Posted on 12/16/2019 5:15:01 PM PST by re_tail20
Nearly three years into the Trump administration, almost no border wall has been built in Texas. Local property owners ranging from ranchers to a Catholic diocese and institutions have resisted federal efforts to claim their land.
The resistance in South Texas, where most land is privately owned, illustrates the challenges in building a border wall, even if funding is available.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been sending letters and holding meetings for two months asking about 120 landowners with riverfront property around Laredo, to survey their land, the first step in building a wall on it. Some around the South Texas city, where many can see the Rio Grande and Mexico from their porches, said yes right away. But others are resisting, setting up a potential conflict with the government that could drag on for years.
About 200 miles southeast, in the Rio Grande Valley, refusals have led the government to sue 46 landowners for the right to survey their property in preparation for acquiring part of it, including farmers, ranchers, businesses, and several facilities owned by a Catholic diocese.
Some cite ideological reasons for resisting a wall on their land. Others say it will split their properties in two and interfere with their businesses or way of life. Ease of accessing property on the other side of a wall would depend on where the government builds access gates.
Building a permanent barrier along the nearly 2,000 miles of the southern border was a signature promise of President Donald Trumps 2016 campaign. He and his supporters believe a wall would help to reduce illegal immigration.
In the three years since, the government has built 80 miles of border wall, according to CBP, most of which has replaced existing fencing in California. In the Rio Grande Valley, the government has...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Three years into Trump administration, virtually no new wall has been built as farmers, ranchers and a Catholic diocese resist federal efforts to claim their land
Build the Damn Wall Around their Property and they can become Mexico.

Border Security for Dummies
Spencer spells it out
Glenn Spencer -- American Border Patrol -- April 20
A couple of days ago I laid out a simple plan for securing the border. It turns out it was too simple because some didn't understand it. One even said that the Sonic Barrier couldn't be installed on Indian Reservation land. This is not true. In fact, the federal government has already constructed vehicle barriers on the border adjacent to Indian Reservations (see map).
Moreover the Roosevelt Easement allows the federal government access to 60 of the border with Mexico. This is from a GAO report: "The land where this fencing was built has been publicly owned since 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt reserved a 60-foot strip along the international boundary with Mexico for the United States to maintain the area free from obstructions as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico. In effect, the Roosevelt easement provided the federal government with a 60-foot border right-of-way on which it could build the fence."
The federal government has the power to construct a fence along the border to protect the United States. In fact, in 2008 DHS Secretary Chertoff issued a waiver "to bypass environmental reviews to speed construction of fencing along the Mexican border." (NY Times)
To avoid any further misunderstanding about my border security proposals, I have fleshed them out a little more. See "How Border Security Can Work." Please read it carefully.
So?
Move the border north of these bozos and essentially make them part of Mexico.
Or invade Mexico and grab a 10 mile strip south of the River.
Kinda easy, choose who gets the river.
Evict them. The first 100 feet or yards was supposed to be public.
That is the problem, too much talk and no action. I think at times there is more political gain from talk than action. Seize the land or build the wall such that they are on the Mexican side with no gates nearby. Arrest the owners if they welcome Mexicans on their lands,
The border issues with Mexico issues are not for wussies.
Past time to chose.
The magic words here are “ riverfront property”-simply translated, waterfront property-any waterfront property- just about anywhere means a big dollar value-those owners are afraid the government won’t give them the overinflated price they will want for it...
What about a wall of wind turbines. Would they go for that?
As I understand it the process is going forward. The folks who are balking at this can hash it out in the years to come. In the meantime, eminent domain will proceed, as always.
More than a few landowners along the border are well paid by the cartels to simply “not look out the front window”, and to deny the Border Patrol access. The Border Patrol has the right to enter whenever they please, but the landowner can insist that it only be on foot. No 4x4s, no horses, no Jeeps, no pickups. Some of those ranches are huge and impossible to patrol on foot alone.
A border wall is a military fortification. Seize the land.
From what I’ve seen, Wind Turbines don’t get low enough to chop land crossers.
Bats and Birds? Quite efficient...
In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt in a Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) established the reservation in order to keep all public lands along the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico “free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico”.[2][3][4] Texas was excluded because Texas retained all public lands upon the Texas annexation and admittance as a state, much of which has been sold over the years to private parties.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Reservation
Today (16 Dec 2019), she posts:
100 yards south of the river works for me.
Starting price for waterfront property is 1500.00 per FOOT...... Just as a point of reference
“In the meantime, eminent domain will proceed, as always.”
I’ve been here long enough to remember when many, MANY Freepers were having KITTENS over (Citizen) Donald Trump using Eminent Domain to move people out of their homes/neighborhoods to build a Casino. I think it was in New Jersey? There was one elderly woman that was holding out, and did for quite a number of years?
Enlighten me. Not being a smart @zz, I just seem to remember that according to Conservatives that Eminent Domain was a bad, BAD thing?
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.