There's a small stretch of border between California and Mexico that has a reputation for easy access to illegal immigrants. It's only 3.5 miles long and starts at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. The canyon area that the area crosses is known as "Smuggler's Gulch," and the Department of Homeland Security wants to erect a fence across the section to better control the daily flow of Mexican aliens who cross into California.
But the California Coastal Commission has denied the request for the fence because they fear it would endanger sensitive bird habitats in the area. So now the issue is headed to the courts.
Here's what baffles me. Regardless of the effectiveness of the fence, what gives a state the right to deny a security request in the age of terrorism, especially when that denial is based on the potential impact of bird habitat? That simply seems absurd.
I am a strong advocate of states' rights. Yet as we all know, there are some issues of national importance that simply override the wishes of individual states. And the areas of illegal immigration and terrorism clearly fall within that category.
The Homeland Security office has already constructed miles of fencing in the sensitive region that is a haven for illegal immigrants passing into California. The section in question is actually the final link in the $58 million project. It's just beyond my limited imagination that bird habitat would take priority over the growing problem of illegal immigration. But then again, only in California!
Either way, the fence will be built. Under federal law - in this area of discussion at least - the President holds the final authority and can override an unfavorable court ruling. And that is likely how this quirky case will end.
I can't say I'm particularly a bird lover. But I also recognize the importance of protecting endangered species. However, the balance between security of our nation and the protection of bird habitat seems like an easy call.