June 30, 2003

Mr. Charles Parsons
Regional Environmental Officer
24000 Avila Road
P.O. Box 30080
Laguna Niguel, CA 92607-0080
Fax: (949) 360-2985

RE: Draft Environmental Assessment for Nogales Infrastructure Improvements United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Nogales Station Santa Cruz County, Arizona

Dear Mr. Parsons:

Please accept these comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Nogales Infrastructure Improvements United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Nogales Station Santa Cruz County, Arizona submitted by the Latin America Working Group.

The Latin America Working Group is one of the nation's longest standing coalitions dedicated to foreign policy. It seeks to ensure that US policies toward the region are grounded in a respect for the basic human rights of all people. As a coalition, LAWG represents the interests of over 60 major religious, humanitarian, grassroots and policy organizations to decision makers in Washington. Under the direction of our Mexico and Central America programs, we focus on the impact of US Border Patrol activities and policies on the lives of migrants entering the US.

The draft supplemental environmental assessment currently does not provide an adequate discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed action. While these purpose and need are clearly stated, there is no discussion of how the proposed activities will actually contribute to achieving these goals. Rather, it states as fact with no discussion or analysis, that the proposed activities will satisfy the purpose and need. We feel it is unacceptable to pursue large infrastructure policies such as those proposed in this document without a thorough review of their effectiveness.

We also believe that the draft supplemental environmental assessment as written fails to adequately analyze the overall impact of the proposed construction on the Border Patrols ability to deter illegal immigration, and that it fails to take into account the impact of the proposed construction on migrant lives. Given that this project is being proposed specifically to affect migrants, we feel that any assessment of proposed projects should, under the National Environmental Policy Act guidelines requiring an assessment on the impact of proposed activities on socioeconomic issues, address the impact of proposed activities on the target population – migrants.

The draft supplemental environmental assessment specifically states that the “purpose of the proposed infrastructure system is to facilitate the detection and deterrence of … undocumented aliens.” However, all discussion of this project is confined to the Nogales area. Under the Southwest Border Strategy, devised in 1994, the Border Patrol began to tighten control over urban area, believing that migrants would not risk their lives crossing in the remote, dangerous areas of the US-Mexico border. Construction in Nogales is part of this larger, border-wide strategy to deter migration.

In ten years, we have seen that, despite effective control of urban areas such as San Diego and El Paso, migrants are willing to risk their lives to enter the US. Furthermore, in ten years of implementation of infrastructure construction projects similar to the proposed activities for the Nogales area found in this environmental assessment, we have not seen a decrease in the number of migrants that cross the southwest border as a whole. From 1993 to 2002, Border Patrol statistics show that the number of migrants apprehended has dropped only two, non-sequential years (1994 and 2002) out of ten years across the entire southwest border. We believe that these deterrence and detection policies are not effective at stopping migration into the US, and feel that before the Border Patrol continues to spend money and resources in construction projects, it should evaluate the effectiveness of these projects not just on deterrence in the local context of the construction area, but as a strategy for the entire southwest border. The current draft supplemental environmental assessment fails to discuss the direct and cumulative impaction on the migration trends of the entire border, and should do so.

Border Patrol data also show that the increase in Border Patrol activity along one section of the border only serves to shift migration to another part of the border. In 1993, the San Diego Border Patrol sector was responsible for 44% of all apprehensions along the southwest border, while the Tucson and Yuma sectors accounted for only 10% of apprehensions. Since the dramatic increase of infrastructure projects and Border Patrol activity in the San Diego sector, apprehensions there decreased to 11% in 2002. However, these successes in California have led to the influx of migrants through Arizona that the Border Patrol is now trying to address in the Nogales area. As of 2002, the Yuma and Tucson sectors accounted for 41% of all southwest border apprehensions. This data clearly shows that migration has shifted from one area of the border – California – to another – Arizona – as a result of Border Patrol activities. With its focus only on the Nogales area, the current draft supplemental environmental assessment does not acknowledge the indirect and cumulative impacts that the proposed actions for Nogales will have on other communities along the border with regards to shifts in migration patterns, and should do so.

We also feel strongly that the draft supplemental environmental assessment should evaluate the likely impact that the proposed deterrence and detection activities will have on the lives of the migrants who are entering the US. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” requires each Federal agency to identify and address disproportionate adverse effects of its proposed actions on minority populations and low-income communities. As a project whose primary purpose is to act as a deterrent to migrants, all evaluation documents should discuss the direct and indirect impacts the project will have on its target community.

Already, Border Patrol statistics show that migration does not decrease as a result of increased Border Patrol activities, and they also show that migration routes into the US move to other areas as a result of Border Patrol activities. One of the consequences of Southwest Border Strategy implemented is that, since its inception, there has been a dramatic climb in the number of migrant deaths each year. These deaths are directly attributable to the fact that migrants increasingly enter the US through remote and dangerous areas such as the Sonoran desert in Arizona. In 2002 alone, 384 migrants died entering the US – the vast majority of those deaths were due to exposure to harsh environmental conditions. And in fiscal year 2003, 55 migrants have already been found dead in the deserts of Arizona alone. Border Patrol policies that increase deterrence in urban areas most likely push migrants into these desert areas where they die, yet no Border Patrol document has addressed this direct and indirect impact on the target community, migrants, and should do so.

In the past ten years, the Border Patrol Southwest Border Strategy has not been effective in deterring illegal migration into the US, has spread the environmental and social impacts of illegal migration across a much wider swath of the southwest border than was affected prior to 1993, and has contributed to the skyrocketing number of migrant deaths. Despite these facts, which Border Patrol statistics clearly show, there has been no analysis of the effectiveness of proposed infrastructure projects like those proposed in this draft supplemental environmental assessment. As the first step in determining the purpose and need for proposed actions, we strongly feel that the Border Patrol must address these critical issues.

In sum, the environmental assessment does not contain an adequate analysis of the proposed action and the impacts that will flow from it. There is simply no basis upon which to conclude that the action will fulfill the stated purpose and need. To conclude that the consequences of this proposed action would fulfill that need without any discussion is irresponsible.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Border Patrol activities. We hope that our comments will prompt further study of the impact of Border Patrol projects on its target population - migrants. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 202.546.7010.

Regards,

Sean Mariano Garcia
Senior Associate