Under the neoliberal New World Order, capital can move from country to country without having to face a border wall, "la migra," or laws denying them their civil rights.  That's what "free trade agreements" are about -- allowing capital to move from country to country in search of the cheapest labor and the most cavalier environmental standards, thus the highest profit rates.  Labor, on the other hand, must deal with the border wall.  Is it any surprise that nature must deal with this wall as well?

As our wallets feels the shock and awe of gas prices, we are ignoring a device that would reduce our dependence on energy and help solve major environment problems. This energy device is
non-radioactive, free of greenhouse gases and can be used by all communities. It is more effective and cheaper than solar, wind and all futuristic alternatives. In fact, it's free, just a simple policy called "closing the immigration corridor" With an annual USA per capita consumption of 50 barrels of fossil fuels, adding more consumers only add to our energy woes.

In the Ikea sector ("think smart") of the world, population is stabilizing. But in the USA, immigration is birthing a rapidly growing population.

Ok, I know I am getting off track but to make energy matters worse than scary, our administration is helping to ferment a fundamentalist society with back burner plans of outlawing reproductive freedom. Recently the Board of Pharmacy has ruled that pharmacists, based on their religiosity, can refuse to give patients
drugs associated with reproductive choices, thus moving their medieval ambitions to the front burner. It will be interesting to see how our   head-scratching energy technologists play catch up with a immigration policy run amok and a religiously sprouted J curve of population
growth.

Right again, LSam.  We should also observe how NAFTA, along with the general hypocrisy of the US, super-neo-liberal pro-free-market on the one hand, subsidizing our farmers on the other, has been so divisive in Mexican society.  The Zapatistas, led by the remarkably thoughtful Delegate Zero, aka Subcomandante Marcos, have made a good beginning -- if a rather long-drawn-out one -- , wisely extending the struggle for rights for indi'genas in Chiapas to the interests of both indi'genas and all Mexican small farmers, in Oaxaca, Guerrero and other states as well as Chiapas.  Whether DZ's Otra Campan~a, his "other campaign," shadowing those of the official party candidates for the presidency, will have any positive effect, we shall see.  Unfortunately, politics in Mexico is as disheartening as it is in the US: it is generally prudent to remain pessimistic and cynical.

On the fragility of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem: Deploring the abuses it has had to suffer in connexion with the passage of trash-chucking migrants and vehicle-driving law officers obviously is reasonable, on the one hand.  But on the other, it resonates dangerously with the theme that David Roberts has been singing in the mitigation-vs.-adaptation discussion.  That is, if we environmentalists deplore too loudly, we put a weapon into the hands of the anti-immigrationist bigots.

    We should note that it is not immigration itself that damages the border lands, but rather our attempts to manage it.

    This is in response to Eliza Barclays opening sentence "In the three-way struggle between the U.S. Border Patrol, illegal border crossers, and the natural environment, it's never clear who's winning."

    There is no struggle between immigrants and the natural environment.

    The US government is the main actor (having the most power and resources).  I hope it is not in a "struggle" against nature (okay, maybe it is).

    While this is clever writing, I am disturbed by the negative images it conveys (perhaps, unintentional).

    I am also concerned that immigrants and drug smugglers are lumped together.  Again, language matters.  These are not the same people, nor are they acting from the same motives.

    One of the problems environmentalists have is our attempt to disconnect environmental issues from other issues.

    Since we don't know (as a general mass) what we believe or don't believe, we end up all over the spectrum (left right and center).

    Then, when issues like the border fence come up, we fail to be involved in any meaningful way.  We have no consensus, and are unable to reach one.

patrick

The environmental community has long been divided on the matter of immigration, (both legal and illegal), but surely, we can all agree that a border fence would be an ecological disaster.  Frankly, I am surprised that no major environmental organizations,   (aside from Defenders of Wildlife),seem to have been speaking out on this issue.  We need to stand together and make noise about this, and insist that the Department of Homeland Security be held accountable for any damage that might be done in the name of 'security".  If our leaders choose not hear, a little civil disobedience might well be the next step.
     The current immigration situation between the U.S. and Mexico is, to my mind, symptomatic of a deeply unhealthy international relationship. Trying to close the border is a Band-aid solution, at best.  Re-negotiating NAFTA would be a good place to begin, but probably not the place to end.  
One thing is for sure-we don't need any "solutions" that are more damaging and destructive than the perceived problem.

Environmentally, I disagree with the idea of fences.  Humanely, I disagree with fences. I also disagree with the debris.  Laws, morals and  cleanliness are  major issues also.  Somehow we need to get all the parties immigrants, members of the organizations, Park Service, owners and any other stake holders together.  Perhaps the money to be used to build the fence should be used to hire some of the immigrants to keep the place clean and taken care of properly (ie. maintained foot paths)