Building on the Border Security for America Act, U.S. Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) has proposed two amendments that would seek alternatives to physical border walls in certain areas and give prior national park agreements precedence.
“As I have been saying for years, a wall from sea to shining sea is the least effective and most expensive solution for border security,” Hurd said. “This is especially true in areas, like Big Bend National Park, where rough terrain, natural barriers, and the remoteness of a location render a wall or other structure impractical and ineffective. While I would like to think that common sense would dictate that the placement of a wall through the Boquillas Canyon in Big Bend or Lake Amistad in Del Rio is a bad idea, my amendment ensures that this point is clearly stated in this the bill, preventing hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being wasted on ineffective features.”
The House Committee on Homeland Security has already advanced the two amendments. The first actively prevents the deployment of physical barriers or walls in areas where natural terrain would render them moot at worst and ineffective at least. The second allows for pre-existing park-access agreements between national parks and the Customers and Border Protection (CBP) service to supersede any activities allowed for in the Border Security for America Act.
The latter is an effort on Hurd’s part to protect what he has called close partnership between such parks and the CBP through security operations, without undermining the scenic nature of the parks.