(02-18-2019 08:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 07:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm astounded there isn't more concern here about a president's ability to use an emergency declaration to grab private property. The fact there is ****** SC precedent doesn't sway me. If I own property near the border I want to see a genuine crisis - not a politically exaggerated one - to justify having my property taken under a forced sale to the government.

1. This isnt imminent domain. The Federal government has OWNED 60 feet from the border inwards since 1907. So you, as a landowner, would have never owned that land, nor were you ever able to put anything there.

2. There would be no forced sale because of #1 above. Also, nothing owuld have been taken from you because you would have never owned it.

3. This makes any lawsuit as to damages to landowners null, because they dont own the land therefore could not incur any damages.

4. If you want to see a genuine crisis on the border, you will first have to pull your head out of your ass.

(02-18-2019 08:49 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 08:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 07:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm astounded there isn't more concern here about a president's ability to use an emergency declaration to grab private property. The fact there is ****** SC precedent doesn't sway me. If I own property near the border I want to see a genuine crisis - not a politically exaggerated one - to justify having my property taken under a forced sale to the government.

1. This isnt imminent domain. The Federal government has OWNED 60 feet from the border inwards since 1907. So you, as a landowner, would have never owned that land, nor were you ever able to put anything there.

2. There would be no forced sale because of #1 above. Also, nothing owuld have been taken from you because you would have never owned it.

3. This makes any lawsuit as to damages to landowners null, because they dont own the land therefore could not incur any damages.

4. If you want to see a genuine crisis on the border, you will first have to pull your head out of your ass.

Not sure what I did to you to justify #4, but as to your first three points (which appear to be essentially the same point)...

Quote:East of the Roosevelt Reservation, in Texas, building a wall poses a logistical challenge because ownership becomes murky. Although the federal government is the nation’s single-largest property owner along the southwest border, most of the land belongs to state governments or private owners. In its efforts to seize land to build a fence, the federal government has struggled to identify owners, particularly in Starr County in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where spotty records date back 250 years in some cases.

There are plenty of links to this issue online, including numerous references to Texas border eminent domain litigation going back to W's administration. It sounds like the Roosevelt Reservation may have excluded Texas. Anything else you've got to support your point?

The creation of Falcon lake in Zapata County and the old Spanish land grants are why finding rightful property owners will be a problem. Many of those original land grant records that were held by the Spanish settlers were ordered to be turned over to the state of Texas so they could be logged into the records in Austin. Unfortunately, those grants sank on a ship before they ever got to Austin (No one seems to know why they went out of their way to the gulf, when they could have gone over dry land faster). Not all of the Tejanos were stupid enough to hand over their claims, and most of the privately owned land along the Rio Grand is still owned by the descendants of these pioneer families. Truth is the Trump administration could easily get copies of the official Spanish documents. They are all on file in Mexico City. I have seen them. The Spanish were meticulous in their record keeping.

(02-18-2019 08:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 07:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm astounded there isn't more concern here about a president's ability to use an emergency declaration to grab private property. The fact there is ****** SC precedent doesn't sway me. If I own property near the border I want to see a genuine crisis - not a politically exaggerated one - to justify having my property taken under a forced sale to the government.

1. This isnt imminent domain. The Federal government has OWNED 60 feet from the border inwards since 1907. So you, as a landowner, would have never owned that land, nor were you ever able to put anything there.

2. There would be no forced sale because of #1 above. Also, nothing owuld have been taken from you because you would have never owned it.

3. This makes any lawsuit as to damages to landowners null, because they dont own the land therefore could not incur any damages.

4. If you want to see a genuine crisis on the border, you will first have to pull your head out of your ass.

It’s almost as if some of these people can’t read....or maybe they just want to ignore realities that don’t fit thier little fake news narrative.

OK, just so we're on the same page here, I want to make sure I understand the points y'all are making. These Texans don't actually own their property? They don't possess title? They've got an easement that they're ignoring, or don't know about? And therefore they can't/won't challenge eminent domain in court? And all those court cases as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 - they're... what now?

Quote:Hundreds of irate landowners along the river have protested what they call a government land grab to install the controversial fence. Their cases landed before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville. He calls himself "the fence judge."

How says they got to start in Texas? Lot of walls need to go up and I guarantee you once you plug everywhere but Texas you will see a lot more in Texas that's willing to let the government buy their 1/2 acre or what ever it is. Let those coming across see the only place they can cross without a wall/fence or desert is in Texas where some one doesn't want a fence...that's where they will start crossing.

Let a few get beaten, robbed, or killed the rest will change their mind or most will

700 miles of fence or walls went up in Texas since the Secure Fence Act of 2006

(02-18-2019 11:48 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  OK, just so we're on the same page here, I want to make sure I understand the points y'all are making. These Texans don't actually own their property? They don't possess title? They've got an easement that they're ignoring, or don't know about? And therefore they can't/won't challenge eminent domain in court? And all those court cases as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 - they're... what now?

Quote:Hundreds of irate landowners along the river have protested what they call a government land grab to install the controversial fence. Their cases landed before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville. He calls himself "the fence judge."

Part of the reason to use eminent domain is not because of the border, but because they may want to build the border wall back off of the border some distance, due to a number of factors. (Terrain, ecology, etc) In these cases, gates are built into the wall so that the landowners can access the southern part of their property, but the wall does get built. Some of your news sources will state that some of W's eminent domain cases are still in court, but they all have to do with the fair market payment they received. The wall got built long ago in those cases.

(02-18-2019 08:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 07:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm astounded there isn't more concern here about a president's ability to use an emergency declaration to grab private property. The fact there is ****** SC precedent doesn't sway me. If I own property near the border I want to see a genuine crisis - not a politically exaggerated one - to justify having my property taken under a forced sale to the government.

1. This isnt imminent domain. The Federal government has OWNED 60 feet from the border inwards since 1907. So you, as a landowner, would have never owned that land, nor were you ever able to put anything there.

2. There would be no forced sale because of #1 above. Also, nothing owuld have been taken from you because you would have never owned it.

3. This makes any lawsuit as to damages to landowners null, because they dont own the land therefore could not incur any damages.

4. If you want to see a genuine crisis on the border, you will first have to pull your head out of your ass.

lmao....if I'm in the jury, I'm falling out of my seat after #4....that's pure there...

it's amazing how folk don't understand "easement"....

(02-18-2019 05:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These are ranchers just like the Bundy's. They will carry arms and will block the feds to grab their land. These guys helped the Bundy's out. We will be seeing armed cowboys at every ranch along the border. They are willing to shoot it out with the feds who will try and take those land. Plus, these are conservative voters and they will treat Trump as athreat like they did with Obama.

Maybe in a movie.

I'll bet the reality is this "lawsuit" is nothing more than an attempt to get PAID.

File a lawsuit, negotiate with the government, government decides it's cheaper & easier to pay them off, government cuts a check, ranchers suddenly no longer oppose the wall.

It's ALWAYS about the Benjamins.

(02-19-2019 07:51 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 05:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These are ranchers just like the Bundy's. They will carry arms and will block the feds to grab their land. These guys helped the Bundy's out. We will be seeing armed cowboys at every ranch along the border. They are willing to shoot it out with the feds who will try and take those land. Plus, these are conservative voters and they will treat Trump as athreat like they did with Obama.

Maybe in a movie.

I'll bet the reality is this "lawsuit" is nothing more than an attempt to get PAID.

File a lawsuit, negotiate with the government, government decides it's cheaper & easier to pay them off, government cuts a check, ranchers suddenly no longer oppose the wall.

It's ALWAYS about the Benjamins.

Yeah, that's usually how this works. They'll be all outraged until they get paid.

(02-19-2019 12:38 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  How says they got to start in Texas? Lot of walls need to go up and I guarantee you once you plug everywhere but Texas you will see a lot more in Texas that's willing to let the government buy their 1/2 acre or what ever it is. Let those coming across see the only place they can cross without a wall/fence or desert is in Texas where some one doesn't want a fence...that's where they will start crossing.

Let a few get beaten, robbed, or killed the rest will change their mind or most will

700 miles of fence or walls went up in Texas since the Secure Fence Act of 2006

That was my first thought. Build the fence/wall where ever someone agrees to the easements......Then just wait.

Where ever the "holes" are will become a thoroughfare for illegals. Some (maybe most) will be harmless, but enough won't be that will steal or worse....those whose backyard has become dangerous will re-think their position..

(02-19-2019 11:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 07:51 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 05:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These are ranchers just like the Bundy's. They will carry arms and will block the feds to grab their land. These guys helped the Bundy's out. We will be seeing armed cowboys at every ranch along the border. They are willing to shoot it out with the feds who will try and take those land. Plus, these are conservative voters and they will treat Trump as athreat like they did with Obama.

Maybe in a movie.

I'll bet the reality is this "lawsuit" is nothing more than an attempt to get PAID.

File a lawsuit, negotiate with the government, government decides it's cheaper & easier to pay them off, government cuts a check, ranchers suddenly no longer oppose the wall.

It's ALWAYS about the Benjamins.

Yeah, that's usually how this works. They'll be all outraged until they get paid.

The Colin Kaepernicks of property owners....