Why must we use “the environment” to justify every argument under the sun? The New York Times invoked the environment this morning to argue against the border fence to stop “illegal” immigration. (Editorial, Michael Chertoff’s Insult) I happen to oppose the fence, because I believe in open borders. I believe that sovereignty of the individual trumps national sovereignty. If you want a “liberal” argument, the fence is racist. And experience has shown that fences keep more “illegals” in than out. So why does the NYT have to resort to the environment? I’ve been to the Mexican border. It runs through some of the most desolate wasteland in the world. Frankly, an atomic bomb along most of it wouldn’t constitute an “environmental disaster”. So why can’t we just debate the issue on its merits? The environment is not a justification for immigration any more than global warming is a justification for fascism (Al Gore notwithstanding).