Why Don't the Liberals Want a Wall?

musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1]was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.


Kelo didn't bother leftists, but this will. Selective outrage is false outrage.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Guess who said it...

“There are leaders in the caravan that are directing it, trying to burst into our country, but we will not allow any entry that is not orderly, safe and controlled by [national] laws."

G'wan, guess.
 
K

Kit the Coyote

New member
JudgeRightly said:
If we reduce the level of taxation imposed on the people by the government (through the elimination of socialist programs such as welfare and foreign aid and by eliminating all taxes except for a tax on personal increase), the government would be able to fund the building of a wall on both borders (though, probably not necessary on the northern border), AND still be able to improve/maintain infrastructure throughout the country.

Less taxation means citizens have more money to spend.

More money to spend boosts the economy naturally, and allows it and businesses to grow.

Growing businesses can produce products more efficiently, lowering costs, while still maintaining good pay for its employees... which means they have more money to spend at the end of the pay period.

Which means their standard of living goes way up, and the cycle continues.

More taxes do the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Which is not the point there are literally dozens of 'perfect' tax schemes out there that their proponents think will fund everything under the sun and pay off the debt. Take your pick but none of that solves Trump's problem which is how to win this current standoff. With the majority of public opinion blaming him and the Republicans for the shutdown, the Democrats are actually benefiting the longer it goes on. Eventually, his Republican allies in the Congress will turn on him to save the brand.

So the master of the art of the deal actually needs to deal and that means he has to offer something to the other side to get what he wants. What can he offer that the Democrats would jump to take given they have the stronger hand? I can think of a few things. DACA, a Public Healthcare Option, the carbon tax I mentioned, etc.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Kit the Coyote said:
Which is not the point there are literally dozens of 'perfect' tax schemes out there that their proponents think will fund everything under the sun and pay off the debt.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the one I propose will actually work.

Take your pick but none of that solves Trump's problem which is how to win this current standoff. With the majority of public opinion blaming him and the Republicans for the shutdown, the Democrats are actually benefiting the longer it goes on. Eventually, his Republican allies in the Congress will turn on him to save the brand.

So the master of the art of the deal actually needs to deal and that means he has to offer something to the other side to get what he wants. What can he offer that the Democrats would jump to take given they have the stronger hand? I can think of a few things. DACA, a Public Healthcare Option, the carbon tax I mentioned, etc.
Click to expand...

:think:

"United we stand, divided we fall"

If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. - Mark 3:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark3:24&version=NKJV

We've got loads of division in our country. I think it's time we got rid of the multi-party system and went with a constitutional monarchy, where the king is chosen by casting lots.

Then the king could do what he needs to do with money from the treasury, such as building up the borders and improving infrastructure.
 
K

Kit the Coyote

New member
JudgeRightly said:
The difference is that the one I propose will actually work.



:think:

"United we stand, divided we fall"

If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. - Mark 3:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark3:24&version=NKJV

We've got loads of division in our country. I think it's time we got rid of the multi-party system and went with a constitutional monarchy, where the king is chosen by casting lots.

Then the king could do what he needs to do with money from the treasury, such as building up the borders and improving infrastructure.
Click to expand...

That is nice but a Constitutional crisis and the resulting civil war still doesn't solve Trump's immediate problem.
 
K

Kit the Coyote

New member
WizardofOz said:
Are you slow?

Eminent domain. No Trump didn't invent it.

Imagine having the government take your land from you because...they can. 66% of land along the border is privately owned. This would have to be one of the bigger government land grabs in US history if the wall is to be actualized.

Here
Click to expand...

There is also the problem of water rights which in Texas is a VERY big deal. Building that wall would be essentially ceding the Rio Grande to Mexico.
 
K

Kit the Coyote

New member
Another issue in this is the current 'crisis' on the border that Trump is talking about will NOT be solved by a border wall. These caravans coming from South America are not trying to enter the country undetected. They are coming here to apply for asylum. The only reason they are crossing the border illegally is due to the massive backlog, part of it caused by the administration, at the legal border crossing for processing asylum seekers. They know that if they cross the border and are arrested they get to bypass that. They want to be caught.

The only way to change that is passing immigration reform to update the asylum laws and the Republicans have been fighting doing that for years.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
Kit the Coyote said:
There is also the problem of water rights which in Texas is a VERY big deal. Building that wall would be essentially ceding the Rio Grande to Mexico.
Click to expand...

It's almost like this grand wall idea wasn't thought through very thoroughly...


Border landowners also know the wall is not a given. The House Homeland Security Committee passed a bill in October that would set aside $10 billion for the wall, but getting the Senate to agree to pay poses a problem for the administration.

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the leading Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a report in November stating that the administration could not say how many U.S. citizens will have their land seized, even though it is seeking $1.8 million to fund 20 new positions, including 12 more land acquisition attorneys to file eminent domain lawsuits.

East of the Roosevelt Reservation, building a wall poses a logistical challenge because ownership becomes murky. Although the federal government is the nation’s single largest property owner along the southwest border, most of the land belongs to state governments or private owners.

In its efforts to seize land to build a fence, the federal government has struggled to identify owners, particularly in Starr County in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where spotty records date back 250 years in some cases.

Historically, some who challenged the government’s action to take their land have found the effort worthwhile. During the last big push to build fencing under President George W. Bush, the government purchased 125 acres for $1.5 million – an average of $12,000 an acre – according to statistics provided in May by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That building boom mostly came to a halt in 2011 with President Barack Obama’s declaration that the border fence was essentially complete.

For nearly a decade, one property owner has fought eminent domain proceedings targeting more than 1,200 acres he owns in Starr County – the largest single portion of land sought by the federal government. But David Guerra, who practices law in McAllen, didn’t want to talk about it.

“I’m in negotiations with the government and not in a position to discuss this right now,” he said in October.

Fencing already parallels some sections of the international border here, but where and why does not make sense to ranchers such as Kelly Kimbro, who both owns and leases land that abuts about 150 acres of the Roosevelt easement, where there is fencing.

Kimbro, who lives in Cochise County, Arizona, said roads built to facilitate fence construction have attracted drug trafficking, as they have given smugglers better access to the border. She said there’s no need for more fence, let alone a wall.

“The government has to quit throwing border security around and disrespecting American citizens,” said Kimbro, who for 30 years has been the face of firearms manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. as its so-called Ruger Girl. “I don’t care what you build. People are going to come through. Vehicles come more now than they used to when we had barbed-wire fence.”

Buffett and Moody. Walmart and Anheuser-Busch. Names of some of the wealthiest American families and companies pop up along the border, where they have invested in vast swaths of land for conservation and their own retreats.

But you won’t find most of them in property records. Instead, their ownership of the southern border hides behind other names, such as Iroquois and Geronimo.

To unveil the true owners, Reveal researched property ownership, including cross-referencing property records with documents filed with state offices.

Howard G. Buffett, the oldest son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, controls Iroquois LLC’s roughly 360 acres of southeastern Arizona land that touches the border through his namesake foundation. Howard Buffett has used the arid land to study agricultural practices that could be used to address famine in Africa.

“You don’t buy land here,” he told Arizona Public Media in 2016. “You buy water.”

A virtual wall or natural barrier are among the alternatives suggested by some of those along the border. Building a physical barrier, they say, will only cede American land south of the wall to Mexico.

“All a wall does is devalue property,” said Tom Bowles Jr., who retired from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2007 after more than three decades in law enforcement. “Every rancher along the border knows the wall doesn’t work.”

Bowles is glad the government has not fenced his land in Quemado, Texas. But with 76 acres of riverfront that has been a drug-trafficking thoroughfare for more than three decades, he said it’s about time officials did something. He has invited the Border Patrol to erect a tower with remote-controlled surveillance cameras on his ranchland.

“Put the g**damn camera on my property,” Bowles said. “Let’s cut the bs and stop hiring Border Patrol agents. Pretty soon, they’ll be able to hold hands (all the way) along the border.”

For some ranchers, the preferred term for protecting the land is conservation. For other property owners, it’s about saving not only the family land, but the environment, too.

Arizona residents Valer Clark and ex-husband Josiah Austin have worked to restore and preserve natural grassland and ranches along the southwest border. Those restoration efforts have greater potential to stem the flow of drugs or people than Trump’s proposed wall, Clark said.

“People crossing on foot have a bloody hard time coming upriver now,” she said. “Those dry washes used to be the highway for coming across.”




Interesting article. The government would be in for a long legal battle if they think they're going to just put a wall anywhere they feel like.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
WizardofOz said:
It's almost like this grand wall idea wasn't thought through very thoroughly...


Border landowners also know the wall is not a given. The House Homeland Security Committee passed a bill in October that would set aside $10 billion for the wall, but getting the Senate to agree to pay poses a problem for the administration.

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the leading Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a report in November stating that the administration could not say how many U.S. citizens will have their land seized, even though it is seeking $1.8 million to fund 20 new positions, including 12 more land acquisition attorneys to file eminent domain lawsuits.

East of the Roosevelt Reservation, building a wall poses a logistical challenge because ownership becomes murky. Although the federal government is the nation’s single largest property owner along the southwest border, most of the land belongs to state governments or private owners.

In its efforts to seize land to build a fence, the federal government has struggled to identify owners, particularly in Starr County in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where spotty records date back 250 years in some cases.

Historically, some who challenged the government’s action to take their land have found the effort worthwhile. During the last big push to build fencing under President George W. Bush, the government purchased 125 acres for $1.5 million – an average of $12,000 an acre – according to statistics provided in May by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That building boom mostly came to a halt in 2011 with President Barack Obama’s declaration that the border fence was essentially complete.

For nearly a decade, one property owner has fought eminent domain proceedings targeting more than 1,200 acres he owns in Starr County – the largest single portion of land sought by the federal government. But David Guerra, who practices law in McAllen, didn’t want to talk about it.

“I’m in negotiations with the government and not in a position to discuss this right now,” he said in October.

Fencing already parallels some sections of the international border here, but where and why does not make sense to ranchers such as Kelly Kimbro, who both owns and leases land that abuts about 150 acres of the Roosevelt easement, where there is fencing.

Kimbro, who lives in Cochise County, Arizona, said roads built to facilitate fence construction have attracted drug trafficking, as they have given smugglers better access to the border. She said there’s no need for more fence, let alone a wall.

“The government has to quit throwing border security around and disrespecting American citizens,” said Kimbro, who for 30 years has been the face of firearms manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. as its so-called Ruger Girl. “I don’t care what you build. People are going to come through. Vehicles come more now than they used to when we had barbed-wire fence.”

Buffett and Moody. Walmart and Anheuser-Busch. Names of some of the wealthiest American families and companies pop up along the border, where they have invested in vast swaths of land for conservation and their own retreats.

But you won’t find most of them in property records. Instead, their ownership of the southern border hides behind other names, such as Iroquois and Geronimo.

To unveil the true owners, Reveal researched property ownership, including cross-referencing property records with documents filed with state offices.

Howard G. Buffett, the oldest son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, controls Iroquois LLC’s roughly 360 acres of southeastern Arizona land that touches the border through his namesake foundation. Howard Buffett has used the arid land to study agricultural practices that could be used to address famine in Africa.

“You don’t buy land here,” he told Arizona Public Media in 2016. “You buy water.”

A virtual wall or natural barrier are among the alternatives suggested by some of those along the border. Building a physical barrier, they say, will only cede American land south of the wall to Mexico.

“All a wall does is devalue property,” said Tom Bowles Jr., who retired from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2007 after more than three decades in law enforcement. “Every rancher along the border knows the wall doesn’t work.”

Bowles is glad the government has not fenced his land in Quemado, Texas. But with 76 acres of riverfront that has been a drug-trafficking thoroughfare for more than three decades, he said it’s about time officials did something. He has invited the Border Patrol to erect a tower with remote-controlled surveillance cameras on his ranchland.

“Put the g**damn camera on my property,” Bowles said. “Let’s cut the bs and stop hiring Border Patrol agents. Pretty soon, they’ll be able to hold hands (all the way) along the border.”

For some ranchers, the preferred term for protecting the land is conservation. For other property owners, it’s about saving not only the family land, but the environment, too.

Arizona residents Valer Clark and ex-husband Josiah Austin have worked to restore and preserve natural grassland and ranches along the southwest border. Those restoration efforts have greater potential to stem the flow of drugs or people than Trump’s proposed wall, Clark said.

“People crossing on foot have a bloody hard time coming upriver now,” she said. “Those dry washes used to be the highway for coming across.”




Interesting article. The government would be in for a long legal battle if they think they're going to just put a wall anywhere they feel like.
Click to expand...
It's almost like the government is too inefficient to accomplish what it's responsible for...

:think:

Oh wait... it is.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
musterion said:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1]was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Kelo didn't bother leftists, but this will. Selective outrage is false outrage.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5–4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing was built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[14] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.



I guess it didn't go so well for New London...did it?

And this case has nothing to do with a border wall as that would be government owned and maintained. Nothing is being transferred from one private owner to another private owner.

Explain how you think Kelo is relevant to the wall...what do "leftists" have to do with any of this to begin with? You're quite the partisan hack, aren't you? You seem to think that republican ideas are good one by default just as democrat ideas are bad by default. You're wholly incapable of critical and unbiased independent analysis.

Go make some more orange man bad posts, ya :troll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top