The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality reports that each migrant crossing the border generates approximately six to eight pounds of trash. Given the unprecedented surge of illegal crossings authorized by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the total waste accumulating in the desert reaches staggering proportions. The Biden-Harris administration has not merely tolerated this influx but has actively promoted it as a key element of its policy agenda, making the question of environmental impact particularly urgent.
Despite the clear connection between mass immigration and environmental degradation, federal environmental laws appear ineffective in curbing the chaos. The administration has publicly embraced this influx, claiming it aligns with both foreign and domestic policy goals. This has involved innovative, and sometimes questionable, immigration strategies that mobilize vast federal resources and funds, all aimed at facilitating the entry of millions into the United States.
The consequences of this policy are evident along the southern border, where rampant human activity—ranging from makeshift camps to rampant waste disposal—has severely impacted local ecosystems and communities. The absence of federal environmental officials’ response to the considerable garbage, plastic debris, and abandoned items scattered across the border region is troubling. Migrants often establish encampments wherever they choose, leading to the trampling of private properties and the pollution of critical waterways, such as the Rio Grande, which are ill-equipped to handle such contamination.
Julie Axelrod, director of litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), has taken a stand against these developments by leading a lawsuit asserting that the Biden administration’s border policies violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This landmark legislation mandates that federal agencies conduct comprehensive environmental assessments for significant actions. Axelrod argues that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to evaluate the environmental consequences of its immigration policies prior to facilitating an unprecedented influx of migrants.
On September 30, a federal district court ruled in Axelrod’s case, known as Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. Department of Homeland Security, finding that DHS did indeed violate NEPA by neglecting to conduct required environmental impact assessments. This ruling marks a pivotal moment in which a court has recognized the intersection of environmental law and immigration policy, offering a potential mechanism to address the chaotic and harmful consequences of the current immigration framework.
Read more:
Understanding Section 237 Of The Immigration And Nationality Act
What Are the 4 Types of Immigration?
Understanding Section 221 Of The Immigration And Nationality Act