Mediaboss Marketing

A white-tailed deer emerges from the brush. The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge has some of the richest biological diversity in North America--with 1,200 plants, 300 butterflies, and 700 vertebrates, of which 520 are birds. Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

A white-tailed deer emerges from the brush. The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge has some of the richest biological diversity in North America--with 1,200 plants, 300 butterflies, and 700 vertebrates, of which 520 are birds.

Over the past 41 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been buying up land on the lower Texas-Mexico border to protect one of the most biologically diverse regions in North America from developers and farmers.

But the Rio Grande Valley of Texas is a hotspot for illegal immigration and drug smuggling, as well as biodiversity. That's why the Trump administration is planning to build 110 miles of border wall through the valley (which is actually a river delta).

Pieces of that wall will go directly through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge because it is land already owned by the federal government. Elsewhere on the Texas border, construction of the president's wall is being slowed by difficulties acquiring private land. It can take months or years to take private property through eminent domain.

"It's a tragic situation," said Caroline Brouwer, vice president for government affairs at the National Wildlife Refuge Association, a Washington-based nonprofit that advocates for the nation's often overlooked refuge system. "Fish and Wildlife staff have worked on this issue for decades and decades. And it's being torn down in front of our eyes."

"A string of pearls"

Back in 1979, the idea was to save a strip of native habitat along the Rio Grande, known as Tamaulipan thornscrub in the rapidly urbanizing valley. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began to buy up pieces of land and assemble what they called "a string of pearls."

Tony Zavaleta stands at his historic ranch east of Brownsville, Texas, where he says a wildlife refuge next door has helped the deer population. He's even spotted a cougar. Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

Tony Zavaleta stands at his historic ranch east of Brownsville, Texas, where he says a wildlife refuge next door has helped the deer population. He's even spotted a cougar.

Today, the agency owns 135 individual tracts comprising nearly 105,000 acres, stretching along the last 275 river miles from Falcn Dam to the Gulf of Mexico. Fish & Wildlife has spent about $82 million and the refuge network is still growing. Under congressional authorization, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will ultimately have 132,500 acres.

It did take time for some folks in the area to embrace the concept.

"When they first started buying up land I was very upset, didn't believe it could work, didn't want the federal government to be my neighbor," says Tony Zavaleta, a retired anthropologist with the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. His extended family has owned property on the serpentine river since South Texas was part of New Spain. From the deck of his rustic cabin, Zavaleta has watched a rare mountain lion prowl his property. Now he's a believer.

Snake skin (left) and animal footprints are seen on Zavaleta's ranch. Wildlife conservationists are wondering how much of an obstruction the barrier will be to animals that range along the river. Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

Snake skin (left) and animal footprints are seen on Zavaleta's ranch. Wildlife conservationists are wondering how much of an obstruction the barrier will be to animals that range along the river.

"Forty years ago, there were no white-tailed deer anywhere near here. You had to go north or south to find white-tailed deer," Zavaleta says. "Today, the white-tailed deer are all over the place. And so it's been a huge success."

Fish and Wildlife told NPR that the border wall may impact 14 square miles of native habitat on 30 separate tracts of its land. Wildlife conservationists are wondering how much of an obstruction the barrier will be to animals that range along the river.

Filling in the gaps

Betty Perez runs a family ranch north of the town of La Joya and is past president of the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, a private group adamantly opposed to the border wall. As soon as President Trump announced his big, beautiful wall was coming, she knew the government would be looking for acreage it already owned.

"The Fish and Wildlife land is what's been targeted first because it's easy. It's the first thing you can get to without having to worry about the process of buying land from people," she says, pausing while rolling out a round hay bale for her mama cows.

Perez helps sustain the wildlife refuges by raising native plants such as yucca, catclaw acacia and wolfberry that she sells to Fish and Wildlife. The agency uses the plants to revegetate farmland and turn it back into natural terrain.

Wildlife defenders have fought the border barrier before.

Betty Perez poses with her dogs in an area on her ranch that she is designating as a wildlife corridor. She is past president of the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, which is adamantly opposed to the border wall. Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

Betty Perez poses with her dogs in an area on her ranch that she is designating as a wildlife corridor. She is past president of the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, which is adamantly opposed to the border wall.

In the late 2000s, the Bush administration constructed 55 miles of border fence in the Rio Grande Valley. Seven noncontiguous miles of it crossed or bordered wildlife tracts. This time around, the Trump administration is building twice that much barrier in the Rio Grande Valley 110 miles and 18 noncontiguous miles will cross refuge land.

"Now they're wanting to fill those gaps in," Perez says. "And if there's a continuous wall it would be very devastating for wildlife."

The four counties of the lower Rio Grande Valley are home to 1,200 plants, 300 butterflies and 700 vertebrates, 520 of which are birds, according to Fish and Wildlife. Among the most common vertebrates are deer, bobcat, armadillos, javelina hogs, the Texas tortoise, and an endangered cat the small, spotted ocelot.

"We're afraid that the wall will act like a barrier when it floods, which it does down here," says Perez. "We get the hurricanes in South Texas. And if that happens the wildlife that are near the river are going to drown. The other thing that's happening," she adds, "the wall blocks wildlife from getting to the river to drink. That's their main source of water."

Balancing wildlife protection with border security

Who in the federal government will speak up for the animals?

Thirteen years ago, that person was Ken Merritt. He was the manager of the entire Fish and Wildlife refuge complex in South Texas. When he learned that Bush's fence would traverse seven miles of their protected tracts, Merritt sounded the alarm.

Caracaras--a raptor that often feeds on carrion--take wing near Perez's ranch. CBP says it is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate the wall's impact on critters, but an official concedes it's not easy to protect wildlife while strengthening border security. Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

Caracaras--a raptor that often feeds on carrion--take wing near Perez's ranch. CBP says it is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate the wall's impact on critters, but an official concedes it's not easy to protect wildlife while strengthening border security.

"Back then and I don't think it's any different than now we had a very narrow refuge established along the river. If you cut that in half with a fence that really can't [be] crossed by terrestrial wildlife, you have a big problem."

He submitted an official report with an unambiguous conclusion: walls and wildlife sanctuaries don't mix. But, in the tense atmosphere after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when the government was anxious to beef up border security, "That was not a well-received document," he says. In fact, Merritt says he was sidelined at Fish and Wildlife because he opposed the border fence. He retired the next year.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tells NPR the agency is concerned about the risk that a barrier poses to animals that cannot escape floods. She says their wildlife experts are working with Customs and Border Protection "to construct large aprons around all future gates along new levee border wall to create areas where wildlife can escape rising water during flood events." She said CBP has told them that agents will open the gates during high water events.

Perez waters the native plants that she grows on her ranch. Most of these plants will be bought by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to revegetate farmland that is part of the wildlife refuge complex. Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

Perez waters the native plants that she grows on her ranch. Most of these plants will be bought by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to revegetate farmland that is part of the wildlife refuge complex.

But Fish and Wildlife stopped short of saying it opposes the wall, like Merritt did in 2007. He's in touch with colleagues who still work there. "A lot of them are worried about their careers," Merritt says. "I think most of them have been told not to say a word."

For its part, CBP confirms that it is working with Fish and Wildlife to mitigate the wall's impact on critters, but an official concedes it's not easy to protect wildlife while strengthening border security.

"Can we design it so that it is not as impactful, to develop like a passage corridor? I'll be honest, those are some challenges that are happening along the whole entire southwest border where we're putting in wall," says Carmen Qualia, an assistant chief with the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley.

What's more, Trump's border wall dwarf's Bush's border fence. The current wall is nearly twice as high 30 feet which is taller than a two-story house. Floodlights will be on all night long. And an enforcement zone on the south side of the wall will extend out 150 feet. To put that in perspective, 150 feet is the width of a six-lane highway.

To build the massive border barrier through sensitive areas, the Department of Homeland Security has suspended 31 federal laws that protect environmental and cultural features.

Congress has already attempted to protect some of the most important natural and cultural areas along the lower Rio Grande from the bulldozers. A 2019 appropriations bill included language instructing CBP not to build the wall in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, the National Butterfly Center, or Bentsen/Rio Grande Valley State Park, among other places. But those are just the crown jewels. Conservationists say all of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge has to be intact for the "string of pearls" to be viable.

Mexico is seen across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas.The Rio Grande Valley is where four climates converge--temperate, desert, coastal and sub-tropical--which has created rich biodiversity. . Vernica G. Crdenas for NPR hide caption

Mexico is seen across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas.The Rio Grande Valley is where four climates converge--temperate, desert, coastal and sub-tropical--which has created rich biodiversity. .

U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, inserted the language that protects those premier natural areas. He also says he may try to carve out more of the refuge network for protection.

"That certainly is a concern and this will be something that I will work try to protect. Absolutely," he said in a phone interview.

Time is of the essence. Wall contractors are already on the ground pouring concrete and erecting the tall steel bollards in the Rio Grande Valley.

The rest is here:
Border Wall Threatens National Wildlife Refuge That's Been 40 Years In The Making - NPR

Slowlybut surely Gavin Newsom will deliver on his promise to make the taxpayers ofthis state pick up 100 percent of the cost of healthcare for those that are notlegally in this country.

Thegovernor has rolled out a $329 billion budget for the fiscal year starting July1 that sets aside $80 million to pay for the healthcare of those 65 and olderthat are in this country illegally who happen to be in California.

Itsa mere pittance especially when were talking about $80 million against anoverall spending plan of $329 billion.

Butyoure forgetting two things. The ultimate goal is free healthcare on your dimefor all illegal immigrants. Advocates peg that cost at $3.4 billion a year.Keep in mind whenever the state twirls a bauble in front of the public to gettheir support they always underestimate the cost substantially. The bestexample is high speed rail. It was only going to cost $40 billion. Now thestate is saying itll cost $77 billion and those with experience building suchrail systems elsewhere say it will easily surpass $100 billion.

Alsodont forget the state in the current budget is now providing healthcare forthose in this country illegally between the ages of 19 and 25 to the tune of$94 million a year. At the same time they are slapping penalties on those whoare citizens of this country or are here legally and are earning a paycheck ifthey are not covered by health insurance.

Doyou see a trend? The day will come in California where you may be better offnot being a citizen or having legal status to be here as well as not having ajob.

Thatnight sound like a tad over dramatic but a case can be made that we are headingin the direction where a legal citizen or someone in this country legally willbecome a second class citizen compared to those that have broken the law to behere.

Ifyou are here illegally you can already be issued a drivers license. Thanks toillegals who didnt have drivers licenses nor insurance when they were pulledover and had their cars impounded like those with drivers licenses but who hadno insurance no cars are impounded any more solely because of a failure to dothe responsible thing and legal requirement and obtain insurance.

Therehave even been bids to allow illegal residents to vote in local elections suchas schools board races.

Keepin mind two things before you rush to man the predicable barricades thatNewsoms proposal will invoke the one that says enough is enough and theother that argues they are human and deserve healthcare.

First,it is insane for this country to deny citizenship to the Dreamers as adults those brought here illegally as young children if for no other reasontaxpayers have spent a ton of money educating them. Why would you invest$130,000 in the education of a person at just the K-12 level forget community college for amoment and then deport them to whatever country so they can help strength theeconomy of a nation that competes with the United States in global markets? Atthe very least they need to be allowed to become productive citizens to providethis country with the doctors, teachers, tech workers, highly skilledagricultural workers (if you dont think there is such a thing you really needto open your eyes), nurses, and even those that handle more mundane butessential jobs so they can keep our economy going and deliver on the investmentmade in their education.

Second,a vast majority of those who are undocumented and are adults that are here inthis country work. They contribute to our economy in ways that many that arecitizens would refuse to do. That includes agricultural jobs that arent highskilled and are essentially back breaking grunt work that is key to keepingfood costs low.

Theparalysis in the immigration debate for the past 30 years that can be laid atthe feet of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, as well asunions and big business has made the entire issue of how we approach resolvingor addressing illegal and legal immigration so dysfunctional nothing ever isadopted.

Itis why the best defense and best way to go forward is pushing for a ballotmeasure that makes all those illegally in this country and residing in theGolden State legal citizens of the California with the proviso anyone who was afelon and or terrorist at the time they entered the United States would besubject to prosecution and deportation.

Californiaalready is usurping federal powers in the arenas of sanctuary cities andcommerce so why not the conferring of citizenship as well?

Thiswould work to the advantage of Californians.

Thatway anyone between the ages of 19 and 25 that is working and doesnt haveinsurance can be penalized.

Thosewho are now undocumented and working can turn in employers that are paying themunder the table without fear of being fired and not having legal recourse. Thatmeans they will be paying into Social Security to further strengthen thesystem.

Moreimportantly they can be subject to the same laws and taxes as those who arecitizens and here legally. There would be no government carve out to makeexceptions to laws simply because they are in the country illegally.

Theycould go after better paying jobs those that typically pay union scale. Theycould compete openly for limited slots at publically-funded universities.

Nowyoure probably wondering what is preventing those in this country illegallyresiding in the 49 other states from simply moving to California.

Thatsthe beauty. Nothing would.

Californiawould become a de facto sanctuary state. The legislature that acts as if itexists to lecture the federal government could tell the world send Californiayour refugees, your poor, and the downtrodden.

Afterall, the streets of California although crumbling are paved with gold.There is ample housing to go around. In short this is utopia where money growslike weeds and everyone is welcome no questions asked and no need to bringanything to the table.

Justcome here without permission and California will stick a vacuum hose into thepockets of taxpayers and siphon out everything you need.

Itsa small price for California to pay so our political leaders can put on theirresumes that they are fighting President Trump with every penny they cansqueeze out of businesses and those Californians who are working.

Follow this link:
Newsom needs to go all the way & declare undocumented legal citizens of California - Manteca Bulletin

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber?Try us and go ad-free for $1.Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Terry H. Schwadron

The new year for White House anti-immigration efforts has run into an early obstaclea federal appeals court has temporarily blocked the newly announced Trump administration policy easing the way to deny legal status to immigrants who use any publicly funded benefit, like health or food stamps.

In a brief order last week, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan denied the Trump administrations bid to allow the program to proceed. Previously there had been a federal injunction against its implementation.

But it all means is that the government must hold off from enforcement until a full hearing can be held beginning next month. But while the New York circuit ordered the temporary halt to enforcing Donald Trumps rule changes, appeals courts in other states have ruled the opposite way, making for conflict that probably ensures a Supreme Court review.

While the New York circuit ordered the temporary halt to enforcing Donald Trumps rule changes, appeals courts in other states have ruled the opposite way, making for conflict that probably ensures a Supreme Court review.

The Department of Homeland Security has called anyone using cash assistance or government-funded institutional care as a public charge.The rule change sought by the administration said that immigrants who are labeled a public charge, could be denied green cards, visas and other forms of legal immigration status.

But thats just one of several issues the White House is juggling as the anti-immigrant campaign moves into the new year.

As NBC News outlined, thenew ruleexpands the definition to include additional benefits such as food stamps, non-emergency Medicaid, certain prescription drug subsidies and housing vouchers. It says that any immigrant household, not necessarily individual, who uses or is deemed likely to use one public benefit for 12 months during a 36-month period as a target. Receipt of two public benefits in one month counts as two months, the rule noted.

The Trump administration argues that expanding the meaning of public charge helps protect American taxpayers and ensures that noncitizens in this country are self-sufficient and not a strain on public resources.Critics say it would disproportionately impact lower income immigrants and immigrants of color.

A statement by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of the Department of Homeland Security, that the public charge inadmissibility rule enforces long-standing immigration law that Congress reaffirmed in 1996.

The opponents legal team for Make the Road New York, The Legal Aid Society and the Center for Constitutional Rights issued a competing statement that the court rejected the Trump administrations claims that it cannot wait to implement its dangerous and discriminatory public charge policy change.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels, of the Southern District of New York, set the injunction on enforcement in October. At the time, he wrote,It is a rule that will punish individuals for their receipt of benefits provided by our government, and discourages them from lawfully receiving available assistance intended to aid them in becoming contributing members of our society.

Meanwhile, the number of migrants taken into custody along the U.S.-Mexico border has started to level off after several months ofdecline, according to border enforcement statistics, according to the Customs and Border Protection service. The number of people apprehended or deemed inadmissible along the southern border fell to 40,620 last month, down 72% from May, when the Trump administration declared it was at the height of a border crisis.

Of course, much of this has resulted from forcing migrants who pass through a third country, like Guatemala or Mexico, to be returned to that third country, where they are waiting for months for a change to make appeals for entry to the United States.

The Associated Press reports that the White House is considering expanding its much-challenged travel ban to additional countries this year, though it has yet to name the new, presumably Muslim-majority nations that may be added, all based on sources in the White House. The move would be timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trumps January 2017 executive order.

At the same time, the new year is seeing an estimated 800,000 immigrants who are working legally in the United States are waiting for a green card, an unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration. There is a relatively quiet policy debate underway that has been overshadowed by the border wall fight and issues related to enforcement on the border.

It turns out that most of those waiting for employment-based green cards that would allow them to stay in the United States permanently are Indian nationals. And the backlog among this group is so acute that an Indian national who applies for a green card now can expect to wait up to 50 years to get one. The wait is largely the result of an annual quota unchanged since 1990 and per-country limits enacted decades before the tech boom made India the top source of employment-based green card seekers.

There are competing bills in Congress to deal with this, but lack of consensus has halted any comprehensive approach to immigration. The backlog has become a serious issue for business, of course, who fear that prized employees may simply go elsewhere.

The new year has brought along various new rules in the administrations continuing campaign to stop both legal and illegal immigration.

There are, for example, new cost hikes for key immigration processes, The Miami Herald reports. Citizenship and Immigration Services plans fee hikes of 83% for naturalization, from $640 to $1,170, for example. They also want to charge asylum seekers $50 for an application, thus becoming one of four countries around the world to charge for humanitarian protection.In another new rule, theadministration plans to modify regulations that would increase the waiting period to apply for employment authorization, denying the permits to asylum applicants who entered the United States illegally, terminating the permit immediately if the asylum application is denied, and removing the 30-day deadline for rulings on permit applications.

The anti-immigration program is hale and hearty.

then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, weve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism and were investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber?Try us and go ad-free for $1.Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Read the rest here:
Trump just started the new year with a dangerous new push - Raw Story

United States Congressional Budget Office

Published: Mon, Jan 13th 2020 @ 11:43 am EST

Immigration helps the U.S. economy, but its not as good for individual workers, particularly those at the low end of the wage scale for whom the increased competition for jobs leaves them worse off, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report last week. The findings both support and challenge conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers from both parties generally view immigration as a net benefit. The CBO said thats true for the overall economy, but not for those in low-skilled jobs. The report added:

Among people with less education, a large percentage are foreign-born. Consequently, immigration has exerted downward pressure on the wages of relatively low-skilled workers who are already in the country, regardless of their birthplace.

And there are many new immigrant workers to compete with. Immigrants account for about half of all newcomers to the workforce each year, the CBO said. While this influx does fuel economic growth on the national macro-level, when one explores the individual micro-level impact such policies of uncontrolled mass immigration can be proven to have negative effects on American workers who are forced to directly compete with an artificially bloated labor market, a group predominately comprised of impoverished African American and Latino citizens - those our nation has promised to do better for.

The analysis, done for the House Budget Committee, comes at a time when immigration is effectively off the table as an issue for lawmakers, with deep differences between President Trump, who wants to see some stricter limits and amped-up national enforcement efforts, and Democrats, who want to see illegal aliens granted citizenship in mass amnesties, and who oppose attempts to limit any legal form of immigration, which includes family-based 'chain migration,' a key source for low-educated and non-skilled workers.

The CBO did concede that granting legal status to illegal aliens would give them a chance to improve their situations and that the economy benefits from higher immigration because the overall labor force is more productive, but Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Affairs at NumbersUSA stated:

They answered the question that we all already know the answer to whether expanding the labor force expands the GDP. They completely failed to answer the actual important question, which is how immigration impacts per capita GDP.

The furthest CBO went was to say that whether the native-born suffer or benefit from immigration depends on whos coming. But the analysts said it was tough to figure out the exact effects of immigration amid other factors such as technology.

To the extent that newly arrived workers have abilities similar to those of workers already in the country, immigration would have a negative effect on wages. To the extent that newly arrived workers have abilities that complement those of workers already in the country, immigration would foster productivity increases, having a positive effect on wages.

But this national economic expansion does not necessarily [deliver] to increases in output per capita, or income per person, the report said. For example, business leaders say the nations enormous population of immigrants has expanded the nations workforce, increased consumption, and driven up housing prices. But that inflow has also shrunk the wages of less-educated Americans.

Logically, the CBO states that for as long as the United States continues to import millions of low skilled immigrants, salaries for Americans in occupations that will be forced to compete with them will continue to be negatively affected. However, the CBO errs in their insinuation that if the United States were to switch from a focus on low-skilled immigration to something that "complements" lower-skilled Americans, say, high-skilled immigration, everything would be better. While it is true that such shifts in national immigration policy would have a positive effect on lower-skilled American wages, it would come at the balanced cost to higher-skilled American workers.

The CBO report contradicts business claims that a bigger economy ensures bigger wages for everyone. Put simply, whatever category of American workers are forced to compete with a labor market artificially inflated by mass immigration - will have negatively affected wages. The only immigration policy that truly helps all Americans is a reduction in overall immigration numbers.

For the full story, please visit The Washington Times, and Breitbart.

Read more from the original source:
CBO: Immigration Has 'Negative Effect on Wages' - NumbersUSA

The Border Patrol had to ride to the rescue of three migrants Sunday after they got stuck on top of President Trumps border wall in San Diego.

The man and two women tried to use dense fog to cover their attempt to climb a section of 30-foot-high fence part of nearly 100 miles of replacement wall built under Mr. Trump.

They cleared the primary fence up along the border but became stuck atop the fog-slicked secondary fence, which is set back from the boundary line, creating an enforcement corridor between the two fences.

Its not clear how they managed to scale the two walls, though Customs and Border Protection suggested they likely had smugglers who were helping them but then abandoned them when they got stuck.

Agents called out the San Diego Fire Department, which had to use a truck and lengthy extension ladder to get the migrants down.

All three were determined to be in the country without permission.

These three were very fortunate to not have fallen from the top of the wall, which could have resulted in serious injury or death, said Aaron Heitke, acting chief patrol agent in the San Diego sector. These dangers are not important considerations to smugglers, who place an emphasis on profits over safety.

Falls from the wall do happen, said Supervisory Agent Jeffrey R. Stephenson, who said agents then rush them to medical attention.

The falls have led to numerous serious injuries including broken legs, broken ankles, skull fractures, brain bleeds, broken scapula, fractured vertebrae and appendicitis, he said.

The wall is the most visible of Mr. Trumps get-tough efforts on illegal immigration, though its effectiveness in stemming last years surge in the flow of immigrants is heatedly debated.

Most analysts say the wall is more effective on drug-trafficking and on migrants from Mexico, who generally didnt attempt to exploit the loopholes used by Central Americans during the surge.

The new fence design is up to 30 feet of bollard-style barrier. In San Diego, it replaced what was known as landing mat fencing, an outdated design that used thin metal plates that were easily breached.

The new design is supposed to be more resistant to cutting and climbing.

The Washington Post reported late last year that smugglers were still managing to cut holes.

But Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said he hasnt seen that.

Old sections, yes, there are a great many breaches and had the administration continued to build sections of wall like what was built under the Bush administration, those wall were breachable, Mr. Judd told The Washington Times on C-SPANs Newsmakers program in late December.

But there has been a lot of research and development that has gone into the new walls that are currently being built, he said. That research and development shows that they are much, much more difficult to breach, and again, we just havent seen any breaches.

Go here to see the original:
Illegal immigrants rescued after getting stuck on Trump's wall - Washington Times