Homeland Security accelerates border wall construction in New Mexico and Arizona
A stretch of the border wall near Columbus, New Mexico along State Road 9. (Photo by Patrick Lohmann / Source NM)
The U.S. government this week set aside environmental protection laws in order to speed up border wall construction along approximately 20 miles of New Mexico's border with Mexico.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday signed a waiver of various federal laws to expedite border wall construction in southwestern New Mexico. She also signed two similar waivers for areas in neighboring Arizona on Tuesday and Thursday.
Taken together, the waivers allow the federal government to speed up construction of physical barriers and roads along approximately 36 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, the agency said in a news release on Thursday.
The waivers 'ensure the expeditious construction of physical barriers and roads, by minimizing the risk of administrative delays,' DHS said.
The New Mexico waiver lifts the legal requirements of 24 separate federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, just to name a few.
'Trump is recklessly casting aside the foundational laws that protect endangered species and clean air and water to build a wildlife-killing wall through pristine wilderness,' Laiken Jordahl, Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Source NM on Friday.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told Source NM on Friday in a statement that she has serious concerns about the waivers, saying they bypass protections for endangered species, cultural heritage sites and Native American artifacts.
'New Mexico's archaeological resources and sensitive ecosystems could face permanent damage without proper environmental review,' Lujan Grisham said. 'While we understand border security concerns, the federal government should engage with state officials before waiving decades of established environmental protections.'
The New Mexico waiver designates an area in southwestern New Mexico as 'an area of high illegal entry,' divided into three sections.
The DHS news release states that the sections of the border where the laws have been waived total approximately 8.5 miles, but that figure is inaccurate, according to Jordahl, who has traveled to every part of the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his work.
'It is extremely frustrating how difficult they make these waivers to track,' he said. 'Instead of using simple [latitude and longitude] coordinates, they pick landmarks that are almost impossible for the public to map. I believe they may have made an error in their locations in the waiver.'
One section starts at a point on the border just south of Antelope Wells in Hidalgo County and extends one-tenth of a mile east, according to International Boundary and Water Commission data. Jordahl told Source NM he found the same measurements using his own map of the border. This section is already walled off, and so DHS is likely adding another layer of wall, he said.
Another section begins at a point on the border just south of Wamels Draw, a valley in Luna County, and extends approximately 7.5 miles east. This section of the border already has vehicle barriers, but is not walled off yet, Jordahl said.
Building a border wall along this particular stretch would be the most environmentally damaging by far, Jordahl said, because it would threaten the movement and migration of Mexican gray wolves.
'We've seen Mexican gray wolves in this area; we've seen them cross the border,' he said. 'We've also seen them push up against the border wall in New Mexico, wander along it for days and then ultimately have to turn around, being unable to cross.'
Jordahl said his organization's focus lies on Arizona's two waivers and potential wall construction, which would also threaten wildlife.
'Throwing taxpayer money away to wall off the Santa Cruz River and San Rafael Valley would be a death sentence for jaguars, ocelots and other wildlife in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands,' he said. 'This is happening while border crossings are at the lowest level in decades. We'll fight this disastrous project with everything we've got.'
The third section starts at a point on the border west of Santa Teresa and extends approximately 12.4 miles, over Mount Cristo Rey, to the Rio Grande near El Paso. This section already has older mesh border walls, and DHS may be installing newer walls there, Jordahl said.
The sections of the border described in the waiver lie in the same general area as the New Mexico National Defense Area, a newly created military buffer zone which the U.S. government is trying to use — along with novel criminal charges — to discourage people from crossing the border.
Gov. Lujan Grisham, in the statement provided to Source, urged meaningful consultation with state and local officials before the federal government begins construction that 'could cause lasting harm to our communities and environment.'
'New Mexico's natural and cultural resources deserve consideration in this process,' she said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tacoma man held in East Africa part of latest Trump fight over deportations
A Tacoma man is among a group of men convicted of serious crimes that President Donald Trump's administration is trying to send to South Sudan as part of Trump's ongoing effort to deport undocumented immigrants. Lawyers for 43-year-old Tuan Phan learned this week that he and eight other men are being held in a converted shipping container in leg shackles at a United States Naval base in Djibouti in East Africa. The men were routed there following a May 20 deportation flight from Texas after a federal judge in Boston intervened. Judge Brian Murphy found that the Department of Homeland Security had violated a court order by failing to provide the men a meaningful opportunity to assert any fears they had about being deported to a country not listed on their removal orders. Murphy said the U.S. Department of State has a 'do not travel' advisory for South Sudan due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. Conditions at the U.S. military base in Djibouti are also dangerous. In a sworn declaration filed Thursday, a DHS official said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were warned when they arrived of the imminent danger of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen. Officers and detainees have felt ill, the official said, noting that smog clouds from nearby burn pits disposing of trash and human waste made it difficult to breathe. In news releases about the deportations, DHS said the flights to South Sudan were to remove some of the 'most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States.' DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Murphy's ruling that halted their removal was 'deranged.' Unlike the deportations of more than a hundred Venezuelans to El Salvador earlier this year, who according to the New York Times, mostly had no criminal records, each of the eight men in this case have been convicted of violent crimes. An attorney for Phan with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Glenda Aldana Madrid, said Phan and his wife, Ngoc, had been preparing for his deportation, but they had been planning for him to be removed to Vietnam, where he emigrated from as a child in 1991. The two met in Tacoma as neighbors. Phan had legal permanent status, but his legal status was revoked after he was convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree assault in 2001. According to Pierce County court records, Phan, then 18, fatally shot 19-year-old Michael Holtmeyer and wounded his friend near Les Davis Pier on Ruston Way. Holtmeyer was an innocent passerby, and prosecutors said Phan shot into a crowd because he was angry that rival gang members were harassing his friends. Phan pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. According to the DHS, he was issued a final order of removal in 2009. Some countries don't accept deportation flights. Vietnam has previously accepted deportations for immigrants who entered the United States before 1995, according to the Asian Law Caucus. Ngoc Phan was able to talk with her husband for a few minutes Wednesday after not hearing from him for two weeks. 'It was a relief to know that he is safe and alive, but it was extremely upsetting to know that he's chained by the feet like an animal, living in a shipping container, and without proper medication,' Ngoc Phan said in a written statement. The U.S. government has the authority to deport people to a third country — one other than the country designated by an immigration judge — according to Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. But Realmuto said the court's order was that if that's going to happen, attorneys have to be given sufficient time to investigate whether their clients have a fear of being deported there. In this case, Realmuto told The News Tribune on Friday, there was less than 16 hours notice before the men were brought to an airport facility in Texas and put on a plane. Realmuto's organization is part of the ongoing lawsuit over the men's deportations. She said she thinks the effort to send them to South Sudan is 'fear mongering.' 'The effort is punitive, but it is meant to incite fear in the United States,' Realmuto said. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, also Trump's chief foreign affairs advisor, wrote in a declaration in the case that Murphy's court order had interfered with quiet efforts to rebuild a working relationship with the government in South Sudan's capital, Juda. 'Before the court's intervention, the government in South Sudan, which previously refused to accept the return of one of its own nationals, had taken steps to work more cooperatively with the U.S. government,' Rubio said. Rubio added that cooperation between South Sudan and the U.S. was critical both in terms of removals and to advance the U.S. government's humanitarian efforts in the country.
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Native American boarding school funding under scrutiny in lawsuit
Native American boarding school funding under scrutiny in lawsuit The lawsuit filed by the Wichita and Washoe tribes demands an accounting of an estimated $23.3 billion in misappropriated funds. Show Caption Hide Caption US apologizes for the first time for abuses at Native schools President Joe Biden formally apologized for the abuses committed against Native boarding school students over the past century. Two tribal nations are suing the U.S. government for misusing trust funds meant for Native children's education to finance abusive boarding schools. The lawsuit demands an accounting of an estimated $23.3 billion and details of how the funds were used. The lawsuit follows Interior Department reports detailing abuses and deaths within the boarding school system. Two tribal nations are suing the United States government, saying it misappropriated trust funds to finance the Federal Indian Boarding School program, using monies meant to support Native Nations to instead fuel a system of abuse that spawned generations of trauma, despair and social ills. The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California say financing for the boarding school program included Native trust funds taken 'for the supposed purpose of providing money to support Native children's education.' The tribes are demanding a federal accounting of an estimated $23.3 billion in funding taken from those funds, saying the government has never detailed how the monies were used. The lawsuit was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where one of the boarding school system's most notorious campuses – the Carlisle Indian Industrial School – once operated. 'The United States took upon itself the sacred trusteeship over Native children's education – a trust responsibility that has remained unbroken for 200 years,' said Adam Levitt, founding partner of DiCello Levitt, one of four law firms representing the tribes, in a news release. 'At the very least, the United States has a legal and moral obligation to account for the Boarding School Program, including a detailed explanation of the funds that it took and spent.' Federal trust responsibility 'was born of a sacred bargain,' according to the lawsuit. Through numerous treaties, Native Nations promised peace and ceded land; in exchange, the U.S. would provide for the education of their children. 'The land was ceded; the peace was a mirage,' the lawsuit said. 'And the primary victims of decades of ongoing statutory and treaty violations were the Native Nations' children.' The lawsuit names Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Interior Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education as defendants. Alyse Sharpe, a spokesperson for the Department of the Interior, told USA TODAY the agency as a matter of policy does not comment on litigation. 'The Department of the Interior remains committed to our trust responsibilities of protecting tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, in addition to its duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages,' Sharpe said. A shameful chapter in US history More than 18,000 children, some as young as 4, were shipped off to 417 federal boarding schools, many run by religious organizations, between 1819 and 1969. The system's detrimental effects were both immediate and long-lasting. Under Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the department's first Native American director, the agency released reports in 2022 and 2024 detailing the program's abuses, including death, forced labor and physical and sexual abuse. The investigation confirmed the deaths of at least 973 American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian children in the boarding school system. According to the lawsuit, the program sought to destroy children's links to their Indigenous families, language and cultural practices, depriving them of skills necessary to participate and succeed in their own communities, indoctrinating them into menial positions and more broadly breeding cycles of poverty, violence and drug addiction. 'The Boarding School Program represents one of the most shameful chapters in American history,' Serrell Smokey, chairman of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, said in the news release. 'Our children were taken from us, subjected to unimaginable horrors, and forced to fund their own suffering. This lawsuit seeks to hold the U.S. government accountable for its actions and to ensure that the truth is finally brought to light.' The lawsuit says the program was not only 'a national disgrace' but violated the government's duty to provide Native children with an education, an obligation that continues today based on a 'unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children.' 'The Boarding School Program inflicted profound and lasting harm on our communities,' said Amber Silverhorn-Wolfe, president of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes. 'We are seeking justice not only for the survivors but also for the generations that continue to suffer from the intergenerational trauma caused by these schools.' Faith E. Gay of Selendy Gay, another firm representing the tribes, noted the Interior Department reports revealed not only the scale and scope of the government's actions but that key information related to program financing remains under federal control. Those reports said the boarding school system was part of a pattern of forced assimilation policies pursued or allowed by the U.S. for nearly two centuries and recommended an official apology. President Joe Biden formally apologized for the program in October. 'The harm inflicted by the Boarding School Program endures in the broken families and poor mental and physical health of survivors of the Boarding Schools and their descendants,' the tribal lawsuit reads. 'It endures in the cycles of poverty, desperation, domestic violence, and addiction that were born of the Boarding School Program. It endures in the silence of lost language and culture, and … in the missing remains and unmarked graves of the children who died.'
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."
