Posted on 02/23/2018 6:14:19 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
Run for public office! Exactly right.Use the Constitution.
Guy must be a pro Mexican illegal or a freaky Libertarian.
“Could be the rancher is into some shady business he doesn’t want monitored.”
No way! That would never happen in America.(sarcasm off now!)
his ranch is 35 miles from the border. Obviously a lot here didn’t read the article. The one thing that threw me off and that I didn’t know was that BP can access any property within 25 miles of the border without any ones consent. As a matter of fact the article stipulates is the law.
There is no way to tell where exactly the BP had the technology- they say the ranch is near a town 40 miles from the border but that is how people describe where I live- as being near a town that is actually 50 miles away from us and the border. The only reason they say that is because it is the closest town of any size, just to give people an idea where I live without a long winded explanation.
To me that does not mean the technology used by BP was that far from the border, though if it actually was then I don’t agree with BP doing that.
I know during the O administration they didn’t want BP to go after illegal activity until it was miles north of the border...they were not patrolling the actual border and created a no mans land (that became smuggler controlled in many areas) along much of the border. This might be a result of that policy. I would have no issue with cameras and other things on the border, as they have been for years- but would not like it placed in random areas away from the border on my property.
“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?”
Out here in Californicator land, the illegals provide all types of unreported income to many so called conservatives.
One way is converting your garage into a bunkhouse for 4-8 amigos and charging them $500 or more rent.
Picking up amigos at Home Depot and bringing them to contractors or big yard maintenance people to work and getting a commission per worker delivered.
Setting up a flaky non profit to provide illegals with health care, day care for children or fill in the ___________.
Or as you noted getting paid for drugs or illegals crossing your property.
Install claymores to prevent tampering with cameras ;-)
His ranch boundary is 35 miles from the border? Are you sure of that? Just because the town mentioned is that far from the border does not mean his ranch is. Along the border it is nothing to travel 50 miles to town, I have to travel that far- in fact that is common and some near me travel 100 miles to get to a town of any size.
Giving the location of a ranch is a tricky thing, it is common to name the nearest town of any size but that may not be close at all. I have lived on remote ranches all my life and never lived anywhere near the closest town to me.
If his property is not actually on the border they should not have all that technology on his property without his permission. The biggest gripe where I live is the BP does not actually patrol the border. We need to build a wall on the border, and get Border Patrol back on the actual border to patrol and secure the actual border.
the article states his ranch is 35 miles from the border
I’m with you.
The Fed’s should communicate with property owners before placing cameras on their property.
But ultimately, the Fed’s can and should acquire an easement for their border control needs.
Encinal, TX is 35 miles north of the border.
Because they are being payed either by NGOs or drug cartels or both.
Isn’t there a law against stealing federal property?
The US Border Patrol has statutory authority to enter privet property up to 100 miles for the purpose of paroling the border.
If they were “surveilling” the property owner, he should win. If they were protecting the border, he should just go away. The problem is that for eight of the past nine years you couldn’t trust them to be watching the right things. That lack of trust will take a long period of good behavior by government agencies to overcome.
The article *does* say he's a lawyer...
Within that zone the border patrol has a right walk on the property. They do not have to be allowed vehicles or horses, but this guy can’t stop them from walking. And make no mistake there’s more than a few border property owners who get paid by cartels to look the other way. So they do things like this guy and occasionally sue.
Was the camera actually on his land or off his land but aimed along the border? If it was off the property then those are incidental images as long as the focal point can be established that it was aimed at the border. If not then I would support is claim of invasion of privacy.
It or was on his land than that would add trespassing as well as an unlawful taking.
Hear, hear...
I couldn’t open the article, but I sympathize with him. The border is the border and that is what needs to be secured. If BP concentrates on areas North of the border then that means portions of our country are essentially left unprotected from illegal activity.
I have friends that feel like they have been given to Mexico because of that. In this area they are now concentrating on the actual border but have not for years in the past.
i live in East Texas. I’d imagine if you were anywhere 50 miles north of the border you wouldn’t here any english or see any many angloes. Check any voting map all south texas is dark blue. Over 50% of our students are hispanic. It’s only a matter of time before we like california flip blue forever.
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.