PDA

View Full Version : Border Lands The Wall's Impact on Property Rights




PAF
07-24-2019, 09:30 AM
Ron Paul would have fit right in with this panel, and would have outlined the proper solution.

Whether you are for or against the "Wall", it is important to fully understand how eminent domain politicizes and further erodes our Rights.


Key takes:


"Declaration of Taking".

Largest Federal land grab in modern history.

Continuation of the Bush and Obama administrations.

Eminent domain destroys far more economic value than it creates.

Pushes Mexican boundaries Northward.

Pitting conservative principles: Protection of Private Property is the BEDROCK of Conservative Philosophy.

People throughout the country have no idea how devastating government eminent domain is.

"Federal" trumps states and peoples Rights.

Moving away from country, suburban and private property to metropolitan.

Gives DHS authority to override laws.

TAX PAYERS are paying for private property take-overs and giving it to the Fed.gov.

Give the FED.gov the land first, worry about 1st Amendment later.

Trump is a life-long broad supporter of eminent domain.

Many countries are utilizing eminent domain to take private property from rightful owners and giving it to governments.



The panel presentation begins at the 14:50 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPNhmBa-oM



Mary McCord
Senior Litigator, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School

McCord is a senior litigator with ICAP and formerly Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice.
ICAP has recently filed a motion opposing the federal government’s efforts to seize land belonging to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville for a proposed border wall.

Ilya Somin, @IlyaSomin
Professor of Law, George Mason University

Somin is a law professor and widely published writer. He is considered one of the nation’s preeminent scholars on eminent domain, and has written extensively on the border wall’s property implications.

Kiah Collier, @kiahcollier
Energy and Environment Reporter, Texas Tribune

Collier is an award-winning journalist and member of the Texas Tribune team responsible for The Taking, an investigative series focused on property rights issues related to the proposed border wall.

Moderator:

Yuliya Panfil, @yneyman
Senior Fellow and Director, Future of Property Rights Program at New America

dannno
07-24-2019, 09:43 AM
Ya, I'm not convinced. It's a fence. Along the perimeter of the property. Pretty much everybody has a fence on the edge of their property that they have to pay for. This one is free. If you bought a house with a nice view and your neighbor had an empty lot, if you were smart you didn't have to pay much for the view because there is a reasonable expectation that the view will be lost if they build on the empty property. If you buy property on the US border, there is a reasonable expectation a wall or fence may be built on the perimeter.

PAF
07-24-2019, 10:03 AM
Ya, I'm not convinced. It's a fence. Along the perimeter of the property. Pretty much everybody has a fence on the edge of their property that they have to pay for. This one is free. If you bought a house with a nice view and your neighbor had an empty lot, if you were smart you didn't have to pay much for the view because there is a reasonable expectation that the view will be lost if they build on the empty property. If you buy property on the US border, there is a reasonable expectation a wall or fence may be built on the perimeter.


13 minutes between posting the thread, and your reply. The presentation is about 75 minutes long.



https://eriksoderstrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ql-0009-pelosi1.jpg

dannno
07-24-2019, 10:32 AM
13 minutes between posting the thread, and your reply. The presentation is about 75 minutes long.


So there is a part of the video that explains why somebody who buys property on the border shouldn't have a reasonable expectation that a wall or fence might be built?

I mean, it's not like they bought a farm in the middle of nowhere and now they want to build a ten lane highway through it. They bought property on the US border. They didn't think this might happen some day?

PAF
07-24-2019, 10:40 AM
So there is a part of the video that explains why somebody who buys property on the border shouldn't have a reasonable expectation that a wall or fence might be built?

Why are you endorsing the notion that a non-owner should have any right to dictate what a private owner should or should not expect?

I suggest that you watch the panel discussion before commenting on the panel discussion. If you wish to debate the panel discussion after watching it I will be happy to entertain.

dannno
07-24-2019, 10:50 AM
Why are you endorsing the notion that a non-owner should have any right to dictate what a private owner should or should not expect?



It's common sense. Almost everybody has a fence. You bought property on the edge of the US border, a border that has been there for hundreds of years. Obviously a fence might be built some day. A fence takes up virtually no space on the property, it's on the edge of the property so the entire property can still be utilized.

I'm probably one of the whole 3% or 4% of the entire population (at most) who believes that taxation is theft and also that I would like to move toward a free society with open borders. So ultimately I'm on your side, I agree we shouldn't have borders.

But we aren't there. We live in a society where we pay taxes - a LOT - and incidentally - billions of other people who had no hand in building our country can come in and claim that tax money. They don't like freedom. They will start voting to take more. So we can't have a free society because you can't have open borders and a welfare state. It's pretty simple.

PAF
07-24-2019, 11:43 AM
It's common sense. Almost everybody has a fence. You bought property on the edge of the US border, a border that has been there for hundreds of years. Obviously a fence might be built some day. A fence takes up virtually no space on the property, it's on the edge of the property so the entire property can still be utilized.

I'm probably one of the whole 3% or 4% of the entire population (at most) who believes that taxation is theft and also that I would like to move toward a free society with open borders. So ultimately I'm on your side, I agree we shouldn't have borders.

But we aren't there. We live in a society where we pay taxes - a LOT - and incidentally - billions of other people who had no hand in building our country can come in and claim that tax money. They don't like freedom. They will start voting to take more. So we can't have a free society because you can't have open borders and a welfare state. It's pretty simple.

Land has been owned before this government even existed, therefore there was no expectation that a wall would someday be built. Also, if "It's common sense. Almost everybody has a fence.", which is a false assumption, then the government wanting a wall would be completely moot. There are many communities and businesses that would simply belly-up with a wall, pushing more onto government assist.

We already have a welfare state. I do not see any advantage to sacrificing more freedoms, hoping that someday it will result in the end to welfare.

Instead of sacrificing liberty for security which every administration does, we should be calling for an end to welfare louder than those wanting a wall which will cost more in dollars and freedom.

If you have not watched the panel presentation, please do, it really is well worth the time :-)

Swordsmyth
07-24-2019, 05:34 PM
Land has been owned before this government even existed, therefore there was no expectation that a wall would someday be built. Also, if "It's common sense. Almost everybody has a fence.", which is a false assumption, then the government wanting a wall would be completely moot. There are many communities and businesses that would simply belly-up with a wall, pushing more onto government assist.

We already have a welfare state. I do not see any advantage to sacrificing more freedoms, hoping that someday it will result in the end to welfare.

Instead of sacrificing liberty for security which every administration does, we should be calling for an end to welfare louder than those wanting a wall which will cost more in dollars and freedom.

If you have not watched the panel presentation, please do, it really is well worth the time :-)
You want us to sacrifice all of our freedoms by letting in the communists who will take them all.

r3volution 3.0
07-24-2019, 08:34 PM
Protection of Private Property is the BEDROCK of Conservative Philosophy.

https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/willy-wonka-new-movie.jpg?w=1000

phill4paul
07-24-2019, 08:59 PM
Simple. No wall on private property needed. If you allow invaders to cross your property, and enter others property, un-impinged then you are aiding and abetting.

Swordsmyth
07-24-2019, 10:30 PM
Simple. No wall on private property needed. If you allow invaders to cross your property, and enter others property, un-impinged then you are aiding and abetting.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

TheTexan
07-24-2019, 11:17 PM
The solution is easy.

Just build the wall on Mexico's side of the border.

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 01:31 AM
The solution is easy.

Just build the wall on Mexico's side of the border.
That's not a bad idea.

jmdrake
07-25-2019, 05:32 AM
Ya, I'm not convinced. It's a fence. Along the perimeter of the property. Pretty much everybody has a fence on the edge of their property that they have to pay for. This one is free. If you bought a house with a nice view and your neighbor had an empty lot, if you were smart you didn't have to pay much for the view because there is a reasonable expectation that the view will be lost if they build on the empty property. If you buy property on the US border, there is a reasonable expectation a wall or fence may be built on the perimeter.

Except this "fence" isn't on the edge of people's property. It cuts through their property! The border "fence" (Trump said he was going to build a wall, not a fence) is built inside the U.S. Americans are absolutely losing property because of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/border-wall-could-leave-some-americans-mexican-side-n747141

jmdrake
07-25-2019, 05:35 AM
The solution is easy.

Just build the wall on Mexico's side of the border.


That's not a bad idea.

I thought you were against that because you considered it "nation building" or "interventionism? That said, re-purposing U.S. aid to Mexico to help them build a wall along their southern border, which is much shorter, in order to keep the Central American migrants from even getting into North America makes the most sense.

PAF
07-25-2019, 06:13 AM
Except this "fence" isn't on the edge of people's property. It cuts through their property! The border "fence" (Trump said he was going to build a wall, not a fence) is built inside the U.S. Americans are absolutely losing property because of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/border-wall-could-leave-some-americans-mexican-side-n747141


SS is not concerned about facts. We have all been through this time and again, believing that the Fed has our best interest at heart, and wants to build that wall to restore liberty and freedom. SS thinks that after repeated attempts, I am going to buy his bull-cucky story that after the wall is built, the Fed.gov will then eliminate the welfare system - AFTER Private Property has been taken and given to the Fed.

I wonder what the chances are that SS even watched that video... nah, like I said, facts only stand in his way.

One thing is for certain, those global contractors that I started threads about will surely profit by that wall. And when that fails to work as Ron Paul has stated, they will look for even more security measures next election and/or administration. And the people will STILL buy it, as they have done for over a hundred years.

specsaregood
07-25-2019, 06:19 AM
At this point it is stupid to argue about. First build the wall along all non-private property or on the property of all willing property owners. Then circle back to the unwilling property owners. Once all illegal traffic is pushed onto their property, many will change their tune. The others will get sued by illegals that hurt themselves or got raped on their property and change their tune.

PAF
07-25-2019, 06:29 AM
At this point it is stupid to argue about. Then circle back to the unwilling property owners. Once all illegal traffic is pushed onto their property, many will change their tune. The others will get sued by illegals that hurt themselves or got raped on their property and change their tune.


Yes, keep up the "War on Drugs", too. And "illegal" prostitution because it is immoral. And because they work "under the table" (private contract rights) and not pay Fed taxes, force them into government mandated minimum wage.

Soon the government is going to give us a Free America on a sliver platter! Just wait and see, Welfare will end!


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536916-The-Corporate-Interests-Behind-The-Homestead-Migrant-Youth-Detention-Center

specsaregood
07-25-2019, 06:42 AM
Yes, keep up the "War on Drugs", too. And "illegal" prostitution because it is immoral. And because they work "under the table" (private contract rights) and not pay Fed taxes, force them into government mandated minimum wage.
Soon the government is going to give us a Free America on a sliver platter! Just wait and see, Welfare will end!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536916-The-Corporate-Interests-Behind-The-Homestead-Migrant-Youth-Detention-Center

I thought we were talking about the wall and property rights. As I said, there is no need to force a wall onto private property owners land unwillingly. I would have thought we were in agreement; then you change it into an argument about the War on Drugs and prostitution for some fucking reason.

PAF
07-25-2019, 06:45 AM
I thought we were talking about the wall and property rights. As I said, there is no need to force a wall onto private property owners land unwillingly. I would have thought we were in agreement; then you change it into an argument about the War on Drugs and prostitution for some $#@!ing reason.


I think we pretty much are in agreement. I just wanted the readers to consider the other aspects also without losing sight.

jmdrake
07-25-2019, 06:52 AM
At this point it is stupid to argue about. First build the wall along all non-private property or on the property of all willing property owners. Then circle back to the unwilling property owners. Once all illegal traffic is pushed onto their property, many will change their tune. The others will get sued by illegals that hurt themselves or got raped on their property and change their tune.

Land has already been confiscated from unwilling private property owners so that horse is already out of the barn. And those who support illegal immigration could offer to buy the land owned by unwilling property owners who later felt threatened by the uptick in illegals crossing their land. The new owners could be absentee.

specsaregood
07-25-2019, 06:55 AM
Land has already been confiscated from unwilling private property owners so that horse is already out of the barn. And those who support illegal immigration could offer to buy the land owned by unwilling property owners who later felt threatened by the uptick in illegals crossing their land. The new owners could be absentee.

So there is currently no land owned by the govt or owned by willing property owners, that doesn't have a border wall? If there is, then I would suggest they stop confiscating land and go with my approach.

jmdrake
07-25-2019, 11:48 AM
So there is currently no land owned by the govt or owned by willing property owners, that doesn't have a border wall? If there is, then I would suggest they stop confiscating land and go with my approach.

I'm guessing there is. I haven't looked into it. I'm sure it's much more expensive to built the way piecemeal the way you are suggesting. Building the wall on the southern border of Mexico would be even cheaper and wouldn't affect any U.S. property rights.

Anti Federalist
07-25-2019, 12:13 PM
If the invaders were armed with rifles and tanks and artillery, would we be having this argument?

The only answer is, no, of course not.

And the current invaders know that.

Which is why they are winning.

angelatc
07-25-2019, 12:17 PM
You want us to sacrifice all of our freedoms by letting in the communists who will take them all.

Communism would dictate that we have no property rights. This position therefore seems flawed to me.

jmdrake
07-25-2019, 12:42 PM
If the invaders were armed with rifles and tanks and artillery, would we be having this argument?


If that were true we would help Mexico stop them at Mexico's southern border. I talked about that before. Nobody here seemed interested. And that, sadly, includes you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534088-So-stopping-an-quot-invasion-quot-before-it-gets-to-the-U-S-is-now-quot-nation-building-quot&highlight=mexico+nation+building

This whole "It's an invasion" argument is claptrap at best and hypocrisy at worst. Sorry but I'm going to call a spade a spade. It's okay to violate the property rights of U.S. citizens and cut ranches that have been in private hands for generations in two in order to build a wall that everybody who is honest knows will not stop migrants because they can apply for asylum as soon as the touch the "Mexico" part of the border wall because it is on U.S. soil but the mere suggestion that we help Mexico build a wall on its southern border is met with bullshyt arguments like "You're advocating bombing Mexico." No I wasn't and shame on you for saying that!

This is a fake crisis just like 9/11 designed to line the pockets of construction contractors, Trump's main line of business before he became president, which purposefully ignores any possible real solution to the "problem." And the fakery is on both sides. Obama routinely separated children their families before Trump even publicly announced his presidency and Obama deported more illegals than Trump! Meanwhile Trump gets a pass on stumping for gun control because....well we've got to not go after Trump because he might loose and the democrats might enact gun control. SMH! This forum has lost its collective mind.

Anti Federalist
07-25-2019, 01:21 PM
This whole "It's an invasion" argument is claptrap at best and hypocrisy at worst. Sorry but I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Invasion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/iahwx-ZA_WpquuHzX5E16ss7o00=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DLLICVGVHUI6RA4EXTCUSL7PJE.jpg

If we can't agree on what this is, then there is no point in talking about it any further.

Let me pose the same question I posed to PAF once:

Would you be opposed to fire department men and equipment crossing your property without your permission to put out a fire at your neighbors house?

A fire that could be reasonably assumed to be a threat to your home and property as well.

Anti Federalist
07-25-2019, 01:36 PM
Meanwhile Trump gets a pass on stumping for gun control because....well we've got to not go after Trump because he might loose and the democrats might enact gun control. SMH! This forum has lost its collective mind.

Not from me he hasn't.

That Pandora's box that he opened is going to prove to be ruinous.

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 01:38 PM
I thought you were against that because you considered it "nation building" or "interventionism? That said, re-purposing U.S. aid to Mexico to help them build a wall along their southern border, which is much shorter, in order to keep the Central American migrants from even getting into North America makes the most sense.
The suggestion was to build a wall just inside Mexico's side of our border.

Anti Federalist
07-25-2019, 01:54 PM
The suggestion was to build a wall just inside Mexico's side of our border.

If that will solve the ED argument, then fine, lets do it.

PAF
07-25-2019, 01:59 PM
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/05/crime_scene_at_the_white_house.jpgmid.jpg


The true criminals who are being constantly and conveniently ignored.