Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I admit that I am not well versed in this particular matter. But something seems very, very wrong when a sovereign nation cannot delineate its borders by a physical barrier because landowners adjacent to that border don't want it done. It seems like there should be a "right of way" along the border, similar to the empty stretch of land alongside most highways, that is actually owned by the government and can be used to further the purposes of that which it adjoins.
Other democratic nations have built walls on their borders (e.g. Israel, Hungary, etc.) How did they manage to do it?
Again, some portion of the border falls in the middle-ish of the Rio Grande River.
Some of it runs through Indian land.
Some private ownership may predate whatever is now considered "the border."
I know that there is a town in southern New Mexico where people went to bed one night in Mexico and woke up the next day in the U.S.
Yes, this was many years ago, but it speaks to how fluid borders can be and how connected are the U.S. and Mexico in some areas.
There is similar closeness in many sections of the northern border as well.
For whatever many reasons, when the borders were established, the powers-that-be didn't consider that a "right-of-way" or "no-man's land" or however we might want to characterize it as necessary.
Commerce flowed back and forth to the benefit of all on all sides - (far)north and south.
To be honest, the fact that you edited my post to ignore three legitimate points makes it hard to want to have a discussion but I will try.
Not sure why you're upset by my editing your post. I wanted to address the issue of land ownership immediately adjacent to the border; your first point pertained to that topic while your other three did not. That's why I didn't quote the rest of your post. Nothing more sinister than that.
It's not Trump's wall how many times does that have to be repeated? The wall is the one approved by congress back in 2006 but didn't get build as promised. Did they not consider what they'd do about private property? Yet Trump gets demonized for it? IMO, those who don't want a wall on their property can just deal with the illegal trespassers, drug runners and criminals who will just funned right through their properties then. They'll be crying for a wall in no time.
Enough!
It's amusing how you bend yourself into a pretzel over this.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 has already erected nearly 700 miles of border fencing. Many miles of that fence are close by my home.
I didn't make any claims about why it was revised.
I simply suggested that the OP do his/her own research.
Might want to take that log out of your eye.
Then why did you mention a couple of scenarios that in your mind make it impossible to have a wall and then you went on to say this "The issues that caused the Secure Fence Act of 2006 to be revisited and re-legislated in 2007 still apply".
So just what in your opinion was the reason that the Secure Fence Act was revised that supposedly applies to today then? The Border Patrol no longer can complain about a barrier they can't see through as Trump has agreed to build one that is. That was the reason that the Secure Act wasn't implemented as promised initially.
Again, some portion of the border falls in the middle-ish of the Rio Grande River.
Some of it runs through Indian land.
Some private ownership may predate whatever is now considered "the border."
I know that there is a town in southern New Mexico where people went to bed one night in Mexico and woke up the next day in the U.S.
Yes, this was many years ago, but it speaks to how fluid borders can be and how connected are the U.S. and Mexico in some areas.
There is similar closeness in many sections of the northern border as well.
For whatever many reasons, when the borders were established, the powers-that-be didn't consider that a "right-of-way" or "no-man's land" or however we might want to characterize it as necessary.
Commerce flowed back and forth to the benefit of all on all sides - (far)north and south.
And so, here we are.
You don't think that congress thought about and considered the logistics and feasibility of the wall back in 2006? Now all of a sudden it's a problem under Trump?
"I've seen a lot of Presidents take a victory lap before," tweeted Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich. "But this is the first time I've seen a President go to the Rose Garden and take a defeat lap." https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...hing/23652930/
There are no Cons other than leftists won't have millions of illegals to give Amnesty to so they can get more votes. That's the ONLY reason they don't want a wall.
They are also pandering to the ethnocentric type of Hispanic citizen who wants amnesty for their illegal aliens and no wall to stop more of their amigos from getting in.
It's not Trump's wall how many times does that have to be repeated? The wall is the one approved by congress back in 2006 but didn't get build as promised. Did they not consider what they'd do about private property? Yet Trump gets demonized for it? IMO, those who don't want a wall on their property can just deal with the illegal trespassers, drug runners and criminals who will just funned right through their properties then. They'll be crying for a wall in no time.
No, actually Congress did NOT which is one of the reasons the Fence Act of 2006 was amended in 2007. Any wall construction today would be pursuant to the amended act, not the original. The amended act:
1. Requires the federal government to consult local officials, Indian tribes, and property owners
2. Removed the requirement for double-layer fencing
3. Added a requirement for 700 miles of "reinforced fencing"
4. Eliminated the original five specified areas of wall construction. https://www.weeklystandard.com/chris...y-on-fence-law
Because the amended Act provided more flexibility it actually opens the door for Trump to fashion his own version of a Wall. Where is the plan?
As of January 16, 2019, even the CPB does not seem to know. Or at least could not say. At a press conference:
"They refused to answer how much more of the US’s 2,000-mile border with Mexico should be walled, referring the question to the White House. “We don’t speak for the president,” said one, when pressed on whether CBP agrees with Trump’s reasons for the $5.7 billion demand for border security. The White House has “been out in front in terms of how they define the crisis,” said another." https://qz.com/1525881/customs-and-b...-boring-truth/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
You don't think that congress thought about and considered the logistics and feasibility of the wall back in 2006? Now all of a sudden it's a problem under Trump?
The Rio Grande River and the associated land use patterns remain and, yes, they will continue to be a problem "under Trump" and will need to be accounted for - that is, if he had a plan which he does not. Whatever is in his head has not been shared with Democrats, which is an issue for there is only three weeks before the next threatened shutdown or whatever comes next.
"I've seen a lot of Presidents take a victory lap before," tweeted Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich. "But this is the first time I've seen a President go to the Rose Garden and take a defeat lap." https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...hing/23652930/
A wall he won't get, unless Mexico buys it for him.
Hopeless! It is obvious Old Glory got his talking points and marching orders from a far-right fanatical talking head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
