Exposing the Puppeteers Behind Illegal Immigration | Victor Davis Hanson
The Worst President in the Last 100 Years" - Victor Davis Hanson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J6WjzdPBCo
|
|
| Visit Website |
How the Biden Administration Could Use Endangered Mexican Mussels to Shut Down Floating Border Wall
'Critical habitat' designation would protect mussels found in Rio Grande from environmental 'threats'
President Joe Biden is working to declare a Mexican mussel species that resides in the Rio Grande endangered, a move that could help the administration remove the water barriers Texas governor Greg Abbott (R.) placed in the river to combat illegal immigration.
Biden's Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday proposed a rule to make the Mexican fawnsfoot mussel endangered. The move would make large portions of the Rio Grande—including those in Eagle Pass, where Abbott placed buoys to deter illegal immigrants from crossing the border—a "critical habitat." While Biden is suing to remove those buoys, the critical habitat declaration could help the Democrat do away with them through environmental means if the lawsuit is unsuccessful. Such a declaration would protect the mussels from "threats," including "barriers to fish movement" and "movement of fine sediments," two issues the buoys likely pose.
Biden’s endangered species proposal came just four days after the Democrat’s Department of Justice threatened to sue Abbott over the floating barriers, a threat that did not deter the Republican, who refused to remove them. The Biden administration's suit cites the Rivers and Harbors Act, which it says makes the buoys subject to federal approval. The administration has also argued that the buoys "present serious risks to ... the environment."
Leon Kolankiewicz, scientific director of immigration group NumbersUSA, subsequently questioned the "timing of this invocation of the Endangered Species Act." He noted that environmentalists have long used habitat destruction arguments to oppose U.S. efforts to defend the southern border from illegal immigration.
When former president George W. Bush announced the construction of border fencing in 2008, for example, the Sierra Club said it would lead to "the destruction of the borderlands region." In the early days of the Trump administration, meanwhile, the Center for Biological Diversity claimed the administration’s proposed border wall threatened 93 endangered species. In late June, the same organization called for the removal of land barriers along the border in Arizona, citing similar concerns.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not answer questions on whether the buoys would need to be dismantled should the endangered mussel proposal go through. But there’s good reason to believe the buoys would cause "threats" to fish movement and river sediments. The buoys, which float in the middle of the river, have underwater nets attached to them, which could restrict fish from swimming through. They are also anchored to the bottom of the riverbed, meaning they could dredge up sediment during construction, maintenance, or movement.
Eagle Pass has seen the second-highest number of illegal crossings in the country this year. While Abbott’s floating barrier spans about 1,000 feet, the Republican has teased the possibility of placing "mile after mile after mile of these buoys" in the Rio Grande. The habitat of the Mexican fawnsfoot outlined in the Biden administration’s proposed rule begins about six miles upstream of Eagle Pass and continues for over 185 miles downstream.
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal is in the public comment stage until September 25, after which the agency will publish a final rule. Abbott has pledged to "aggressively defend" his buoys in court.
Should Biden's lawsuit fail, leaving Abbott's buoys in place, a finalized endangered mussel rule would likely give the administration new life in its bid to remove the water barriers. A new administration could revoke the rule, but it would need to go through the official regulatory process, which includes proposing a revocation, giving the public ample time to comment, and finalizing a new rule. Alternatively, a new president could revoke the designation immediately—but only with the approval of both houses of Congress.
"Texas will see the Biden Administration in court to aggressively defend our sovereign authority to secure the border," Abbott said. "Biden's open border policies created this humanitarian disaster."
Published under: Border Crisis , Environmentalism , Feature , Greg Abbott , Illegal Immigration , Texas
New York needs to do its fair share on immigration
Mayor Eric Adams of New York City recently whined, "Our [NYC's] cup has basically runneth over" and the city has "no more room for migrants." He further claimed, "New York City is carrying the weight of a national problem" after taking in 90,000 migrants in about the last year and four months.
By my calculation, NYC is about 2.5% of the population of the U.S. (NYC population: 8.5 million divided by U.S. population: 340 million.) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated in late 2022 that 5.5 million migrants have come into the US under the Biden administration. It turns out the 2.5% of 5.5 million is 137,500.
So, by accepting 90,000 migrants, NYC and Mayor Adams have accepted 65% of their fair share. So they are 35%, or 47,500 migrants, short. NYC is not "carrying the weight of a national problem." And as surely Mayor Adams knows and would admit, this is not a matter of "full" or not, but rather NYC doing the humane thing and taking in its fair share of new migrants.
Of course, there are many reasons on both side of the issue why we should expect NYC and Mayor Adams to do even more than their share. NYC is a sanctuary city. As such, it created part of the incentive for migrants to come to the U.S. and should do more than its share. NYC is reportedly losing population. That means it has more room, more empty spaces available for migrants than other growing U.S. cities. Finally, New Yorkers believe and would be happy to proclaim that they are morally superior to us non–New Yorkers. They are more progressive than us and proud of it. As such proud, morally superior progressives, they should willingly do more than their share.
So, whether you favor strict border enforcement or open borders, Mayor Adams and NYC are not yet doing their fair share in taking in Biden-era migrants. NYC is not even quite to two thirds of its fair share.
There are lots of reasons to hold morally superior progressive NYC to a higher standard. It is not a matter of "full" or not, but rather a matter of NYC living up to the humane standards it set for itself and others.
James L. Swofford is a professor of economics in the Department of Economics, Finance, and Real Estate at the University of South Alabama.
Image via Picryl.
