Chertoff’s Great Divide
June 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Four months have passed since the Observer’s Hole in the Wall story came out. The story focused on the struggle of 72-year old Eloisa Tamez and 76-year old Daniel Garza to save their properties, which have been designated for destruction by a border fence. Meanwhile, the planned fence will bypass the wealthy in the area, such as Dallas billionaire Ray Hunt. (According to Forbes magazine, Hunt ranks at number 292 on their list of the richest people in the world.)
The Observer article prompted much debate and discussion as to whether the border fence was biased toward lower income people. A working group of faculty and students at the University of Texas at Austin Law School have now released a statistical study that illustrates a divide between rich and poor when it comes to the border fence placement.
The group has submitted their findings to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an intergovernmental body of the Organization of American States. The Commission monitors compliance by member states, including the United States, with issues of human rights and international law.
Dr. Jeff Wilson, assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry and Environmental Sciences at The University of Texas at Brownsville, conducted the statistical study. He found that “The border wall and the necessary taking of property resulting from its construction will disproportionately impact poor Latino immigrant families.”
Wilson analyzed data for the Cameron County portion of the fence.
He divided the study into “gaps” and “fence” to determine if there was any significant statistical difference between those who will have the border fence on their property and those who won’t get a fence. Wilson found that the group who won’t get the fence are older, wealthier, more likely to be Anglo and not recent immigrants.
Many landowners like Tamez say that Secretary Chertoff and Homeland Security have never adequately explained to landowners why their houses are being targeted for a fence while other properties are not on the list.
Landowners have felt for some time that income level and ability to defend oneself, eg. the number of lawyers one can hire, has something to do with the equation.
The group also found other human rights abuses including: violations of the rights of indigenous communities, and severe degradation of the environment.
The working group is asking the Commission to bring up their findings at its July meeting and to hold a hearing on the Texas-Mexico border wall in October.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Environmental justice is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency to mean that “no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies” (EPA Fact Sheet). This sentiment was codified by President Clinton in executive order 12898 (Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice [EJ] in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), which 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.”
In 2004, the Operation Rio Grande Environmental Impact Statement found that environmental justice was indeed an issue for projects in the Rio Grande Valley:
“Approximately 85% of the population in the area can be classified as minority (well above the state average of 39.4%). The median annual household incomes for the counties in the project area (Starr, $10,182; Hidalgo, $16,703; and Cameron, $17,336) are well below the state average of $27,016 and, in the case of Starr County, below the $15,000 established by the EPA for defining the economic status risk group. Therefore, many of the households in the project area doubtless have a high potential EJ index.” (Operation Rio Grande EIS, Section 3.12.6)
Hard-working people who may not have the money to hire lawyers are going to have their homes bulldozed or family farms sliced in two for a wall that won’t stop anyone. DHS is prepared to perpetrate a terrible injustice against the very U.S. citizens that they are supposed to protect.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
And DHS is distinguished from the general run of the Republican party and the Conservative movement since, roughly, Eisenhower, in what fashion?
It seems to me that “prepared to perpetrate a terrible injustice against the very U.S. citizens that they are supposed to protect” is pretty much a minimum job qualification to run on a GOP ticket or be accepted for party membership. Who would expect otherwise?