Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: The feds are moving ahead with private land seizures to make room for Trump's border wall

  1. #1

    The feds are moving ahead with private land seizures to make room for Trump's border wall

    http://www.businessinsider.com/gover...n-where-2018-6

    The federal government is moving to seize private land in a section of southern Texas to make room for President Donald Trump's border wall.

    The land seizures would take place in the Rio Grande Valley, the Texas Tribune reported on Thursday. About $1.6 billion in funding for about 65 miles of fencing was already appropriated in a spending bill Trump signed in March, but it only allows for fencing similar to what's already there at the border.

    Rep. Henry Cuellar, the Democrat who represents Texas' 28th Congressional District, attended a briefing where federal authorities announced the land seizures. "They said they got the money, they got the authority, and they're going to move on trying to acquire the land," Cuellar told the Texas Tribune.

    During congressional testimony in April, US Customs and Border Patrol commissioner Kevin McAleenan cited some of the challenges surrounding land seizures in the region. He said those challenges sometimes have little to do with settling with landowners on price.

    "Some of the deeds go back to Spanish land grants and are very complex to really figure out who owns the land," McAleenan said.

    "So that's a multi-stage process; we try to do it in a collaborative and open, consultative manner. We're able to reach an appropriate price with most landowners, and then we do have to go through courts just to clear title in some other cases," McAleenan said.

    News that some of the land-seizures in the Rio Grande Valley would be moving forward suggests the bureaucratic work is progressing more quickly than anticipated. A Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment on the land acquisitions.

    The federal government has taken aggressive measures to acquire private land in the past, using a Great Depression-era law originally designed to fast-track public works projects — which were meant to quickly generate new jobs, ProPublica and the Texas Tribune reported in December.

    Since taking office, Trump has prodded congressional lawmakers for border-wall funding.

    Proposals for that money have frequently been attached to other initiatives, like compromises on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and, more recently, the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy.

    Historically, some Republicans have opposed funding for the wall. It is also unpopular among a majority of Americans according to a Gallup poll out this week.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Good news! Thanks Zippy.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Good news! Thanks Zippy.
    Libertarians favoring seizure of private property by the government?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Libertarians favoring seizure of private property by the government?
    What if this is a declared matter of national security during war? Hint: We are at war with a bunch of countries.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    What if this is a declared matter of national security during war? Hint: We are at war with a bunch of countries.
    Like Texas?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Like Texas?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    It is privately held land in Texas they are seizing.

  9. #8



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is privately held land in Texas they are seizing.
    Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I thought the land was still being owned by Native Americans.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Libertarians favoring seizure of private property by the government?
    I do not like the idea of land seizure , but I would also add I never meet a Libertarian with a spanish land grant .
    Do something Danke

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I thought the land was still being owned by Native Americans.
    What is the relevance with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you were trying to make?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What is the relevance with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you were trying to make?
    POTUS can do whatever he wants.

  15. #13
    https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06...s-border-wall/

    Cuellar, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee, said land will be seized to build a section of wall that's already been promised funding; on Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill that includes $1.6 billion for about 65 miles of fencing in the Valley.

    “In the next week or so we’re going to find out how much more they’ll be asking for the fencing to be built,” Cuellar added.

    McAllen Mayor Jim Darling, who also attended the briefing, said he has heard that about 167 notices have been sent out to Hidalgo County landowners, 300 of whom are expected to be impacted by wall construction.

    “They didn’t discuss the funding too much because the Border Patrol guys wouldn’t be involved in that,” Darling said. “They discussed plans not for the total wall but the [sections] they had prioritized for funding.”

    Asked about the agency’s plans, CBP spokesperson Daniel Hetlage said via email that, “We don’t comment on leaked information to neither confirm nor deny.”

    Cuellar emphasized that the land seizures “could take years,” noting that scores of eminent domain lawsuits still are pending from the last time the federal government seized land a decade ago under the George W. Bush administration to build the first sections of border fencing in the Valley.

    However, an investigation last year by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found that the federal government invoked a little-known Great Depression-era law that allowed it to swiftly seize land to build the barrier and compensate landowners later. Dozens of landowners whose property was taken for the barrier still haven't received compensation as lawsuits over the fair value of the seized land linger in court.

    The investigation also found that during the process the U.S. Department of Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens.
    Darling, the McAllen mayor, said the federal government should be held to the same standard it holds cities and counties to when they use federal funds to buy land.

    “Under federal law when we take property, we always have to pay relocation, damages for the remainder,” he said. “It’s really weird: When we use federal money, it can delay projects for about a year for environmental impact (studies) and the federal government says, ‘Oh, we don’t have to do that.”

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    POTUS can do whatever he wants.
    Putin can. The POTUS does not have unlimited powers. Even if he thinks he does.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-21-2018 at 09:48 PM.

  17. #15
    Land seizure is the only real reason I have ever opposed it . I guess if they built it on the actual border or just south of it only then they would not need to seize American land .
    Do something Danke

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Putin can. The POTUS does not have unlimited powers. Even if he thinks he does.
    What's the source of this information?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I do not like the idea of land seizure , but I would also add I never meet a Libertarian with a spanish land grant .
    This is the reason I prefer a military presence on the border instead of a wall, the land wouldn't have to be seized for the military to patrol it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12...roperty-fence/

    The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence


    A decade ago, many border Texans got a raw deal when the federal government seized land for a barrier — while others pushed up the price. Will the government's rushed, haphazard process be repeated as it pushes for a border wall?

    BROWNSVILLE — The land agents started working the border between Texas and Mexico in the spring of 2007. Sometimes they were representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other times they were officers from the U.S. Border Patrol, uniformed in green, guns tucked into side holsters. They visited tumbledown mobile homes and suburban houses with golf course views. They surveyed farms fecund with sugar cane, cotton and sorghum growing by the mud-brown Rio Grande. They delivered their blunt news to ranchers and farmers, sheet metal workers and university professors, auto mechanics and wealthy developers.

    The federal government was going to build a fence to keep out drug smugglers and immigrants crossing into the United States illegally, they told property owners. The structure was going to cut straight across their land. The government would make a fair offer to buy property, the agents explained. That was the law. But if the owners didn’t want to sell, the next step was federal court. U.S. attorneys would file a lawsuit to seize it. One way or the other, the government would get the land. That, too, was the law.

    The visits launched the most aggressive seizure of private land by the federal government in decades. In less than a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed more than 360 eminent domain lawsuits against property owners, involving thousands of acres of land in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

    Most of the seized land ran along the Rio Grande, which forms the border between Texas and Mexico. All told, the agency paid $18.2 million to accumulate a ribbon of land occupying almost half the length of the 120 miles of the Rio Grande Valley in southernmost Texas.

    Years before President Donald Trump promised to build his wall, Homeland Security erected an 18-foot-high fence here in a botched land grab that serves as a warning for the future.

    An investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune shows that Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners, and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens.

    The major findings:

    Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values.

    Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.

    The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government’s mistakes.

    The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process.

    On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners.

    Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value.

    The errors and disparities played out family by family, block by block, county by county, up and down the length of the border fence.

    The Loop family spent more than $100,000 to defend their farmland from repeated government mistakes about the size, shape and value of their property. The government built a fence across Robert De Los Santos’ family land but almost a decade later has yet to reach a settlement for it. Ranch hand Roberto Pedraza was accidentally paid $20,500 for land he did not even own.

    Retired teacher Juan Cavazos was offered $21,500 for a two-acre slice of his land. He settled for that, figuring he couldn’t afford to hire a lawyer.

    Rollins M. Koppel, a local attorney and banker, did not make the same mistake. A high-priced Texas law firm negotiated his offer from $233,000 to almost $5 million — the highest settlement in the Rio Grande Valley.

    “We got screwed,” said Cavazos, 74.

    In 1215, the Magna Carta limited royal power — including curtailing the sovereign’s ability to take property from his nobles. “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions,” it read. A man’s castle was his home, and not even a king could take it without due process. The language survives unaltered in modern British law.

    More than five centuries later, America’s earliest lawmakers enshrined private property rights in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment required that the government provide “just compensation” if it took property through eminent domain — the English rendering of a Latin phrase meaning “supreme lordship.” If the government was going to appropriate property, it had to pay for it, fairly and fully.

    Over the decades, eminent domain transformed the American landscape. The U.S. Interstate Highway System and some national parks, NASA’s Cape Canaveral and the U.S. Supreme Court building itself — none would have been possible without federal land condemnation. During World War II, the Justice Department boasted of being the largest real estate broker in the nation. The federal government acquired more than 20 million acres of land to build bases and other military sites — an area the size of South Carolina.

    At the same time, the potential for abuse inspired deep-seated fear. An early Supreme Court justice described eminent domain as a “despotic power.” Property owners — from gigantic timber companies to people evicted from their homes — have fought bitterly to stop the government from taking their land, or to ensure a fair market price.
    Long article at link.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    This is the reason I prefer a military presence on the border instead of a wall, the land wouldn't have to be seized for the military to patrol it.
    Yeah, let's just ditch that useless 3rd amendment since we're at it.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Yeah, let's just ditch that useless 3rd amendment since we're at it.
    Article [III] (Amendment 3 - Quartering Soldiers)

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    They don't have to be quartered on the land let alone in the owners' houses.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Article [III] (Amendment 3 - Quartering Soldiers)

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    They don't have to be quartered on the land let alone in the owners' houses.
    Oh, so then a landowner in your scenario would be able to tell the "military presence" to pound salt and stay off his land? Seems like that may defeat the purpose of your little solution.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Oh, so then a landowner in your scenario would be able to tell the "military presence" to pound salt and stay off his land? Seems like that may defeat the purpose of your little solution.
    Quartering and patrolling are two different things.

    The quartering of soldiers in the homes of enemies of the regime was used by tyrants to bully those who opposed them and was a case of taking housing without compensation, the 3rdA was never intended to keep the military from patrolling the border to repel invaders, A4S4 specifically charges the federal government with protecting the states from invasion, how are they supposed to do so if they can't patrol the border?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quartering and patrolling are two different things.
    Call it what you want... I'd have more than a little problem if the federal government was on my property without my consent whether they called it "quartering" or "patrolling". You still have the same problem with your premise and it is decisively anti-liberty.

    But forget all that... The most basic question one has to ask is who you fear more? Are you more concerned about a foreign invasion or transgressions by your own government? That's an easy one for me. I've never been directly harmed by an immigrant, but your government violates the liberty of its citizens regularly all in the name of "security".
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Call it what you want... I'd have more than a little problem if the federal government was on my property without my consent whether they called it "quartering" or "patrolling". You still have the same problem with your premise and it is decisively anti-liberty.

    But forget all that... The most basic question one has to ask is who you fear more? Are you more concerned about a foreign invasion or transgressions by your own government? That's an easy one for me. I've never been directly harmed by an immigrant, but your government violates the liberty of its citizens regularly all in the name of "security".
    The illegals are used to aid the government in violating your rights, they vote and their anchor baby children grow up and vote and they vote for big government.
    Border security is one of the few legitimate functions of government and the border is different than other areas in the country, if citizens are going to be able to own border property they have to accept that the government has a right to patrol it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The illegals are used to aid the government in violating your rights, they vote and their anchor baby children grow up and vote and they vote for big government.
    Border security is one of the few legitimate functions of government and the border is different than other areas in the country, if citizens are going to be able to own border property they have to accept that the government has a right to patrol it.
    Illegals can't vote. They are a distraction from what the government itself is doing. Plus Hispanics are the least likely racial group to turn out and vote. http://www.electproject.org/home/vot...t/demographics

    Ron Paul:

    "I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    "Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."

    Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.

    What the country does need, he said, is "a much better immigration service" fed by more resources. Not that he'd "vote for extra money." But he does, he told the crowd, have a plan.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Oh, so then a landowner in your scenario would be able to tell the "military presence" to pound salt and stay off his land? Seems like that may defeat the purpose of your little solution.

    You're just not getting it, man. This is the NEW liberty. Much better than the stale old liberty we're used to. Much much better. The best. And it will be enforced by the best authoritarian measures. The very best. Get with the program, brother.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The illegals are used to aid the government in violating your rights, they vote and their anchor baby children grow up and vote and they vote for big government.
    Border security is one of the few legitimate functions of government and the border is different than other areas in the country, if citizens are going to be able to own border property they have to accept that the government has a right to patrol it.
    Don’t be such a dip$#@!. If you’re really worried about keeping out people who vote for bigger government, you’d be better served by getting rid of 90% of the existing population. No need to isolate your concerns to one demographic.

    And it is precisely that bigger government that you fear that you’re asking for when you want them to have full unfettered access to private property! Hell, perhaps we should investigate your immigration status since you’re voting for bigger government. Obviously, you wouldn’t be doing this if you were a “real” American!
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Don’t be such a dip$#@!. If you’re really worried about keeping out people who vote for bigger government, you’d be better served by getting rid of 90% of the existing population. No need to isolate your concerns to one demographic.

    And it is precisely that bigger government that you fear that you’re asking for when you want them to have full unfettered access to private property! Hell, perhaps we should investigate your immigration status since you’re voting for bigger government. Obviously, you wouldn’t be doing this if you were a “real” American!
    No no no you got it all wrong. You see, in order to best spread the message of liberty we must use racially divisive rhetoric and then resort to name calling when it is pointed out. Please continue to ignore the fact that the white majority always votes for the R President that ends up adding more to the debt than their Demoncrat predecessors
    Last edited by Influenza; 06-22-2018 at 01:05 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Illegals can't vote.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Are you more concerned about a foreign invasion or transgressions by your own government? That's an easy one for me. I've never been directly harmed by an immigrant, but your government violates the liberty of its citizens regularly all in the name of "security".
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Don’t be such a dip$#@!. If you’re really worried about keeping out people who vote for bigger government, you’d be better served by getting rid of 90% of the existing population. No need to isolate your concerns to one demographic.


    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-15-2017, 03:02 PM
  2. Trump Moving to Take Bids on Building the ‘Wall’
    By PatriotOne in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-29-2017, 10:05 AM
  3. Trump says that Feds own all the land and people are only allowed to use it
    By devil21 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2016, 12:08 PM
  4. Jesse Ventura: Trump’s Border Wall Plan Would Make U.S. “Look Like a Prison”
    By BarryDonegan in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-20-2015, 02:23 PM
  5. Feds find border drones don’t actually make border more secure
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-07-2015, 08:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •