmental damage hasn't escaped notice on Capitol Hill. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., introduced an amendment that was adopted into Senate immigration legislation. It provided more Border Patrol along federal lands and national parks, as well as environmental training for agents, says Cameron Hardy, his press secretary. Hardy says Thomas supports some fencing but not a comprehensive border wall. Defenders of Wildlife has praised the amendment.
What about gaps in the fence?
The Border Patrol hasn't ignored environmental concerns in previous wall-building projects. In fact, Fraser notes that the 14-mile fence constructed from the Pacific Ocean through the busy Tijuana region in the mid-'90s included gaps left for environmental concerns, whether drainage issues or wildlife habitat.
Those sensitive protected areas, of course, were exactly where illegal crossers streamed through. So crossers came through these wildlife passages, and the environment was wrecked in the process. Is the trade-off worth it?
"Do you think the person running across the border cares about those areas?" the Border Patrol's Fraser asks. "They're not thinking, 'Oh, we have to protect the environment,' or, 'Oh, we can't litter.' I think their last concern is the environment."
But don't tell that to the environmentalists, who would rather blame U.S. border policy than even consider that a fence and tighter enforcement might — just might — preserve these treasured lands.
The alternative is clearly visible. Just take a hike to the border to see for yourself.
