Ditch Proposal Latest of Many to Plug Border

First, federal officials said a simple fence would do the job. Then, a San Diego congressman suggested National Guard troops were the answer. Now, a 5-foot-deep ditch is being billed as the antidote for illegal immigration and drug smuggling across the U. S.-Mexican border.

Andrea Skorepa, for one, wonders what’s next.

“Maybe they should try deploying ‘Star Wars’ here and see if that does the trick,” said Skorepa, a San Ysidro resident and chairwoman of Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s Latino Advisory Committee.

Skorepa’s comments Wednesday typified much of the community reaction that has greeted the federal government’s proposal to dig a 4 1/2-mile-long ditch along the border near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. Weary of watching federal officials propose what they labeled as expensive, impractical solutions to the multifaceted problem of illegal immigration, these critics seemed to be sending a clear message to boosters of this latest idea: Ditch the ditch.

Still, in other corners, the proposal found favor. San Diego’s congressional delegation, for example, generally supported the ditch concept, but questioned details of the plan.

“We have to do something to take control of our own border, and it probably is going to take some kind of physical barrier to do that,” Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad) said.

Backers of the ditch say it would serve as an effective deterrent to the stream of vehicles that smuggle Mexicans and other Latin Americans and drugs across the porous Tijuana-San Diego border, which is considered the most popular crossing area along the 1,900-mile boundary.

But many of those interviewed Wednesday said that erecting physical obstacles will not stem the aliens marching north. Ingenuity and a desire for a better life, they predicted, will overcome the highest wall and the deepest ditch.

“I don’t care if it’s a river, a lake, a fence, or a ditch, these people are going to get across,” said Mirna L. Perez, chairwoman of the San Ysidro Planning and Development Group. “Probably in the beginning, this ditch will cause a little inconvenience. But, ultimately, they’d put in ladders or bridges or whatever it took, and they would conquer it.”

“Before long, we’d be seeing all-terrain vehicles in there,” said Paul Ganster, director of San Diego State University’s Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias. He was only half-joking.

Local Officials Left Out

Besides the proposal’s practical defects, many local critics greeted it coolly because they were excluded from the planning and only learned of the idea when The Times disclosed it in an article Wednesday.

A spokesman for the mayor, for example, said O’Connor had been in the dark until reading the newspaper account.

“Nobody from the federal government has contacted this office about the proposal,” Paul Downey said. O’Connor “has some questions as to how effective a deterrent this could be and whether this is the direction we should be going. We’re surprised that somebody did not notify us ahead of time or seek our input.”

San Diego Councilman Bob Filner, whose district encompasses the border, voiced a stronger opinion.

“I can’t believe they would get this far without talking to people in the city. I find that disrespectful to the local political process. I feel insulted by that as a city representative.”

Skorepa agreed, and noted that it’s not the first time federal officials have plowed ahead with a project without consulting those most affected by it.

“They have never included local people in their plans,” Skorepa said. “It’s this attitude that the federal government knows best and, therefore, we shouldn’t have a say.”

Others said they sympathize with the desire to reduce smuggling but fear a ditch or other divider might damage San Diego’s relationship with its southern neighbor--a relationship that local business and political leaders have nurtured carefully in recent years.

Intelligent Answers Sought

“We’re in favor of . . . smart ways to try to curb the flow, providing that they do not upset our relationships with Mexico,” said attorney David Dolkas, president of the Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce. “A ditch or other soft-scape barrier might work. We certainly do not want any sort of Berlin Wall down there.”

Filner was more outspoken.

“It sounds like we’re trying to protect ourselves with a moat. We’ve got 20th-Century problems, not medieval problems. . . . A moat is not a respectful posture toward Mexico.”

Despite such reservations, some officials solidly endorsed the proposal. Several San Diego congressmen, in particular, argued that any criticism of the ditch or other barrier on symbolic grounds overlooks the fact that it would be intended primarily to stem illegal border crossings by drug smugglers.

“This is no Berlin Wall with gun turrets, no moat with piranhas and crocodiles,” said Rep. Bill Lowery (R-San Diego). “We still have the most liberal policies on Earth for legally crossing the border. This would be a passive barrier to help control this hemorrhage of illegal drugs along the border. Remember that a vehicle or plane that flies hundreds of pounds of cocaine into this country could just as easily insert a Libyan hit team here.”

Charge $1 a Car to Cross

Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego), though supporting the concept, described the ditch plan as only an “incomplete remedy” for border problems. The long-range impact of those problems, he argues, could be better addressed by legislation he plans to introduce next month calling for border-crossing user fees of $1 a car and 25 cents for people who cross on foot.

Revenue generated by the fees would be split between the federal and local governments, with the federal share to be directed at programs to enhance border security and to reduce the waiting time at border checkpoints. Cities’ share, Bates explained, could help fund programs in communities directly affected by border affairs.

“It’s a way we can address problems with legitimate crossings while also getting the money needed to do something about illegal entries,” Bates said.

The ditch proposal is only the latest in a long-running series of suggested ways to interrupt smuggling into the United States. The ideas, ranging from fences to the deployment of high-tech sensing devices, have invariably been controversial among local residents and Latino activists.

In June, 1986, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Coronado) proposed that National Guard troops be stationed along the border to deter drug trafficking. Although that idea was condemned as extreme and dangerous, a bill later sponsored by Hunter led to the use of military planes to help the Border Patrol detect illegal border crossings by aircraft.

Hoping to enhance border security, Hunter has also suggested using the National Guard to inspect all cargo containers entering this country for illegal drugs--in particular, cocaine. Because of a lack of manpower, Customs agents now typically inspect only about 4% of the packages coming into the United States, Hunter said.

Concrete Barriers Rejected

Another interdiction plan surfaced in February, 1987, when U.S. immigration officials proposed concrete barricades along the terrain dividing Tijuana and San Diego. That idea, criticized by those who say border fortification is a hostile gesture toward Mexico and a waste of taxpayer money, was never implemented.

Finally, various task forces and committees--involving immigration authorities, business people and politicians--have searched for years for palatable deterrents, but to no avail.

“One idea we talked about was defensive landscaping--like cactus or bougainvillea--that people wouldn’t want to get tangled up in,” said Mike Stang, a San Diego city planner who served on the Border Corridor Subcommittee.

That panel also considered placing boulders and rocks at strategic spots along the border and debated the construction of low, freeway median-style barriers impassable to cars.

Contributing to this story were Times staff writers Barry M. Horstman and H. G. Reza.