Border Lands The Wall's Impact on Property Rights

[jmdrake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/showth...uilding-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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

The true criminals who are being constantly and conveniently ignored.