Posted on 03/15/2017 7:21:55 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
Even before Donald Trump was inaugurated, U.S. citizens who own land along the border reportedly began receiving letters from the Justice Department informing them that the federal government wants their land to build a fence (i.e. the presidents border wall), that it intends to acquire their land, and the amount of compensation the government is offering.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I’m a realist that has visited the area and made an engineering judgement
I forgot.....
If you want to stop Mexicans from illegal entry crossing the river......shoot them
After a hundred are so are dead the illegal crossings will dissipate and stop
Obama already did that. He was deposed, but he’s trying to rally the palace guards to his cause.
“Ive saw a show on TV where a landowner took his ATV out and went looking for livestock or something and stumbled into a drug deal and got killed.
Lots of Texans are worried about this crap..”
_____________________________________________________
OMG. That practically amounts to war. When people can’t even access their own property out of fear ...
I think President Trump is quite serious about stopping this garbage, though.
agree
One good sized Rez in Arizona, a smaller one in California on the Colorado river.
Simple enough. Give the tribe a choice. Give the land for the wall, or the wall will be built on the US side of the Rez, and they can show their passports to get into the rest of the US. A longer wall will cost a bit more in construction costs, but that should shorten the timeline significantly.
This thread is in response to the Government buying the land right now. They are also well into the contracting process for the build - initial proposals from vendors are in, and prices are due by the 24th of March. As I posted earlier, the law already authorizes it (Secure Fence Act), the surveys are complete, and the Mexican members of the Treaty Commission have already agreed to it.
It appears that the basic barrier will be thirty feet high, made of precast concrete panels, like the Israeli Peace Barrier.
I don’t think it has anything to do with navigability. It is strictly to guarantee access to the water for irrigation and livestock, I think. Why a permeable barrier is not allowed is a mystery to me.
I think anchors screwed into the bottom of a river — those corkscrew things — 20 or 30 feet deep would be enough to hold a military link fence in place, with buoys at the surface supporting a ten foot height above the water surface. It might slow people down enough for the response team to get there before they can disappear.
I just looked at the first one. The one thing that jumps out at me is the existing barrier going straight across land rather than trying to follow the tortuous route of the meandering river. Would make the barrier three times (or more) as long in some places.
A goodly portion of that border is underwater, namely the Rio Grande.
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.