Three days ago the U.S. House of Representatives voted to construct 700 miles of border fencing at several high-traffic areas for illegal immigration. The Austin American Statesman's report on the vote (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/storie s/nation/12/16immig.html) immediately tried to flame racial tensions by confusing illegal immigration with legal immigration. ("Some Democrats called the GOP-sponsored legislation a xenophobic attack on immigrants...") Editor Arnold Garcia, who I respect because he writes from a more reasoned and less inflammatory perspective than most in the MSM, disappointed today in an editorial (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editoria l/stories/12/18garcia_edit.html.) He criticized the fence as a potential boondoggle (a legitimate concern) and also likened its potential effectiveness with that of the Great Wall or the Maginot Line. That does not make sense. Those defensive barriers were established to repel invading militaries. I think a more appropriate comparison would be to compare a Border fence to the fencing around any commercial airport. There are tall fences, usually topped by razor wire, surrounding every commercial airport. Are these fences racist or xenophobic? Why do we even have fences around airports? The obvious answer is that everyone who enters the airport should have to enter through a secure entrance. It does not mean that we are barring anyone from the airport based on their race or national origin. But we are controlling the circumstances and place of entry into the airport while also protecting ourselves against terrorism. It is inconceivable that we would prohibit fences around airports and instead place patrols around each airport to try to intercept those illegally entering airport property. Why would we do that when a physical barrier is more efficient and effective? So then, why is our national border any different? We can disagree on how much immigration is desirable or whether a Guest Worker program is a good idea. What should not be in dispute, however, is that every one crossing over the border should come through a controlled, monitored border crossing. Critics of fences also state that fences do not address the root causes of illegal immigration. True enough. But so long as there is only an imaginary line to keep coyotes and migrants from crossing illegally into the U.S., no other reforms will slow the tide. GREGG