NationStates Jolt Archive

Today's vote in Congress will be interesting in that there is a bill on the table today that gives blanket immunity from all environmental laws to the Department of Homeland Security if they should decide to erect a barrier anywhere along the US border.

The bill is H.R. 418, and the specific text is:

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.


Under this sweeping waiver, Homeland Security would be free to undertake large construction projects anywhere along the borders without oversight, accountability or legal constraints – from the densely populated border communities in California, Texas and Washington, to the remote wilderness of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, to the pristine islands and waters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in northern Minnesota. Never before, to my knowledge, has any federal agency been provided with such a breadth of exemptions from environmental laws.


I realize that it's a bit late, but if this concerns you - you might want to fire off a quick email to your Congress(wo)man this morning.

I'm glad I'm not American! Who needs the Gestapo or Inquisition when you have the DHS?

Most importantly, this means we can fence the gap that's been a problem in San Diego county, which is the one everyone points to when showing what a joke the border defenses are. That whole situation was a travesty.

They've already gutted most enviromental protection laws for the benefit of corporations. So this should hardly come as a suprise.

I guess that Zepp may be surprised by FEMA regulations.

I guess that Zepp may be surprised by FEMA regulations.

Nope.

However that doesn't mean that I think that more government agencies should have the right to trample on what were designated as protected lands for a reason without any judicial review either.

Which is to say, just because there are already some dumb laws on the books isn't a terribly good reason to add to them in my opinion.

Most importantly, this means we can fence the gap that's been a problem in San Diego county, which is the one everyone points to when showing what a joke the border defenses are. That whole situation was a travesty.

I am NOT arguing that specific places such as the one you mention do not need to be dealt with - the sooner the better.

However I fail to see why this should require a nationwide blanket exception from oversight for this department.

I am NOT arguing that specific places such as the one you mention do not need to be dealt with - the sooner the better.

However I fail to see why this should require a nationwide blanket exception from oversight for this department.

Maybe the language is too broad, but there's no way to fence the border without overriding the EPA.. interestingly, the Sierra Club is now behind a border fence, since the million that cross illegally each year do more damage to the wildlife than any wall construction ever would.

Maybe the language is too broad, but there's no way to fence the border without overriding the EPA.. interestingly, the Sierra Club is now behind a border fence, since the million that cross illegally each year do more damage to the wildlife than any wall construction ever would.

Somehow I doubt that the Sierra Club is behind the notion that the required fence should not do it's utmost to respect the environment - even as it wants it fast-tracked.

I find it hard to conceive of a border-long barrier that is impassible to humans being friendly to migratory wildlife.

I'm glad I'm not American! Who needs the Gestapo or Inquisition when you have the DHS?
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition."
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency....Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....Our four... no...Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise...
I'll come in again."


Actually when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it referred to my country (Demented HamsterS)

Either that or the Department of Health for Scotland (DHS)

I find it hard to conceive of a border-long barrier that is impassible to humans being friendly to migratory wildlife.


As do I, however that is hardly the only environmental law that could come into play when building a large structure.

Today's vote in Congress will be interesting in that there is a bill on the table today that gives blanket immunity from all environmental laws to the Department of Homeland Security if they should decide to erect a barrier anywhere along the US border.

The bill is H.R. 418, and the specific text is:

Under this sweeping waiver, Homeland Security would be free to undertake large construction projects anywhere along the borders without oversight, accountability or legal constraints – from the densely populated border communities in California, Texas and Washington, to the remote wilderness of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, to the pristine islands and waters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in northern Minnesota. Never before, to my knowledge, has any federal agency been provided with such a breadth of exemptions from environmental laws.


I realize that it's a bit late, but if this concerns you - you might want to fire off a quick email to your Congress(wo)man this morning.

Well Zepp, I guess the news day in Canada was kind of slow, eh?

They've been at it for a while
March 2001 Bush declares that CO2 is not considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

July 2001 Gale Norton recommends the government not appeal an Idaho court ruling denying water rights considered critical to the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge.

August 2001 Forest Service grants Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth sole authority over roadless area decisions.
Bosworth announces a directive approving road building and logging in the Tongass and other national forests.

September 2001 The Forest Service, for instance, has proposed to increase its use of "categorical exclusions" -- a provision that limits environmental analyses and eliminates public comments or administrative appeals. Already, the forest service has identified 1,500 projects it wants to approve through 'categorical exclusions.'

February 2002 The administration announce a two-year review of as many as 10 areas designated 'critical habitats' for endangered species.

March 2002 A Forest Service memo states that road building near streams in national forests can go ahead without Clean Water Act permits.

May 2002 The Interior Department cancels a two-year ban on new mining in and around Siskiyou National Forest in Oregon.

The Forest Service proposes opening 140,000 acres in California's Los Padres National Forest to oil and gas leasing.

January 2003 When the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency declared that parties who dirtied or destroyed "isolated" waterways -- those that were non-navigable and limited to a single state -- would no longer be automatically cited.

March 2003 The EPA delays new regulations covering water pollution at drilling sites.

April 2003 The BLM relaxes rules on permitting for oil and gas drilling on public land.

May 2003 Administration officials meet with factory farmers to discuss the industry's proposal for "safe harbor" exemptions from the Clean Air Act and Superfund.

June 2003 The administration releases its "Draft Report on the Environment," leaving out key data on global climate change and pollution sources.

July 2003 A newspaper reports that the EPA is padding enforcement stats with counter-terrorism and narcotics cases.
According to published reports, EPA analyses of alternatives to the administration's "Clear Skies" plan have been rejected or shelved.

April 2004 For the third consecutive year, DOD is seeking exemptions for itself from three environmental laws - the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Clean Air Act. The DOD proposal would preempt states' authority to protect potential drinking water supplies, address environmental contamination and take action where there may be imminent endangerments to human health. If DOD contaminates a water supply, not only would the states lose the authority to protect themselves, the proposal would also terminate the federal statutory authorities that local governments, drinking water providers, and military families can use to seek action.

And so on and so on and so on. :gundge: