Post by Tim Collins on Dec 9, 2008 10:05:24 GMT -7
Here is my response to the Letter from our Representatives . I have submitted this to The El Paso Times for publication, it has been published on Newspaper Tree newspapertree.com/opinion/3148-dear-mr-president-tear-down-the-walls
December 8, 2008
Senator Eliot Shapleigh
Congressman Silvestre Reyes
City Representative Steve Ortega
Mr. Jose Rodriguez
Dear Sirs:
I read with great interest the letter you signed regarding your opposition the wall being built on the southern border of the United States. As a citizen of the United States and resident of El Paso, this issue is of concern for me.
As you may surmise by the very fact that I am responding to your letter, I stand in opposition to your position. I find that your letter in fact presents a seriously weak set of reasons for your opposition. More importantly, as one of the citizens at least two of you represent in your official capacity, I am offended that you would sign such a document without really reading what you are signing. With your indulgence, I have detailed my objections to your position as stated in your letter to President Elect Obama’s transition team. I hope you will do me the favor of reading my response and at least taking a moment to reflect both on my comments and your original letter.
Within the letter you have signed, you present three primary arguments against the border wall: Economic reasons, Ecological reasons and Emotional reasons. I have examined your letter in detail and would like to respond to each of your stated reasons for opposition.
Economic reasons
Your letter makes two economic reasons for your opposition to the border wall:
1. Trade with Mexico
The U.S. – Mexico export and import trade totaled $347.3 billion, and that Texas alone trades more than all the European Union combined. These are certainly impressive numbers, however it would have been less disingenuous of you had you also mentioned that this total trade includes a trade deficit on the U.S. side of the balance sheet.
According to Texas A&M International University U.S. Exports to Mexico totaled $93.3 billion through September 2008 and Mexican Imports to the U.S. totaled $122.0 billion, producing a trade deficit of $26.7 billion.
These figures are freely available at texascenter.tamiu.edu/texcen_services/trade_activity.asp
2. Better uses for the money being spent on the wall.
You make the argument that the $6.3 billion being spent on the wall would be better spent developing infrastructure of the border region. I support improving our infrastructure, however improved infrastructure, without improved border security, would also benefit the movement of illegal immigrants and drugs. The wall is not a barrier to legal trade and immigration; it is at the least a serious inconvenience for the illegal movements across our border.
On a more local note, can any of the signers of this letter tell me the last time you know of a manufacturing plant relocating from Juarez to El Paso? As to the typical argument that our retailers will suffer by enforcement on the border, can you tell me how many Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart or downtown, came to their shopping by way of a desert crossing?
Ecological reasons:
Again you offer two reasons, this time on ecological grounds for your opposition to the wall.
1. You make the argument that the wall has already resulted in damage to the ecology. You cite damage to the “Tijuana River Estuary”, without mentioning this is located at the border near San Diego, or that according to the US Border Patrol the “canyon” you wish to preserve is known as a “smugglers superhighway” for drug and human trafficking.
www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21066653/smuggler_s_gulch.htm?pageid=27121
You go on to state as fact, “The border Wall between Nogales, AZ and Nogales, Sonora caused sever flooding…” First, this claims of the wall causing the flooding are wrong on their face, the alleged contributor to the flooding was not “the wall, but rather the raising of a barrier within a drainage tunnel that has existed since the 1930’s and was used by illegal border crossers regularly. Secondly, it has not been determined that raising of this barrier that caused the flooding.
www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/91752.php
I too strongly believe that consideration should be given to any ecological impact the construction of the wall may create. I do however recognize that we mere mortals do not always accurately predict what ecological impact our construction may have. One classic case in point is the arguments made against the Alaska pipeline and the predicted negative impact on migratory caribou. It turns out the caribou have adapted and thrived. I am sure there are similar examples of the opposite result, so yes we must take care, but also reason.
2. Your second argument is that the wall is being constructed without the required consultations with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior as well as state, local governments, Indian Tribes and property owners in the communities. Based upon news reports I have been following, and statements from the DHS, this is not totally true. DHS has held community meetings and consulted with the affected government agencies. Those consultations have obviously not always resulted in the outcomes opponents of the wall have desired, but it does not mean they have not taken place.
cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/congressional_test/walls_waivers.xml
Again, the arguments you have presented are only half of the picture, you have demonstrated a real skill at providing only that information that supports your position and ignored any evidence that offers an alternative conclusion or the details required to make a fully informed judgment.
Appeals to emotion
1. I find it interesting that you begin your argument against the border wall by quoting of all people former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Interesting but not surprising, given that it provides another opportunity to use the fallacious comparison between the border wall and the Berlin Wall. At least former President Gorbachev was smart enough to make a more cogent comparison, that with the Great Wall of China. Mr. Gorbachev goes on to cite the U.S. history of international cooperation. He has a point. However cooperation by definition takes at least two parties. Where is the cooperation from the Mexican government? Is it cooperative that they have printed and distributed guides for illegal crossing? Guides that included maps of our border and suggested crossing points? They later withdrew these after an uproar in the U.S. and in the withdrawal gave one reason as that the maps were being used by CBP to target illegal immigration routes for patrol.
Seriously, is the former President of a collapsing totalitarian government the source you want to cite for moral guidance?
2. You move from an appeal from Mr. Gorbachev, to an appeal for economic prosperity. You state, “We need a safe, fast and secure movement of people and products in a post 9/11 world”. You go on to list the things necessary to achieve these goals and bring in Arizona Governor Napolitano to buttress this argument and add specific proposals. The problem is that all the proposals presented are already in progress in conjunction with the wall. One specific proposal is the “electronic wall”. Have you missed the news reports on the testing of such a wall already in progress, and the difficulties and failures this first test encountered? I actually support an electronic monitoring system, married to fast human response, however the bugs need to be worked out further before this can be an effective counter measure.
3. Finally, you get to the heart of the emotional appeal; the Mexican people and government consider it a muros de odio, a wall of hate. Of course I care how others perceive the U.S. throughout the world, however I would be more concerned with this specific complaint if it actually represented the majority view of the Mexican people, and if it were not these very same people who are crossing illegally. Of course they do not like it, at least those who see it as their right to ignore U.S. immigration policy. Further, the Mexican Government opposing the wall because it takes away the safety valve of social discontent that illegal immigration provides them should not be surprising to anyone.
Even within Mexico you can find supporters of the border wall. Ironically, back in 1993, Congressman Reyes championed intense border protection with operation blockade.
In conclusion, I have no problem with your taking this position on this issue. In fact I applaud you taking what you believe to be a moral stance, despite the demonstrably split opinions of your constituents. However, as my elected or appointed representatives, I expect that when you take a stance and publicly present your position you do not hide the existence of counter positions, and do not present only “facts” that support your position.
As representatives of the citizens in your respective areas, it is incumbent upon you to be honest and complete in presenting information as facts to your constituents. If your position is based upon your emotional connection to this issue say so, do not try to hide behind a highly subjective and one-sided presentation of “facts”. This approach serves neither you nor those you represent well, and only decreases your credibility.
In addition, in the future, should you wish to oppose this wall further, I would appreciate your offering a viable alternative plan. Opposition in this case is not enough; it does not address the very reason the wall was conceived in the first place.
Sincerely,
Tim Collins
El Paso, TX
December 8, 2008
Senator Eliot Shapleigh
Congressman Silvestre Reyes
City Representative Steve Ortega
Mr. Jose Rodriguez
Dear Sirs:
I read with great interest the letter you signed regarding your opposition the wall being built on the southern border of the United States. As a citizen of the United States and resident of El Paso, this issue is of concern for me.
As you may surmise by the very fact that I am responding to your letter, I stand in opposition to your position. I find that your letter in fact presents a seriously weak set of reasons for your opposition. More importantly, as one of the citizens at least two of you represent in your official capacity, I am offended that you would sign such a document without really reading what you are signing. With your indulgence, I have detailed my objections to your position as stated in your letter to President Elect Obama’s transition team. I hope you will do me the favor of reading my response and at least taking a moment to reflect both on my comments and your original letter.
Within the letter you have signed, you present three primary arguments against the border wall: Economic reasons, Ecological reasons and Emotional reasons. I have examined your letter in detail and would like to respond to each of your stated reasons for opposition.
Economic reasons
Your letter makes two economic reasons for your opposition to the border wall:
1. Trade with Mexico
The U.S. – Mexico export and import trade totaled $347.3 billion, and that Texas alone trades more than all the European Union combined. These are certainly impressive numbers, however it would have been less disingenuous of you had you also mentioned that this total trade includes a trade deficit on the U.S. side of the balance sheet.
According to Texas A&M International University U.S. Exports to Mexico totaled $93.3 billion through September 2008 and Mexican Imports to the U.S. totaled $122.0 billion, producing a trade deficit of $26.7 billion.
These figures are freely available at texascenter.tamiu.edu/texcen_services/trade_activity.asp
2. Better uses for the money being spent on the wall.
You make the argument that the $6.3 billion being spent on the wall would be better spent developing infrastructure of the border region. I support improving our infrastructure, however improved infrastructure, without improved border security, would also benefit the movement of illegal immigrants and drugs. The wall is not a barrier to legal trade and immigration; it is at the least a serious inconvenience for the illegal movements across our border.
On a more local note, can any of the signers of this letter tell me the last time you know of a manufacturing plant relocating from Juarez to El Paso? As to the typical argument that our retailers will suffer by enforcement on the border, can you tell me how many Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart or downtown, came to their shopping by way of a desert crossing?
Ecological reasons:
Again you offer two reasons, this time on ecological grounds for your opposition to the wall.
1. You make the argument that the wall has already resulted in damage to the ecology. You cite damage to the “Tijuana River Estuary”, without mentioning this is located at the border near San Diego, or that according to the US Border Patrol the “canyon” you wish to preserve is known as a “smugglers superhighway” for drug and human trafficking.
www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21066653/smuggler_s_gulch.htm?pageid=27121
You go on to state as fact, “The border Wall between Nogales, AZ and Nogales, Sonora caused sever flooding…” First, this claims of the wall causing the flooding are wrong on their face, the alleged contributor to the flooding was not “the wall, but rather the raising of a barrier within a drainage tunnel that has existed since the 1930’s and was used by illegal border crossers regularly. Secondly, it has not been determined that raising of this barrier that caused the flooding.
www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/91752.php
I too strongly believe that consideration should be given to any ecological impact the construction of the wall may create. I do however recognize that we mere mortals do not always accurately predict what ecological impact our construction may have. One classic case in point is the arguments made against the Alaska pipeline and the predicted negative impact on migratory caribou. It turns out the caribou have adapted and thrived. I am sure there are similar examples of the opposite result, so yes we must take care, but also reason.
2. Your second argument is that the wall is being constructed without the required consultations with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior as well as state, local governments, Indian Tribes and property owners in the communities. Based upon news reports I have been following, and statements from the DHS, this is not totally true. DHS has held community meetings and consulted with the affected government agencies. Those consultations have obviously not always resulted in the outcomes opponents of the wall have desired, but it does not mean they have not taken place.
cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/congressional_test/walls_waivers.xml
Again, the arguments you have presented are only half of the picture, you have demonstrated a real skill at providing only that information that supports your position and ignored any evidence that offers an alternative conclusion or the details required to make a fully informed judgment.
Appeals to emotion
1. I find it interesting that you begin your argument against the border wall by quoting of all people former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Interesting but not surprising, given that it provides another opportunity to use the fallacious comparison between the border wall and the Berlin Wall. At least former President Gorbachev was smart enough to make a more cogent comparison, that with the Great Wall of China. Mr. Gorbachev goes on to cite the U.S. history of international cooperation. He has a point. However cooperation by definition takes at least two parties. Where is the cooperation from the Mexican government? Is it cooperative that they have printed and distributed guides for illegal crossing? Guides that included maps of our border and suggested crossing points? They later withdrew these after an uproar in the U.S. and in the withdrawal gave one reason as that the maps were being used by CBP to target illegal immigration routes for patrol.
Seriously, is the former President of a collapsing totalitarian government the source you want to cite for moral guidance?
2. You move from an appeal from Mr. Gorbachev, to an appeal for economic prosperity. You state, “We need a safe, fast and secure movement of people and products in a post 9/11 world”. You go on to list the things necessary to achieve these goals and bring in Arizona Governor Napolitano to buttress this argument and add specific proposals. The problem is that all the proposals presented are already in progress in conjunction with the wall. One specific proposal is the “electronic wall”. Have you missed the news reports on the testing of such a wall already in progress, and the difficulties and failures this first test encountered? I actually support an electronic monitoring system, married to fast human response, however the bugs need to be worked out further before this can be an effective counter measure.
3. Finally, you get to the heart of the emotional appeal; the Mexican people and government consider it a muros de odio, a wall of hate. Of course I care how others perceive the U.S. throughout the world, however I would be more concerned with this specific complaint if it actually represented the majority view of the Mexican people, and if it were not these very same people who are crossing illegally. Of course they do not like it, at least those who see it as their right to ignore U.S. immigration policy. Further, the Mexican Government opposing the wall because it takes away the safety valve of social discontent that illegal immigration provides them should not be surprising to anyone.
Even within Mexico you can find supporters of the border wall. Ironically, back in 1993, Congressman Reyes championed intense border protection with operation blockade.
In conclusion, I have no problem with your taking this position on this issue. In fact I applaud you taking what you believe to be a moral stance, despite the demonstrably split opinions of your constituents. However, as my elected or appointed representatives, I expect that when you take a stance and publicly present your position you do not hide the existence of counter positions, and do not present only “facts” that support your position.
As representatives of the citizens in your respective areas, it is incumbent upon you to be honest and complete in presenting information as facts to your constituents. If your position is based upon your emotional connection to this issue say so, do not try to hide behind a highly subjective and one-sided presentation of “facts”. This approach serves neither you nor those you represent well, and only decreases your credibility.
In addition, in the future, should you wish to oppose this wall further, I would appreciate your offering a viable alternative plan. Opposition in this case is not enough; it does not address the very reason the wall was conceived in the first place.
Sincerely,
Tim Collins
El Paso, TX