Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
peteblue said:
It raises a point though about who owns a border and therefore who should defend a border. The landowners can’t have it all their own way. If their land was ‘invaded’ they would be the first to demand government action, while refusing to allow the government to build defences. I think the government would probably win this in Law, but who knows......
Click to expand...
If the United States were invaded via Mexico, I somehow doubt tanks and heavy armor rolling across the Rio Grande is going to be the method. In other words, a wall doesn't serve much of a deterrent against modern military invasion. That said, eminent domain does allow the government to "take" land from citizens for special purposes. I'm not saying otherwise.

12 years ago, during the Bush Administration, the Feds filed hundreds of cases to seize land from citizens. Environmental safeguards were ignored and the government bungled a very large percentage of these cases, spending untold amounts of money fixing their mess. Still, many of the citizens were ultimately screwed on evaluation and took less than their land was worth thinking they could not afford a lawyer to fight the big, bad government. On the other hand, I know a guy who got an offer of something like $200,000 for his property. He laughed and hired a lawyer. The government finally settled his case for $5 million. Last I heard, nearly 30% of the condemnation (eminent domain) cases from 12 years ago remain unsettled.

Point being the cost of the Feds acquiring the land is most likely not accounted for. It will be a gigantic mess. It will upset a great many people, including some very powerful folks who are landowners along the border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California and it will take years, maybe decades, to settle.

It's dumb public policy, not carefully considered. It is nothing more than political theater.
 
Ron Swanson said:
They really haven't blown it. Not even slightly.
Click to expand...

It should be profoundly concerning to them that an awful lot of the media reported on the theme of that speech rather than its contents.

This is something they have done for a while now, and it is ignoring the very real elephant in the room that he may not be of sound mind.
 
tsubaki said:
It should be profoundly concerning to them that an awful lot of the media reported on the theme of that speech rather than its contents.

This is something they have done for a while now, and it is ignoring the very real elephant in the room that he may not be of sound mind.
Click to expand...

 
peteblue said:
It raises a point though about who owns a border and therefore who should defend a border. The landowners can’t have it all their own way. If their land was ‘invaded’ they would be the first to demand government action, while refusing to allow the government to build defences. I think the government would probably win this in Law, but who knows......
Click to expand...
Nobody owns a border. It defines the edge of one 'owned' area and another 'owner' area. Someone might have an interest in strengthening their territory in order to protect it, but you only own as far as the actual border.
 
BlueTX said:
If the United States were invaded via Mexico, I somehow doubt tanks and heavy armor rolling across the Rio Grande is going to be the method. In other words, a wall doesn't serve much of a deterrent against modern military invasion. That said, eminent domain does allow the government to "take" land from citizens for special purposes. I'm not saying otherwise.

12 years ago, during the Bush Administration, the Feds filed hundreds of cases to seize land from citizens. Environmental safeguards were ignored and the government bungled a very large percentage of these cases, spending untold amounts of money fixing their mess. Still, many of the citizens were ultimately screwed on evaluation and took less than their land was worth thinking they could not afford a lawyer to fight the big, bad government. On the other hand, I know a guy who got an offer of something like $200,000 for his property. He laughed and hired a lawyer. The government finally settled his case for $5 million. Last I heard, nearly 30% of the condemnation (eminent domain) cases from 12 years ago remain unsettled.

Point being the cost of the Feds acquiring the land is most likely not accounted for. It will be a gigantic mess. It will upset a great many people, including some very powerful folks who are landowners along the border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California and it will take years, maybe decades, to settle.

It's dumb public policy, not carefully considered. It is nothing more than political theater.
Click to expand...

I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of what he’s trying to do, merely stating that the ownership of a country border is an interesting point of Law......
 
peteblue said:
It raises a point though about who owns a border and therefore who should defend a border. The landowners can’t have it all their own way. If their land was ‘invaded’ they would be the first to demand government action, while refusing to allow the government to build defences. I think the government would probably win this in Law, but who knows......
Click to expand...

The point however is that we are not actually being invaded and in this day and age a border can be defended and security improved without a wall.

I'm all for more border security along with other immigration reforms, but I do not want go about it stupidly which is Trumps go to move.
 
RAFUH said:
The point however is that we are not actually being invaded and in this day and age a border can be defended and security improved without a wall.

I'm all for more border security along with other immigration reforms, but I do not want go about it stupidly which is Trumps go to move.
Click to expand...

I just thought it was an interesting point of law. Whether you build a wall or don’t is entirely up to you guys. But who actually owns a country border, whoever’s land it runs through will be the issue.......
 
peteblue said:
I just thought it was an interesting point of law. Whether you build a wall or don’t is entirely up to you guys. But who actually owns a country border, whoever’s land it runs through will be the issue.......
Click to expand...
Were we talking simple planar geometry, it might be - but in this instance, it's moot.

The "wall" will not only require some depth from the border for the actual structure, but will require additional depth for roads along it, etc. Indeed, the actual wall will be set back some distance from the actual exact border, with that distance varying - such as where the border itself is in the Rio Grande river. Thus, very much so, the wall will intrude onto private property, rending the question of "who owns the border" a purely academic, but not relevant, point.
 
peteblue said:
I just thought it was an interesting point of law. Whether you build a wall or don’t is entirely up to you guys. But who actually owns a country border, whoever’s land it runs through will be the issue.......
Click to expand...
Basically what MrPerfect says above - the wall will require significant depth to build (though it’ll never be built, so kinda irrelevant).

Even if it didn’t, the argument of “they’d be quick enough to want government assistance is invaded” is a spurious one.

I expect the fire brigade to help if my house catches fire. Doesn’t mean I’d be ok with them coming into my house to coat everything with a fire retardant or taking up a chunk of my garden to put up a huge header tank when there’s already a hydrant point on the street outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top