The residents of the Rio Grande Valley are overwhelmingly against the construction of a border wall. We already have an existing border wall which has been unnecessary (the amount of immigration is at an all-time low; terrorists, drugs and other threats to our nation's well-being come through the border across bridges (smuggled in) or through our northern border.
There are currently (December, 2018) more than sixty miles of border wall that is presently in place. This construction causes flooding, pushes immigrants into more dangerous crossing areas (remember that most immigrants are young families seeking to surrender to Border Patrol), and really only benefits human smugglers.
As this is such a lucrative project, semantics to confuse people are a part of the game. Senator Schumer seems to think that border "fencing" is fine. This is what the border "fence" looks like:
Some background material:
Most complete:
ACLU and partners' report (Sept. 2018), DEATH, DAMAGE, AND FAILURE: Past, Present, and Future Impacts of Walls on the U.S.-Mexico Border, https://www.aclu.org/report/death-damage-and-failure
also:
1) Study regarding the economic impacts of nature tourism in
the Rio Grande Valley:
https://www.fws.gov/uploadedfiles/naturereport-mcallencvb-2011_508.pdf,
and also a powerpoint with a map and good pictures:
https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/CF_LRG_Eco_Impact_tourism_10102012.pdf
(2) Catholic Bishop of Brownsville Daniel Flores' statement
on CBP requests for right of entry:
https://media.kveo.com/nxsglobal/rgvproud/document_dev/2018/10/29/10.29.18%20Statement%2C%20Right%20of%20Entry_1540825378884_60595187_ver1.0.pdf
("While the bishop has the greatest
respect for the responsibilities of the men and women involved in border
security, in his judgment church property should not be used for the purposes
of building a border wall. Such a structure would limit the freedom of the
Church to exercise her mission in the Rio Grande Valley, and would in fact be a
sign contrary to the Church’s mission. Thus, in principle, the bishop does not
consent to use church property to construct a border wall.")
(3) National Butterfly Center 100-Mile Zone lawsuit:
https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/13/a-strange-lawsuit-about-butterflies-shed
+ recent coverage: "New Border Wall Will Destroy
Butterfly Center, Historic Chapel, and Texas State Park,"
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/09/new-border-wall-will-destroy-butterfly-center-texas-state-park/
(4) Recent articles on flooding and endangered species:
"Trump’s Border Wall Could Cause Deadly Flooding in
Texas. Federal Officials Are Planning to Build It Anyway":
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/trumps-border-wall-cause-deadly-flooding-texas-federal-officials-planning-build-anyway/
"Trump's Border Wall Could Decimate These Rare
Species": https://www.texasobserver.org/trumps-border-wall-could-decimate-these-rare-species/
(6) Compilation of no-wall resolutions from border
communities:
https://noborderwalls.org/opposition/
