Trump threatens to use "military version of eminent domain" to seize private property


#1

#2

From your article:

In all seriousness, federal law does allow for military department secretaries to “acquire any interest in land” if “the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense.” But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch.

Is it really a stretch?

100 ISIS Terrorists Caught in Guatemala as Central American Caravan Heads to U.S.

Guatemala has long been known as a major smuggling corridor for foreigners from African and Asian countries making their way into the U.S. Last year Guatemala’s largest paper, Prensa Libra, published an in-depth piece on the inner workings of an international human smuggling network that moves migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh to the U.S. Individuals are sent to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates then flown to Brazil before heading to Colombia.

I believe that the President will use the NationalEmergency/Military option only as a last resort. The left will surely go bat$#!+ crazy if he does. Nancy has finally her speakership secure. Trust me, her compassion for the poor, downtroden, brown skinned, Central Americans is at the bottom of her list right after her love and admiration for Ocasio-Cortez. It’s gonna be Lets-Make-a-Deal time soon.


#3

I’m beginning to think that the NationalEmergency/Military would be best. If done conventionally it could be delayed for years in court with eminent domain disputes.


#4

There were news reports able how some people on the border were going to refuse to give up their land for the wall. Clearly if you disagree with the wall, that is a way delay or defeat it. It amazes me that people would want illegal aliens tramping though their property, especially if it is near your home. But I guess politics trumps personal safety, at least in theory until it becomes your personal reality.


#5

I doubt those “news reporters” have even TALKED to people who live along the border. There are a few large ranchers who own property on BOTH sides of the Mexican border and would resent having their lands divided by the wall. To my way of thinking, that’s just too damned bad. OUR safety and security trumps their wants.


#6

It’s not impossible that some of that land was bought for the very purpose of refusing to allow a wall.


#7

Because there are towns that rely on the foot traffic. Take that away, the town dries up. Boiling that down to “politics” isn’t accurate, what they’re worried about is livelihoods.

There are also Native American tribes whose land straddles the border. To them, the illegals are just some of their relatives who happen to live on the other side.

Their land BTW, could not be taken by the military.


#8

Then wall them ****ers off on the other side and let Mexico have 'em. They can get the same answer you gave me when I pointed out that illegals are destroying the blue collar middle class: “Let them eat cake”.

I won’t give the slightest crap if the first armored grinds them into goey red paste under their tracks. Matter of fact, I’ll stand up and cheer. They are criminals facilitating criminal behavior for the benefit of well connected criminals and their pet politicians at the expense of people like me. I have no mercy for them left in me now.


#9

There’s an argument that I used to always make to leftists, but never had to make with conservatives because they used to be smart enough to understand this.

The argument is that it’s stupid to think you can get what you want by expanding state power, unless all you want to do is expand state power. The reason being: whatever power you give yourself when you’re in control of government is just going to be in the hands of the opposition when power comes back around to them. Leftists have a really hard time comprehending this. So, if you police “hate speech” thinking it’s going to only apply to people you dislike, guess what: Trump and his goons can police whatever they want to call “hate speech” also. You can never expand freedom or justice with these methods. You only expand state power, which will eventually be used against you. As I’ve had to explain to many leftists lately: “why would you trust the same government that just gave the most powerful political position in the world to Donald Trump?”

Anyway, conservatives used to understand this. Apparently, they’ve forgotten their lessons. But they’ll remember those lessons pretty damn quick when President Ocasio-Cortez is declaring “national emergencies” to force through socialized health care.


#10

You forget that Obama declared a national emergency because of the “Bird Flu” which was HARDLY a “national emergency,” and Bush 43 declared one because of 9/11 and even Carter declared one when the Iranians took all those hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. It’s not like the use of a national emergency has never been invoked before by BOTH parties. At least THIS is an ACTUAL national emergency when thousands of Central Americans are trying (and in some cases, succeeding) to flood across the border into the U.S. illegally. That’s an INVASION.


#11

That would mean giving our land to Mexico. These are Indian reservations.

Quit twisting my words.

We have an underclass in labor because labor is overregulated, and makes doing business legally too costly. No one can deny this. We fix the problem by deregulating, and allowing these people an access point to work here legally.

I don’t care if at that point jobs dry up in particular industry, because if someone from the 3rd world, with a 3rd world education, can compete with you in what you’re doing, then you need to be doing something of higher value.

Something your far better American education prepares you for. Something we spent tax money on.

And yeah, I do direct this at myself, as someone whose competed, and lost jobs to immigrants. So I’m also going to direct it at you.

More value in our work, not “protection” from competition.


#12

If you don’t see the difference between declaring a national emergency over a bi-partisan issue, and seizing emergency powers to force through a controversial policy over the opposition of half the country, then I don’t know what to say.

Actually, I do not what to say. Enjoy your President Ocasio-Cortez shitshow.


#13

Nonsense, of course. There’s not a single thing “controversial” about wanting to seal our border against a foreign invasion by uneducated, poor, often disease-ridden people who just WANT to come here and suck at this government’s overly-generous teat. The only “controversy” about it is that the left is desperate to bring in new voters to replace their fading fortunes among Americans…especially black Americans.


#14

Which is irrelevant, since since the national emergency declaration is about using an existing power.

Can she even spell “president?”…


#15

Setting new standards for abuse of existing power is expansion of power.

Conservatives understood this when it was Obama engaging in ever increasing forms of executive abuse. Now that it’s your guy, of course you’ve forgotten.


#16

Really? When has that ever happened? Is it happening right now? Corporations are getting deregulated some, perhaps, but not individuals. So when my labor gets deregulated, when my tax burden becomes some kind of reasonable, when I am eligible for as much assistance as an illegal and can get 9 stitches in the ER without getting a bankrupting bill (padded with ~$4000 dollars in fraudulent charges) like an illegal, then maybe we can talk about immigration reform.


#17

IDK, has Trump done something?

Seems the left is whining about something he did on that.

Illegals aren’t eligible for much assistance, so you’re already there.

To what end? That would mean you would have to accept a life where you have constantly poor credit history, and are probably running from bill collectors.

You could do that, but why would you want to? The Cons seem to outweigh the Pros here.

Now, I’m all for putting a wall around welfare, and as George W. Bush showed, you can do that, and have it be effective. We just needed more of it.

But you can’t use welfare as an excuse to manipulate labor supply.

The labor market was here first, its trends are very old, and immutable. The Demand doesn’t go away because the law changed, and if you put the two at odds, the Demand will organize skills and capital to defeat our border defenses.

And it will defeat them, as our defenses are largely static, while a market is malleable, and free to evolve and exploit things at will.

We’ll never throw enough public money to defeat the private economy driving it. And I don’t get why we would even want to try. It’s chasing after symptoms, not causes. It’s taking the least effective, most costly path, while you hand the state more power and assets.

None of which allies itself with principles of limited government.


#18

Hogwash. The power is the power, not the use thereof.

By the way, are you suggesting that the Dems sportingly refrain from abusing power (constitutional or not) until the Repubs do? If so, hogwash again. They’ll use anything and everything (and have done so) whenever they thought they could get away with it (and due to crookedness in Federal law enforcement and legal system, they often have).


#19

BS, AS! 65% of illegal households are receiving SOME sort of welfare assistance…and that doesn’t even touch on their “free” use of highways, schools, hospitals, universities, etc.


#20

Both sides have traditionally refrained from abuse of power, with obvious exceptions. Over the last few decades, as politics has become more partisan and destructive, there has been an escalation of willingness to abuse powers. These are just political facts. Trump represents the latest and most abusive government yet.