Border Lands The Wall's Impact on Property Rights

[PAF]

Border Lands: The Wall's Impact on Property Rights

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.





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]

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]

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.

 

[dannno]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Protection of Private Property is the BEDROCK of Conservative Philosophy.

 

[phill4paul]

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]

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]

The solution is easy.

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

 

[Swordsmyth]

The solution is easy.

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

That's not a bad idea.

 

[jmdrake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/showth...-The-Homestead-Migrant-Youth-Detention-Center

 

[specsaregood]

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/showth...-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]

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.