BY BRADFORD McKEE
Postcommodity, Repellent Fence, 2015. Image courtesy Museum of Walking/Angela Ellsworth.
From the upcoming February 2017 issue of Landscape Architecture Magazine.
Instead of a sensible and humane overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws to deal with current realities, we are apparently going to get a wall between the United States and Mexico. It was among the most outlandish promises of the Trump campaign, if only one of its rank xenophobic turns: a gigantic blockade stretching from the Pacific Ocean, through the Sonoran Desert, and down the Rio Grande River to the Gulf of Mexico, with fear as its mortar. During the first week of the new Republican-led Congress, the House Republican Policy Committee chair, Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana, told the Washington Post that legislators are looking for ways to begin work on such a wall under existing law and with American (not Mexican) money. The existing law Messer means is the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed by President George W. Bush, which called for 700 miles of actual fencing and a “virtual fence” of beefed-up surveillance along the Mexico border. That work remains incomplete. Barriers block less than half of the 1,954 miles of international boundary. Theoretically, a resumption of building could begin to lock it all up later this spring.
The human effects of this simplistic idea will be mixed. A big wall will stop some population flow, but hardly all of it, and it will kill informal cross border commerce. Ecologically, though, it is likely to be a catastrophe. It will fragment habitat on a huge scale in one of the most biologically diverse parts of North America—the Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas alone is said to have more than 700 species of vertebrates, including hundreds of migratory birds. A solid wall will harm anything with legs, including big cats (not least a jaguar population), bears, pronghorn, frogs, lizards, and turtles, some already in danger of extinction, by reducing their range and genetic diversity.
Europe, too, is fencing off some of its wildest regions, in the Balkans, to stem the flow of refugees north from Turkey and Greece. Jim O’Donnell of Yale Environment 360 reported in December on the new razor-wire fences quickly going up along the border between Slovenia and Croatia, which became a refugee route when Hungary closed its border. The fences form obstacles that threaten, among other creatures, the Eurasian brown bear, the Eurasian wolf, and the Eurasian lynx, the sorts of large carnivores without which the larger web of biodiversity starts to decay. Deer are impaling themselves and bleeding to death on the fences. This comes after Europe has been making considerable ecological progress since its borders reopened a generation ago. One biology study O’Donnell cites said, “In part due to the harmonization of legislation across borders and restored connectivity, Europe has witnessed a tremendous recovery of its large carnivore and herbivore populations in recent decades.” Now comes this new upset to the system.
There is not much automatic recourse in environmental law to the destruction a border wall would cause. Michael Chertoff, when secretary of the Department of Homeland Security a decade ago, used the power given him by the Real ID Act of 2005 to suspend three dozen environmental laws that might delay any border wall construction—including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. In early January, the lieutenant governor of California, Gavin Newsom, vowed to stop any progress on border wall construction in his state by suing under the California Environmental Quality Act or NEPA. He also mentioned the prerogatives of indigenous governance, zoning approvals, and building permits that the state could weaponize against the wall. It’s unclear what standing the courts would find California to have to proceed with such suits, but given the stakes for the ecological health of an enormous part of the country, anything that pushes the environmental questions to the fore will be worth the effort. “Build the wall” represents a cheap, one-liner approach to a terribly nuanced problem, one that harder work could resolve more equitably for humans and nonhumans alike.
Anyone whose home consists of walls and lockable doors must surely appreciate the need for a physical barrier to control who enters the place that is home to us all. If you oppose a wall on the border, please demonstrate your faith in this idea by removing all exterior doors from your home.
Invalid reasoning. This place is home to us all, including non-human species; therefore, we, as a species, shouldn’t be shutting them out of their homes.
/\ @ Kevin [edit] – I meant: valid reasoning; invalid conclusion.
Then I assume you will report back to us when you have removed the doors, windows, and screens from your home. I look forward to being able to admire your rare strength of commitment.
Wow, hardly comparable, a house to an enormous region, did you read the article? I don’t think an exterior door interrupts habitat for hundreds of species. The wall is a stupid idea in all regards, lets figure out a better way.
I’m in! If there’s a “better way” that’s equally effective in controlling unlawful entry (which must be our priority) I would enthusiastically support it.
Just one more thing…
When I pay my dues each year, I do so to support our profession – Landscape Architecture – which I believe to be first and foremost about design – design, not political activism. In my opinion, it is inappropriate for LAM to openly take and promote biased political positions. If I want to hear how wrong Trump is, or how perfect a former president was, there are plenty of other places I can turn. I believe that ASLA and LAM could serve the profession very well without ever publicly expressing personal political viewpoints. Members should be able to participate in ASLA and LAM without ever having to come to grips with the staff’s personal political beliefs.
Please. Be objective. Be professional.
Kevin, you may note that this is an opinion piece in a magazine which is only one of the many benefits that your ASLA membership provides. More importantly, your membership provides you with numerous educational resources, invaluable networking opportunities, and the tireless advocacy of our profession and the environment – which includes the protection of your ever-threatened license (see iAdvocate: http://advocate.asla.org/). In fact, this association was named one of nine organizations exhibiting the most comprehensive approaches to educating and engaging their members regarding climate change by the Kresge Foundation. It may be biased, but it is overwhelmingly biased towards the protection of the environment and facts. And again, it is an opinion piece signed by Brad McKee. If you don’t like it, flip the page to the rest of this award-winning magazine.
Everything is political!
Imagine the improvements we could have with the money used for this wall.
Think how many trees could be planted in our cities, think how many jobs for landscape architects could be created.
Did the great wall of China stop invasions? Did Adrian’s wall in Scotland stop the Roman Empire from collapsing? Did the Maginot line in France stopped German invasions…and what about the Berlin Wall?
Walls to stop people are useless..they eventually sooner or later crumble!
Joel
The border fence is design, but the site analysis has been shallow and selective. Design without good site analysis and impact analysis is not good design. The environment and the non-human stakeholders impacted by this fence will suffer. These are facts that are not political and claiming that designers who care about the good design are waving some political banner and being unprofessional is throwing up a distraction.
Bob,
This article isn’t political?? Did you read even the first two sentences? Let’s at least call a spade a spade.
On all accounts building a wall is antithesis to everything we -individually , as well as collectively have been taught. Uncivilized, retrograde and irresponsible.
We faught an enemy in WWII so that enemy nation would later build a wall, and it took president Reagan to demand (and negotiate) to “tear that wall down”. We faught another Cold Wat with USSR for many years. And now this man (Trump) is friend with that nation.
It’s no wonder the US has been downgraded in an International Democracy rating from Stable, to “Suspect”.
Capricious, idiotic, umdemocratic amd dangerous.
It will cost money ( yes American tax payer money) to build and then to get another lucid, smart president to order it torn down!
Get with it!! Evolve!!! It is 21 century.
bravo. thanks for writing brad. this makes me proud to be a landscape architect. i could not disagree more with kevin’s opinion that it is inappropriate for LAM to openly take and promote political positions (i omitted the word “biased” for redundancy…any political position is inherently biased).
kevin, i am curious, how old are you and how long have you been a member of ASLA? i am relatively new to the discipline (<5 years experience, 31 years old), but i imagine the majority of my peers (experience level, generation, etc.) would stand by my disagreement with your statement. i understand ASLA has had difficulties in attracting new, younger members in the early stages of their careers. i guarantee that they will continue to have this struggle as long as ASLA doesn't take and promote political positions as brad has done here. design doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is influenced by policy, as is every other aspect of human life. the notion of anything covering "design only" seems implausible in my mind. finally, this article shares a trait that's common across so much good design, it's bold and brings a unique component to the discussion (an ecological layer in addition to issues of xenophobia and racism that have been the predominant beats of both national media and progressives).
again, hats off to the LAM editorial team on this one. lets keep it going.
I agree with Kevin. If you want an obviously biased political rant, turn on any news channel of your choice. Just as I do not want to hear the political views of movie star A or rock star B has from their soapbox of fame, I do not want to read about it in LAM. Don’t like the wall? Boo hoo. And the only fact re climate change is that it has been constantly changing since the dawn of time. If you really want to ‘free your mind’ – stop listening to Ted Turner and the other liberal mainstream media operators and think for yourself.
I agree that the border wall is a terrible idea, from both the ecological and the human dimensions perspectives. But this piece could have been improved with some actual science and maybe a little less inflammatory language. The Jim O’Donnell/Yale Environment 360 report is science-based, an embedded hot link for that would have been good. Let’s keep the conversation going, but let’s incorporate the specific effects on specific habitats and species.
Editor’s note: Excellent point. Link added. Also to the Washington Post report. Thanks.
[…] States is composed of sensitive ecosystems, urban areas, water, hills, flats—you name it. The environmental consequences of a wall would be immense. The negative economic implications—loss of consumer business, loss of […]
Kevin & Brian, you’re an embarrassment to our profession and should be ashamed about your comments. Landscape architecture is – or at least ought to be – inherently political in its shaping of space and stewardship of ecology. Just because you’re making a living planting McMansion lawns doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage these kinds of discussions.