Posted on 02/23/2018 6:14:19 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
A long-running feud between a South Texas rancher and the Border Patrol has escalated into a civil lawsuit after the rancher confiscated a surveillance camera he found on his property.
The suit filed by Ricardo D. Palacios, a lawyer who lives on a ranch near Encinal, north of Laredo, against federal agents and a Texas Ranger raises questions about how much leeway law enforcement officials have to enter private property near the border. ---SNIP-- The camera Palacios found on his property appears to be part of Operation Drawbridge, a multimillion-dollar effort by DPS that began in 2012 to build a “virtual wall” along the border.
(Excerpt) Read more at expressnews.com ...
I’m almost always a very strong advocate of private property rights, but if Señor Ricardo Palacios is unwilling to work with Border Patrol on policing the Mexican border, then take it via eminent domain, compensate him fair market value and call it a day. This man cannot hold a nation hostage over his flippin’ ranch.
There are many drug shipments and human smuggling operations moving across ranches at the border. A 30’ wall to keep illegals off his land should be supported by this ranch owner. Instead, we see stories about the ranchers whining about President Trump wanting to build the wall. Why?
A lot of them are Texicans, they’re used to hiring border jumpers, and they fear that access to water will be cut off. I’m sure some think it’ll spoil their view too, ala Massachusetts offshore wind farms and the Kennedys.
If it keeps illegals, drug runners, human trafficking off my property, I’m all for it. However, I’d want to be informed before they install it.
Could be the rancher is into some shady business he doesn’t want monitored.
I don’t have time to read ... is this a pro-amnesty lawyer, or a pissed off American being infringed upon by an intrusive government ?
Requires subscription to read, so useless.
Choices:
1) The Feds can take the land by eminent domain and pay the guy something they think is fair.
2) The Feds can build a wall on his land and tell him to shove it.
3) The Feds can install surveillance equipment on his land as a “virtual wall”.
He doesn’t like choice #3?
Because the Hildabeest was up 10,000 points in the polls and was supposed to win!
This story does not make sense to me. BP has been using sensors, cameras, other technology on the border for many years and it has not been a secret. I am wondering why this is an issue now with this rancher? More to this story.
I also believe in private property rights, but I also recognize that it’s more of a concept than a reality. Very few people own property without public easements, and I don’t see how you could own land at a national border and not expect them to want some degree of access. I’m not suggesting it’s a bad fight. He probably should. But if the cameras are point at the border and not anywhere he should reasonably expect some personal privacy, then I have to wonder if his motives are pure. Didn’t click the article though. Someone could mention if these facts were covered
4. Give the 1st Special Operations Group a quarter mile free fire zone along the border. The first time someone hears the roar of a Spectre’s mini’s they’ll get the idea.
The man is a lawyer...... terminal shadiness
I was able to read without a subscription. I used both Chrome and Opera browsers. Maybe it gives you one or two free articles.
I use chrome. Not able to read.
Encinal is about 40 miles north of the border.
It’s almost 40 miles from the border.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.