I have a completely different reaction to this. The only thing I find stupid is referring to this as a "moat". The border between the U.S. and Mexico at this point is the Colorado River, which as you can see via Google Maps doesn't have much of any water in it at this point in its course.
As you point out, putting water back in the river is going to have to come at the expense of someone upstream having to give up the water they are currently pulling from the river.
But my feeling is that this is really an environmental restoration taking advantage of money available as a border project, rather than the other way around.
After all, it's not like the "moat" between Texas and Mexico is impassable...
OK, it's not really a moat. And if environmentalists have figured out how to capitalize on the anti-immigrant hysteria to save some wetlands, perhaps they should be commended for their ingenuity.
8:29 PM, March 15, 2008
With the limited water resources available in the American Southwest, some people in Yuma have decided that the best use of this scarce commodity is to build a moat (This link is to the New York Times, not The Onion): Faced with high-levels of crime and illegal immigration, authorities in Yuma are reaching back to a technique as old as a medieval castle to dig out a "security channel" on a crime-ridden stretch of the border and fill it with water."The moats that I've seen circled the castle and allowed you to protect yourself, and that's kind of what we're looking at here," said Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden, who is backing the project.(HT: Maestro via email). First of all, are they sure it's the illegal immigrants committing those crimes?. All the studies I've read show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native people. It makes sense: they don't want to draw attention to themselves and get deported. Second of all, where are they going to get the water for this project? Those who are using it for agriculture aren't going to want to give it up (and probably don't want to their access to undocumented workers impeded either). Third of all, is the river/channel really going to stop anyone? Aren't there more cost effective solutions?
I know, how about we have a realistic immigration policy? Yes, Tom Tancredo's head might explode, but his quest for the nomination didn't get anywhere, so who cares?
I'm impressed that they are touting the environmental benefits of this moat, though: The area would also be replanted with native sedges and rushes to provide habitat for threatened local species such as the Yuma Clapper Rail, a secretive marsh bird. Backers say it would also provide a space for residents of Yuma, a farming town popular with winter visitors, to walk and fish.The organization behind the project would like to extend it the entire course of the Colorado River, which marks the U.S.-Mexico border, in what it sees as an environmental recovery program that complements the Border Patrol's task.This is yet another example of how their reality has lapped our satire. The Onion does have a video segment on this topic:
"A frickin' MOAT!?!?!"
2 Comments -
I have a completely different reaction to this. The only thing I find stupid is referring to this as a "moat". The border between the U.S. and Mexico at this point is the Colorado River, which as you can see via Google Maps doesn't have much of any water in it at this point in its course.
As you point out, putting water back in the river is going to have to come at the expense of someone upstream having to give up the water they are currently pulling from the river.
But my feeling is that this is really an environmental restoration taking advantage of money available as a border project, rather than the other way around.
After all, it's not like the "moat" between Texas and Mexico is impassable...
9:56 AM, March 15, 2008
OK, it's not really a moat. And if environmentalists have figured out how to capitalize on the anti-immigrant hysteria to save some wetlands, perhaps they should be commended for their ingenuity.
8:29 PM, March 15, 2008