As can be expected, environmental groups are unable or unwilling to effectively oppose the trashing of the border region due to hordes of illegal aliens:

Recently I was at a waist-high border vehicle barrier in a valley northeast of Tecate, Baja California. As far as the eye could see, strewn past barbed wire or collecting knee-deep in culverts, were water bottles, food wrappers, used paper products such as toilet paper and maxi pads, even felt shoe covers designed to obscure tracks.

From California to Texas, illegal immigrants and drug runners leave such calling cards on their trek north.

"This was a beautiful refuge 10 years ago," Mitch Ellis, manager of Arizona's Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, says. "Just stunning." Now, he says, it looks like a "war zone." The refuge shares just 5.5 miles with the Mexican border but is a staging point near the Sasabe border crossing and is crisscrossed by highways that serve as pick-up routes. The sheer amount of foot and vehicle traffic - at least 200,000 to 300,000 crossers a year on the 118,000-acre refuge - makes endangered species conservation a losing battle...

...The carnage makes one wonder why environmental groups aren't out lobbying for a sturdy border fence — instead of arguing against tougher enforcement.

"The unintended consequences of a restrictive border policy with Mexico have resulted in many park, wildlife and natural areas being trampled and trashed by migrants, but also invaded by enforcement activities such as new or upgraded roads, Border Patrol outposts and vehicle damage involved in pursuit and rescue operations," says Rob Smith, the Southwest representative for the Sierra Club...

"The Border Patrol needs to follow the current (environmental) law, which right now they're ignoring," counters Jenny Neeley, southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation advocacy group, adding that "the damage is being caused by border policy." Tougher border enforcement near portals such as San Diego and El Paso, she says, funnels traffic into more remote and environmentally sensitive regions...

Perhaps it's not that difficult to explain the SC's position. Here's a quote from someone who gave their foundation $100 million:

"I did tell Carl Pope [Executive Director of the Sierra Club] in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me..."

Does anyone seriously believe that that quote has nothing to do with the SC's opposition to immigration enforcement?