Posted on 11/09/2007 3:31:11 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner
GRANJENO, Texas (AP) - Founded 240 years ago, this sleepy Texas town along the Rio Grande has outlasted the Spanish, then the Mexicans and then the short-lived independent Republic of Texas. But it may not survive the U.S. government's effort to secure the Mexican border with a steel fence.
A map obtained by The Associated Press shows that the double- or triple-layer fence may be built as much as two miles from the river on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, leaving parts of Granjeno and other nearby communities in a potential no-man's-land between the barrier and the water's edge.
Based on the map and what the residents have been told, the fence could run straight through houses and backyards. Some fear it could also cut farmers off from prime farmland close to the water.
(snip)
"We want to be safe, but it's just that this is not a good plan," said Cecilia Benavides, whose riverfront land in Roma, about 50 miles upriver from Granjeno, was granted to the family by the Spanish in "It gives Mexico the river and everything that's behind that wall. It doesn't make any sense to me."
(snip)
"Are we going to lose prime farmland because they are going to build a structure that's not going to work?" Salinas asked. "You're moving the border, basically two miles. You're giving it up to Mexico, and the U.S.-Mexico treaties say you are not supposed to do that."
Homeland Security documents on a department Web site say that "in some cases, secure gates will be constructed to allow land owners access to their private property near the Rio Grande." But the documents offer few details.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, from escaping a communist prison.
A better analogy would be Israel's West Bank wall. We really need a wall, not a fence.
It's really too bad that we even need the fence. If Mexico's economy was operating at its potential and there was less political corruption, and if we enforced our immigration and employment laws, maybe we wouldn't need a fence. Lot's of "ifs". Under the circumstances, however, we need it.
Looks like a reversal of history? Either way about who wants a wall, fence, moat or “barrier” its either we build it and be dammed or ratify a reason to NOT build it like invading Mexico, making illegals “combatants” etc. to make an ultimatum that this is OUR border and those that wish to live in OUR borders MUST adhere to our laws and policies, sadly I think the latter will never work.
Yep, compensate and or move them
Getting desperate with their excuses.
Build the fence!
The Rio Grande doesn't appear to be the most cooperative of international borders.
I'm sure the flood plain and places where the river formerly flowed are fertile farmland, and it can be challenging for residents who use the river as a water supply for drinking or irrigation.
However, there really isn't an easy or simple solution, and the fence needs to be built.
The fence should be built on the Border. Not two miles inside the Border.
Heck, I have had the Mexican/US border as a boundary fence for a ranch. Every night, pull all the batteries from every vehicle. Otherwise, either the rig or the battery will be gone in the morning.
Sure it can. We build bridge pylons in the middle of rivers and bays.
Who is designing this fence and deciding on it's location? Is this a case of "malicious compliance" on the part of disgruntled HSD bureaucrats? Seems to me that a little creative thinking and ingenuity could solve this problem. It doesn't need to be a physical fence or wall with a wide buffer zone, it just needs to keep illegals out.
The fence through this area will mostly be built atop of existing levees, which is the logical place to put it. The river meanders wildly through this area and to put the fence directly on the river would increase the fence's length at least three fold. Also if the fence were built along the river you have to figure in the additional cost that building it across every creek, arroyo and gully would add.
Better than illegals cutting through backyards.
Compensate the landowners and keep building.
A mine field would be nice.
A free fire zone?
Border security fence vs. eminent domain...an irresistible force hitting an immovable object?
I am on the side of the homeowner. They were there first. I feel the same way about the idiots who complain about the noise coming from an air base because they moved in AFTER the base was there for eighty years. I say too bad. Government find a way to go around the area.
Too bad. Keep building.
They were there first!!! Stop being rude. These people probably saved their entire lives. The government should have built the fence years and years ago before people were living there. Governments problem to fix not the homeowners.
Anything short of a physical fence will allow subjective policies and political leanings to rule the day. This process has been toyed with for far too long. Concrete measures are called for, both literally and figuratively.
You might find this article interesting then.
See my post #37
Yep, compensate and or move them
I think whoever is effected should get 1 million dollars. They are being inconvienced so they should be paid. Plus the fussing will stop. lol.
Rivers change their course. I can visualize a part of the fence ending up in Mexico. Or being dependent on access to Mexico to do repairs and maintenance. Wouldn't that be a mess.
I understand why it seems distasteful but to me building the fence just slightly north of the border makes sense.
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.