The House Homeland Security Committee has approved a significant amount of funding, $46 billion, for building new border walls and barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. This funding is part of a budget proposal. Many groups are speaking out against this decision, pointing out that past border wall projects have already caused serious harm to the environment and important cultural sites.

Organizations like Earthjustice, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Rachel's Network, Sky Island Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of International Friendship Park, Sierra Club Borderlands program, Center for Biological Diversity, GreenLatinos, Madrean Archipelago Wildlife Center, Northern Jaguar Project, Wildlands Network, Southern Border Communities Coalition, and the Rio Grande International Study Center have all expressed strong opposition. They argue that the border wall is a costly and destructive project that has not been effective in stopping people but has harmed wildlife, destroyed natural springs and water sources, caused flooding, damaged fragile desert habitats, and desecrated sacred sites and burial grounds important to Tribal communities.

These groups believe the money would be better spent on supporting border communities and addressing their real needs. They also highlight that border crossings are currently at historic lows, suggesting the wall is unnecessary. The construction of the wall is seen as a waste of taxpayer money that will cause lasting damage to the environment and communities for generations.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article describes a funding decision and opposition to it, but it does not offer any steps or guidance for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the arguments against the border wall, detailing its alleged environmental and cultural impacts, and mentioning the organizations that oppose it. However, it does not delve deeply into the "why" or "how" of these impacts beyond stating them, nor does it provide data or context for the "historic lows" in border crossings.

Personal Relevance: The topic has potential personal relevance for taxpayers, as it discusses the allocation of $46 billion in public funds. It also touches on environmental concerns that could affect individuals' quality of life and the preservation of natural resources. However, it does not directly impact most people's daily lives, finances, or immediate safety.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function in terms of providing warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts. It reports on a political and environmental issue, but it does not offer practical tools or direct assistance to the public.

Practicality of Advice: No advice or steps are given in the article, so this point is not applicable.

Long-Term Impact: The article highlights potential long-term negative impacts on the environment and communities due to the border wall construction. It implicitly suggests that supporting border communities and addressing their needs would have a more positive long-term effect.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article may evoke concern or frustration in readers who are environmentally conscious or believe in alternative uses for public funds. It presents a strong case against the border wall, which could lead to feelings of helplessness if the reader feels unable to influence the situation.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven language. It presents information in a straightforward, albeit one-sided, manner.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide more value. It could have included: * Information on how individuals can contact their representatives to voice their opinions on the funding. * Links to the websites of the mentioned environmental organizations for readers who want to learn more or get involved. * Data or sources to support the claims about environmental damage and the effectiveness of past wall projects. * Information on alternative solutions or programs that could benefit border communities.

The proposed allocation of resources for physical barriers, as described, diverts attention and resources away from the immediate needs of families and local communities. This diversion weakens the bonds of trust and responsibility within these groups by suggesting that distant, impersonal solutions are preferable to direct care and stewardship.

The destruction of natural springs, water sources, and fragile habitats directly impacts the land's ability to sustain life, a fundamental duty of every generation to the next. This disregard for the land's health undermines the long-term survival prospects of families and clans who depend on these resources for their sustenance and the care of their children and elders. When natural resources are damaged, the duty of fathers and mothers to provide for their kin becomes more arduous, potentially fracturing family cohesion.

Furthermore, the desecration of sacred sites and burial grounds severs the connection between the living and their ancestors, weakening the cultural and spiritual foundations that bind communities together. This disrespect for ancestral heritage erodes the sense of shared duty and responsibility, particularly towards elders who are the keepers of this knowledge.

The argument that these resources would be better spent on supporting border communities highlights a potential shift of responsibility. Instead of fostering local self-reliance and community-driven solutions, there's an implied reliance on external support, which can create dependencies that fracture family and neighborly trust. When the duty of care for the vulnerable, including children and elders, is perceived as being outsourced, the natural responsibilities within kinship bonds are diminished.

The emphasis on the perceived ineffectiveness of past projects and the idea that border crossings are at historic lows, while presented as practical arguments, can be interpreted as a neglect of the immediate duties of care and stewardship. Focusing on abstract metrics rather than the tangible harm to local environments and sacred sites demonstrates a disconnect from the core responsibilities of protecting kin and land.

The real consequences if these ideas and behaviors spread unchecked are the erosion of family cohesion, a diminished sense of personal duty towards kin and land, and a weakening of the trust that underpins local communities. Children yet to be born will inherit a degraded environment and a fractured social fabric, making their survival and the continuity of their people more precarious. Community trust will be replaced by suspicion and dependency, and the stewardship of the land will be neglected, leading to long-term scarcity and hardship.

The text shows a strong bias against building border walls. It uses words like "significant amount of funding" and "$46 billion" to make the cost seem very large. Then, it lists many groups that are against the wall, making it seem like many people oppose it. This makes the idea of building the wall look bad from the start.

The text uses emotional words to describe the negative effects of the wall. Words like "serious harm," "destructive project," "harmed wildlife," "caused flooding," and "desecrated sacred sites" are used. These words create a strong negative feeling about the wall. They make the reader think the wall is very bad for nature and important places.

The text presents the opposition's arguments as facts without showing any opposing views. It states that the wall "has not been effective in stopping people" and that border crossings are "at historic lows." This makes it seem like these are proven facts. It doesn't mention any reasons why the wall might be considered effective or why border crossings might be low.

The text suggests that the money for the wall would be better spent elsewhere. It says the money would be "better spent on supporting border communities and addressing their real needs." This frames the wall as a waste of money. It implies that the people who want the wall are not caring about the needs of border communities.

The text uses a technique where it lists many organizations that oppose the wall. This makes it seem like there is a very large number of people or groups against the wall. By listing so many names, it creates the impression of widespread opposition. This can make the reader think that the decision to build the wall is unpopular.

The text expresses a strong sense of outrage and disappointment regarding the $46 billion allocated for border walls. This emotion is evident in phrases like "speaking out against this decision" and the detailed list of environmental and cultural harms. The intensity of this emotion is high, as it is shared by numerous organizations dedicated to protecting nature and communities. The purpose of this outrage is to convey the seriousness of the situation and to persuade readers that the funding is a grave mistake. It guides the reader's reaction by creating a sense of shared concern and a desire to oppose the project, aiming to change opinions by highlighting the negative consequences.

Another prominent emotion is concern for the environment and cultural heritage. This is shown through descriptions of "serious harm to the environment and important cultural sites," "harmed wildlife," "destroyed natural springs and water sources," "caused flooding," "damaged fragile desert habitats," and "desecrated sacred sites and burial grounds." This concern is deeply felt and widespread, as indicated by the long list of environmental groups involved. Its purpose is to evoke empathy in the reader and to demonstrate the tangible damage the wall would inflict. This emotion helps guide the reader by fostering sympathy for the affected natural areas and communities, encouraging them to see the wall as a destructive force.

The text also conveys a sense of frustration and disbelief that taxpayer money is being spent on a project deemed ineffective and harmful. This is captured in the statement that the wall "has not been effective in stopping people" and is a "waste of taxpayer money." The strength of this emotion is significant, as it questions the logic and value of the decision. The purpose here is to undermine the justification for the wall and to highlight the poor use of public funds. This emotion aims to persuade by making the reader question the wisdom of the decision-makers and to feel that their money is not being used wisely.

Finally, there is an underlying emotion of hope for a better allocation of resources. This is expressed in the belief that the money "would be better spent on supporting border communities and addressing their real needs." This emotion is presented as a positive alternative, suggesting a more constructive path forward. Its purpose is to offer a solution and to inspire action by proposing a more beneficial use of the funds. This emotion guides the reader by presenting a positive vision, encouraging them to support community-focused initiatives instead of the wall.

The writer uses emotional language to persuade the reader. Words like "significant amount," "serious harm," "destructive project," "desecrated," and "waste" are chosen to sound more impactful than neutral terms. The repetition of the idea that the wall is harmful and unnecessary, along with the extensive list of opposing organizations, amplifies the emotional weight. This creates a strong emotional impact, steering the reader's attention towards the negative aspects of the border wall and away from any potential benefits. The writer aims to make the reader feel the same outrage and concern as the organizations mentioned, thereby encouraging them to adopt a similar viewpoint.