Rep. Hunter Defends Plan to Erect Triple Fence Along Mexican Border

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) is unmoved by the opposition to his “triple-fence” proposal for the U.S.-Mexico border--opposition that includes the Clinton administration, both of California’s U.S. senators, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the labor union for 5,000 Border Patrol agents, the dominant newspaper in his district, and a mix of Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress.

“The only people behind me,” says Hunter, “are the people.”

In the evolving national debate over illegal immigration, one of the more singular passions has been Hunter’s effort to require the federal government to add two more fences along the 14-mile stretch of border from the Pacific Ocean to Otay Mesa, known as “Smugglers Alley.”

The area already has a 10-foot-tall steel landing-mat fence built largely by the California National Guard. But Hunter, an Army Ranger in Vietnam whose district includes eastern San Diego County and all of Imperial County, is consumed by the principle that the best way to defend any territory is with a good perimeter.

The House version of the 1996 immigration bill includes Hunter’s triple fence and appropriates $12 million to pay for it. To make sure it was included, Hunter mustered his troops to turn back opposition led by Democratic Rep. Anthony Beilenson of Los Angeles.

But the Senate version, adopted Thursday, was amended by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to make the triple fence optional, which Hunter says is the same as killing the idea. The two versions now advance to a conference committee where members from each chamber will hash out differences before sending the bill to President Clinton.

“I think we can win the conference,” Hunter said. “I’m going to keep working, and the forces of darkness will keep working on the other side.”

For two years Hunter has told anyone who will listen that the triple fence, its layers spaced 30 feet apart, is a key to the war against illegal immigrants and drugs in Smugglers Alley. He has gone to town meetings, polled his constituents, lobbied his colleagues and made the rounds of the editorial boards and talk shows.

“It’s a personal crusade with him,” said James O. Goldsborough, an editorial board member and columnist at the San Diego Union-Tribune who has poked fun at the triple-fence idea as “hare-brained” and reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, and has branded Hunter xenophobic.

Even groups that agree on tougher measures to combat illegal immigration disagree on a triple fence.

“I’m in favor of anything that treats illegal immigration as seriously as I think it should be taken, but I’m not sure the triple fence is the solution,” said Ben Seeley of the San Diego-based Border Solution Task Force.

Feinstein supported the triple-fence proposal when the immigration bill was heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then she was contacted by representatives of the Department of Justice and the border agents’ union, the National Border Patrol Council.

Union President T.J. Bonner warned that the triple fence could endanger both illegal immigrants and Border Patrol agents.

“A three-tier fence would create a crime zone within the boundaries of the U.S. where illegal immigrants would be easy prey for robbers, rapists and other criminals,” he said. “The accomplices of these criminals could easily prevent law enforcement officers from responding to these crimes by blocking access roads with nails, broken glass, other debris, barrages of rocks and/or gunfire.”

Another objection is that the rolling, gully-filled border terrain is not conducive to additional fencing. In fact, there are gaps in the current fence where the terrain is so rugged that it is thought to already be impassable.

On behalf of herself and Sen. Barbara Boxer, Feinstein offered an amendment, passed on a voice vote, allowing the INS to erect additional fences “where feasible” as a pilot project.

Hunter condemned the Feinstein-Boxer amendment as more Democratic doublespeak on border issues. He noted that the INS included the triple fence on a list of border initiatives some months ago while simultaneously lobbying against it.

“That’s called playing both sides of the fence,” Hunter said.

Feinstein contended that getting the INS to consider a pilot project represented a considerable victory.

“It is a softening of their [anti-triple-fence proposal] position and an acknowledgment by them that the votes are there,” she said. “I don’t intend to drop this. I want to see it happen.”

As Hunter points out, he is not the triple fence’s original proponent. The idea sprang from a $600,000 study commissioned by the INS during the George Bush administration from the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, a federal weapons lab.

The study concluded that if one fence was good, three fences were better, and that Border Patrol agents should be reassigned to “forward deployment” rather than wait for illegal immigrants to enter the country and then attempt to catch them at freeway checkpoints.

The Sandia study envisioned a 60-foot swath along the crucial 14 miles of the border. The existing steel landing-mat fence would be backed by a 15-foot-tall iron-mesh fence curved at the top and then a 10-foot chain-link fence.

Early in the debate, the Clinton administration estimated that a triple fence could cost upward of $100 million. Hunter countered by submitting a bid from the Atlas Fence Co. in San Diego to do the job for $11.5 million.

Hunter contends that Border Patrol objections are political and that safety concerns are overblown. He says the Sandia plan includes gates between the fences, spots for Border Patrol vehicles to turn around, and shields to keep Border Patrol vehicles from being pelted.

“I think the triple fence would be a lot safer than having agents doing what they do now: searching the swamps of the Tijuana River at night looking for illegal aliens,” he said. “And what about the agent who fell to his death while chasing aliens on Otay Mesa? Was that safe?”

Roger Hedgecock, the ex-San Diego mayor turned radio talk show host, has embraced a triple fence. But the Union-Tribune, which regularly endorses Hunter for reelection, has not.

In a recent editorial the newspaper called for a beefed-up effort to thwart illegal immigration and added: “But Hunter’s blustery style, plus a history of jingoism that ignores the complex economic relationship between California and Mexico, does not serve the cause.”

Negative editorials aside, the eight-term congressman vows to push on until the triple fence is a reality.

“You can count on it,” Hunter said.