Posted on Feb 18, 2017
Trump Can’t Build a Border Wall Without the Real Estate
5.09K
43
47
8
8
0
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cant-build-a-border-wall-without-the-real-estate [login to see]
I'm wondering if the people that still think this wall will get built forgot that much of that land is private and many of those people have had that land for generations. I believe I can speak with some certainty that they will tell the President to pound sand, even with an imminent domain order.
I'm wondering if the people that still think this wall will get built forgot that much of that land is private and many of those people have had that land for generations. I believe I can speak with some certainty that they will tell the President to pound sand, even with an imminent domain order.
Trump Can’t Build a Border Wall Without the Real Estate
Posted from wsj.com
Donald Trump
Real estate
Mexico
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 15
6
6
0
There is already a 60 foot easement along the entire Border called the Roosevelt Reservation. It was established in 1907 specifically for border intervention against unlawful entry and smuggling.
(6)
(0)
James Jay
the roosevelt reservation says nothing about private land, only public land and more importantly, specifically states such land shall only be used for public roads, and nothing else "whatever." iow, it doesn't apply to tump's wall
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
From Proclamation 758:
"WHEREAS, it is necessary for the public welfare that a strip of land lying along the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Mexico be RESERVED [emphasis mine] from the operation of the public land laws and kept free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and said Republic;'
"...reserved from the operation of public land laws." - Meaning held apart from or excluded from those laws normally governing the uses of public lands; establishing this 60 foot wide strip as reserved for a specific and special purpose. In this case "...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic; [Mexico].
Back to the proclamation
"Now, therefore, I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, do hereby declare, proclaim and make known that there are hereby reserved from entry, settlement or other form of appropriation [no transfer of ownership away from the Federal Government] under the public land laws and set apart as a public reservation."
"...are hereby reserved from entry, settlement or other form of appropriation (by any one other than the Federal government) under the public land laws and set apart as a public reservation." - Meaning the US Federal Government has exempted this strip of land from any form of appropriation (ownership) under the Public Land [Transfer] Laws. which would allow a state to exercise eminent domain instead of the federal government.
"... also excepting all lands which at this date are embraced within any withdrawal or reservation for any use or purpose to which this reservation for customs purposes is repugnant;"
"...to which this reservation for customs purposes is repugnant;" meaning the Federal government allows continued public (as in general public) use of the land as long as that use in not "repugnant" (does not interfere with) the purpose for which it is reserved- ("...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic;")
"Provided Further, that the said strips, tracts, or parcels of land, reserved as aforesaid, may be used for public highways (by the general public) but for no other purpose whatever, so long as the reservation of same under this proclamation shall continue in force." Meaning the general public is limited to using as a public highway, NOT the federal Government is limited to using it as a public highway. The federal government may do with it as it wishes "...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic;"
This proclamation was made at a time, 1907, when the vast majority of that 60 foot wide strip was in it natural state and Roosevelt' proclamation served three purposes.
1) Put the Border States and territories on notice that the right of eminent domain on that 60 foot strip remained solely with the Federal government.
2) Reserved the Federal Government's use of that land for the sole purpose of protecting against smuggling.
3) Put the general notice, that if the currently occupied and used the land, that they may continue to do so, only in it current natural state, and that the only "improvement's" that would be allowed to stand are those that served the purpose of public highway OR "...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic;"
"WHEREAS, it is necessary for the public welfare that a strip of land lying along the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Mexico be RESERVED [emphasis mine] from the operation of the public land laws and kept free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and said Republic;'
"...reserved from the operation of public land laws." - Meaning held apart from or excluded from those laws normally governing the uses of public lands; establishing this 60 foot wide strip as reserved for a specific and special purpose. In this case "...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic; [Mexico].
Back to the proclamation
"Now, therefore, I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, do hereby declare, proclaim and make known that there are hereby reserved from entry, settlement or other form of appropriation [no transfer of ownership away from the Federal Government] under the public land laws and set apart as a public reservation."
"...are hereby reserved from entry, settlement or other form of appropriation (by any one other than the Federal government) under the public land laws and set apart as a public reservation." - Meaning the US Federal Government has exempted this strip of land from any form of appropriation (ownership) under the Public Land [Transfer] Laws. which would allow a state to exercise eminent domain instead of the federal government.
"... also excepting all lands which at this date are embraced within any withdrawal or reservation for any use or purpose to which this reservation for customs purposes is repugnant;"
"...to which this reservation for customs purposes is repugnant;" meaning the Federal government allows continued public (as in general public) use of the land as long as that use in not "repugnant" (does not interfere with) the purpose for which it is reserved- ("...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic;")
"Provided Further, that the said strips, tracts, or parcels of land, reserved as aforesaid, may be used for public highways (by the general public) but for no other purpose whatever, so long as the reservation of same under this proclamation shall continue in force." Meaning the general public is limited to using as a public highway, NOT the federal Government is limited to using it as a public highway. The federal government may do with it as it wishes "...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic;"
This proclamation was made at a time, 1907, when the vast majority of that 60 foot wide strip was in it natural state and Roosevelt' proclamation served three purposes.
1) Put the Border States and territories on notice that the right of eminent domain on that 60 foot strip remained solely with the Federal government.
2) Reserved the Federal Government's use of that land for the sole purpose of protecting against smuggling.
3) Put the general notice, that if the currently occupied and used the land, that they may continue to do so, only in it current natural state, and that the only "improvement's" that would be allowed to stand are those that served the purpose of public highway OR "...as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United states and said Republic;"
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I had a Surveillance and target acquisition (STA) Platoon in the early 80's operating post Korean War PSID's. A proficient operator could tell the difference between a man and a large animal very easily. Same with the ground surveillance radar operator. That was 50 year old+ technology, I'm sure we have much better technology today. But....
Any infantryman and combat engineer knows that ANY obstacle that is not covered by observation direct fire and observed indirect fires is nothing but a minor slow down. Deadly force in border protection is out of any serious consideration. The effects of any non-lethal deterrents (noxious agents, sonic deterrents etc.) cannot extend beyond the border, without the unlikely agreement of the Mexican government, or outside the easement. It is also difficult to present intruders with a series of obstacles since the border easement is only 60 ft. It is a damn tough problem. It is even more difficult when both side of the border are built up areas right to the easement.
No matter what you do, rapid response is necessary. If an obstacle can be breached by an unarmed and unsophisticated intruder in three minutes, you need a two minute response team. If 50 intruders unarmed intruders breach the obstacles with intent to overwhelm the response force, and you don't use deadly force to stop the breach, you need a rapid response team of 75-150 responders to apprehend most if not all of those intruders.
We need to combat unlawful entry much deeper into US territory. People come for economic opportunity or to smuggle. That is where we need our wall. We need a national system to identify those with a right to work in the United States, that is both mandatory and simple for all employers (commercial and private) to use. Failure to use or attempts to fool the system should bring down draconian fines and imprisonment on the employer, perhaps $100,000 and one year imprisonment per employee.
We also need to impose draconian penalties for voluntary unlawful entry and intentional illegal residence (visa overstay etc.) that bar anyone from future legal entry and increase substantially with repeat offenses, One year for the first offense, five years for the second offense, 25 years for the third offense.
We should also consider voluntary illegal presence in the United States as an aggravating factor for purposes of sentencing anyone that commits a felony, perhaps automatically doubling the period of incarceration.
I would further propose a Constitutional amendment that removes the automatic extension of US citizenship to a child born on US soil if the mother is in the United States in violation of US law.
Any infantryman and combat engineer knows that ANY obstacle that is not covered by observation direct fire and observed indirect fires is nothing but a minor slow down. Deadly force in border protection is out of any serious consideration. The effects of any non-lethal deterrents (noxious agents, sonic deterrents etc.) cannot extend beyond the border, without the unlikely agreement of the Mexican government, or outside the easement. It is also difficult to present intruders with a series of obstacles since the border easement is only 60 ft. It is a damn tough problem. It is even more difficult when both side of the border are built up areas right to the easement.
No matter what you do, rapid response is necessary. If an obstacle can be breached by an unarmed and unsophisticated intruder in three minutes, you need a two minute response team. If 50 intruders unarmed intruders breach the obstacles with intent to overwhelm the response force, and you don't use deadly force to stop the breach, you need a rapid response team of 75-150 responders to apprehend most if not all of those intruders.
We need to combat unlawful entry much deeper into US territory. People come for economic opportunity or to smuggle. That is where we need our wall. We need a national system to identify those with a right to work in the United States, that is both mandatory and simple for all employers (commercial and private) to use. Failure to use or attempts to fool the system should bring down draconian fines and imprisonment on the employer, perhaps $100,000 and one year imprisonment per employee.
We also need to impose draconian penalties for voluntary unlawful entry and intentional illegal residence (visa overstay etc.) that bar anyone from future legal entry and increase substantially with repeat offenses, One year for the first offense, five years for the second offense, 25 years for the third offense.
We should also consider voluntary illegal presence in the United States as an aggravating factor for purposes of sentencing anyone that commits a felony, perhaps automatically doubling the period of incarceration.
I would further propose a Constitutional amendment that removes the automatic extension of US citizenship to a child born on US soil if the mother is in the United States in violation of US law.
(5)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter - It does not work because despite the law the DO NOT go after the employers.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - I can't argue with that, Your correct they don't. Unless that ever happens, which I doubt it will people will still attempt to cross the border for those jobs. If i were a Mexican citizen on that side of the border and as unfortunate and poor as some of those people are I might have been trying Myself. I'm certainly glad I'm not in that situation. I'm sure the wealthy citizens of Mexico aren't concerned either.
(1)
(0)
SPC Angela Burnham
Maj John Bell I respectfully disagree on your last point Major. When we start revoking citizenship from people born in the U.S. we hit a very slippery slope. Once we set that precedent, the same logic could be extended to other groups one day.
Look at what Nazi Germany did, first they revoked citizenship of convicted criminals in the late 20s, and a few decades later that extended to all Jewish people. Not implying you would ever want something like that Major, but the potential exists for such policy to be wielded in an unethical manner. The 14th Amendment is a necessary barrier to such a possibility.
Look at what Nazi Germany did, first they revoked citizenship of convicted criminals in the late 20s, and a few decades later that extended to all Jewish people. Not implying you would ever want something like that Major, but the potential exists for such policy to be wielded in an unethical manner. The 14th Amendment is a necessary barrier to such a possibility.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Whether you intended it to be or not, the lesson in NAZI history was offensive. I may be hyper sensitive, but the NAZI analogy is thrown about far too loosely today, with no consideration to the very real and fantastically excessive horror that real victims of the NAZI's experienced. And I've had enough of its misuse.
I suggest you read my last point more carefully. You have completely mischaracterized my position. I absolutely DID NOT advocate revoking citizenship. There is a huge difference between REVOKING citizenship... and NOT GRANTING citizenship. I advocated that we no longer automatically grant citizenship to a child born on US soil, IF and ONLY IF:
_both the parents are not US citizens, AND
_both the parents are in the US illegally, or
_both the parents have intentionally overstayed their lawful visa, or
_some combination of illegal immigration or unlawful residence.
For instance, the child born in the US while the non-citizen mother was legally in the US on a tourist visa, work visa, etc. etc. would still be eligible for US citizenship. The child born to a mother who overstayed her visa because of a flight delay would still be eligible for US citizenship. On the other hand, he child born to a mother who slipped across the border illegally and lived in the US for 10 years without ever becoming a legal immigrant or lawful resident, would not become a US citizen.
Where did I challenge the 14th amendment or assert that it only applies to US citizens? The 14th amendment protects people REGARDLESS of citizenship, immigration status, unlawful residence. It does not extend all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship. (voting, the draft, tax on foreign income, etc. etc.)
I suggest you read my last point more carefully. You have completely mischaracterized my position. I absolutely DID NOT advocate revoking citizenship. There is a huge difference between REVOKING citizenship... and NOT GRANTING citizenship. I advocated that we no longer automatically grant citizenship to a child born on US soil, IF and ONLY IF:
_both the parents are not US citizens, AND
_both the parents are in the US illegally, or
_both the parents have intentionally overstayed their lawful visa, or
_some combination of illegal immigration or unlawful residence.
For instance, the child born in the US while the non-citizen mother was legally in the US on a tourist visa, work visa, etc. etc. would still be eligible for US citizenship. The child born to a mother who overstayed her visa because of a flight delay would still be eligible for US citizenship. On the other hand, he child born to a mother who slipped across the border illegally and lived in the US for 10 years without ever becoming a legal immigrant or lawful resident, would not become a US citizen.
Where did I challenge the 14th amendment or assert that it only applies to US citizens? The 14th amendment protects people REGARDLESS of citizenship, immigration status, unlawful residence. It does not extend all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship. (voting, the draft, tax on foreign income, etc. etc.)
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
For those people that are desperate to get here, a wall is just an obstacle to be overcome. They will find a way over it, under it, through it, or around it. It may slow them down, but it won't stop them. The money for the wall would be better spent elsewhere.
(5)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
Whatever it takes they've got to be stopped are the money we saved not building a wall we'll spend on welfare and supporting them and the rest of their clan for the rest of our lives. Talk about putting a milestone around our necks.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PO3 Paul Lowrey- 40 ft wall? Great, that’s nothing that sixty seconds and an extension ladder can’t overcome. But the wall has slats?? Great, a $50 reciprocal saw and another sixty seconds should do the trick.
If ‘they’ are stopped, our economy is going to take a big sh*t, and quickly. Because ‘we’ don’t want to pick lettuce all day for $5 an hour and no bathroom breaks. ‘We’ don’t want to work doing dishes in restaurants. ‘We’ generally don’t want to do a wide variety of menial labor that millions of folks would literally risk their lives to come here and do.
I’m no fan of illegal immigration. It’s a real problem. But I’m not naive, either. Until business owners in this country decide that hiring illegal immigrants isn’t acceptable, the flow of illegal immigrants will never stop. Ever. One idea that neither the left nor right ever propose is to aggressively prosecute companies that hire illegals. (I understand; no one wants to hear that the y might actually be a part of the problem).
But if the demand for illegal labor went away, the supply would likely decrease accordingly.
If ‘they’ are stopped, our economy is going to take a big sh*t, and quickly. Because ‘we’ don’t want to pick lettuce all day for $5 an hour and no bathroom breaks. ‘We’ don’t want to work doing dishes in restaurants. ‘We’ generally don’t want to do a wide variety of menial labor that millions of folks would literally risk their lives to come here and do.
I’m no fan of illegal immigration. It’s a real problem. But I’m not naive, either. Until business owners in this country decide that hiring illegal immigrants isn’t acceptable, the flow of illegal immigrants will never stop. Ever. One idea that neither the left nor right ever propose is to aggressively prosecute companies that hire illegals. (I understand; no one wants to hear that the y might actually be a part of the problem).
But if the demand for illegal labor went away, the supply would likely decrease accordingly.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
Thank you for your service Sir. I studied Genghis Khan in my history class at school and that's been a lifetime ago but if my memory is right Genghis Khan was a brilliant man of war and I believe through a variety of battles he actually breeched the wall several times as opposed to going around it. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other but sometime I might research it just out of curiosity.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google