On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to take up the appeal lodged by environmental groups that focused on a two-mile stretch of border fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The fence, which has been built since the petition was filed, is a vital part of the Bush administration's drive to secure the border between the United States and Mexico. The Supreme Court's decision is a welcome and needed victory in the war against illegal immigration and efforts to preserve the unique character that is America.
The environmentalists based part of their challenge on claims the fence would harm the mating habits of two types of wildcats. To them, it is more important to allow wildcats to procreate than to control our borders and demand that everyone who comes here obey our laws. We must obey their laws. Google "Driving in Mexico" and see all of the paperwork that is required to enter that country. An illegal stopped in America often goes free because too many in law enforcement either can't or won't enforce federal law.
Time magazine's June 30 cover story is titled "The Great Wall of America: A billion-dollar barrier between the U.S. and Mexico. It's reducing illegal immigration - but does America really need to wall itself off?"
This isn't about walling ourselves off. This isn't a Berlin Wall erected to keep people in. It is a fence designed to keep illegals out. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference will not be persuaded by facts.
This fence and other inhibitors to illegal immigration should have been built long ago. But politicians - Republicans and Democrats - have been reluctant to offend Hispanic voters, so they have dragged their feet. Democrats, especially, wish to import votes and so they welcome illegals and seek to help them become citizens. Their message: vote for Democrats, or your relatives won't be able to come and mean Republicans will try to throw you out. It's a twist on their demagoguery about Social Security, which has worked for them over many election cycles.