Security madness

On Feb. 19, and to its everlasting credit, the state of California rejected the federal proposal, which called for filling in seaside canyons and building fences along a 3.5 mile stretch of land inland from the Pacific Ocean. Nine miles beyond that coastal area have already been heavily fortified with fences.

Homeland Security and the U.S. Border Patrol claim the fence would deter illegal border crossings. True enough, it might help a bit. But it's ludicrous to believe that a dedicated terrorist or a desperate illegal alien couldn't go an extra few miles inland to get into the United States, or, easier still, simply swim or boat further up the coastline where there would be no fencing system. Or fly over the fence.

Thinking a bit more logically, the California Coastal Commission ruled that the possible harm the fencing would cause outweighed the perceived "security benefits" and denied the federal government permission to construct its great barricade.

Of course, the federal government -- which is showing a growing lack of respect for states' rights these days -- plans to challenge the state's ruling.

California officials deserve support in this fight. What the Department of Homeland Security proposes here is madness. This "great wall" approach would do virtually nothing to prevent terrorism, as there are plenty of ways and places to get into the United States. No structure will stop that. Or does Homeland Security propose to ring every state, every community, every home with fences and walls to keep all of us from danger?

The question is, do we truly want to drape our borders with razor-wire and tall steel barricades? In a real fashion, that would actually make our fears a reality. If we have to live within borders that look like the edges of a concentration camp, we are losing our soul, and ought no longer represent ourselves as the "land of the free."

This $58 million, taxpayer-financed boondoggle would require 2.1 million cubic yards of fill to execute. That is the equivalent of 300,000 dump trucks worth of dirt. It would destroy a half-mile long canyon along the beach, be highly susceptible to erosion, and potentially damage a nearby estuary (which, ironically, is protected by the federal government) that provides refuge for birds, including species that are considered threatened or endangered.

So perhaps different agencies of our federal government will soon sue each other, as Homeland Security battles for the right to waste our money on this idiocy.

Already, the border area in question is crisscrossed with fences, lights, motion sensors, and law enforcement patrols. Enough is enough. We don't need to decimate scenic coastal areas just because it will allow a better fence to be built.

JB