Invasion repelled.

[Vic]

Nope, I researched that little fact when I was having a discussion with someone else. While there are "eminent domain" laws at the municipal, county and state levels, there is no federal eminent domain law.

The feds might try a "quid pro quo" thing where they get a city to seize the land under eminent domain in return for some type of kickback in the future, but it would be pretty easy to spot that kind of thing, and you might most likely prevail in court.



Almost as well as that wall in Berlin.

The federal government absolutely does have power of eminent domain (under the 5th amendment) and various federal agencies use this power all the time.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's sad to see how many so-called "conservatives" openly hate the free market and the free trade of goods and labor. Hypocrites who claim to love small government while constantly demanding that the government step in to protect THEIR interests.
And what are those interests exactly? These migrants aren't stealing anyone's jobs, and the "conservatives" complaining the loudest tend to be mostly retirees living on govt pensions. Really makes you wonder about what the real motivations are.

The market is still free within our ecosystem. And work visas do exist. I can dumb down your potion to a level that doesn't match reality too, like you just did.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What the fuck are you blathering about now? Defensive value? You're expecting 20000 Mongol warriors on horseback to turn up on your southern border?
Because that's what the Great wall was constructed to slow down. Not a few dozen Mongols with a ladder in the middle of the night.

Looks like there are thousands of people at our border looking to invade, right fucking now. Do you keep an eye on the news, do you understand the subject we are talking about? Try and keep up.

 

[Vic]

The market is still free within our ecosystem. And work visas do exist. I can dumb down your potion to a level that doesn't match reality too, like you just did.

"Free within our ecosystem" is the key phrase there. Much like a caged animal is "free" to pace back and forth within its cage. That is the reality.

 

[SlowSpyder]

"Free within our ecosystem" is the key phrase there. Much like a caged animal is "free" to pace back and forth within its cage. That is the reality.

No, free in the largest economy in the world. Free market in America doesn't mean the market is wide open to anyone in the world that wants to simply stroll across the border and join in the market place. After vetting and getting a visa, feel free to join.

 

[Vic]

Looks like there are thousands of people at our border looking to invade, right fucking now. Do you keep an eye on the news, do you understand the subject we are talking about? Try and keep up.

As I brought up earlier, what is the real motivation for referring to people looking for work and a better life as 'invaders?' The economy is booming and unemployment is at historic lows. So do you really believe they're going to take your job? Of course not. Do you really believe they're going to sponge off the welfare system or cause a crime epidemic? No, you really don't. And do you really believe this is the greatest existential threat to America right now, like Trump keeps saying? I'd like to hope you're not that stupid.
So what is the real motivation behind all of your fear? And when this particular target of your fear has passed from your mind, who will be the next target?

 

[Vic]

No, free in the largest economy in the world. Free market in America doesn't mean the market is wide open to anyone in the world that wants to simply stroll across the border and join in the market place. After vetting and getting a visa, feel free to join.

And as usual, you resort to straw man. The only people arguing against the vetting process are the Trumpers. The only people who have actually closed the border are Trump's government, just this last week.
Like almost all liberals, I have no desire for a border that one could simply stroll across, and I would be more than happy to see these asylum seekers go through the established processes, where most would likely be rejected. You're the ones blocking that, because "invaders" and other emotionally charged rhetoric.

 

[realibrad]

As I brought up earlier, what is the real motivation for referring to people looking for work and a better life as 'invaders?' The economy is booming and unemployment is at historic lows. So do you really believe they're going to take your job? Of course not. Do you really believe they're going to sponge off the welfare system or cause a crime epidemic? No, you really don't. And do you really believe this is the greatest existential threat to America right now, like Trump keeps saying? I'd like to hope you're not that stupid.
So what is the real motivation behind all of your fear? And when this particular target of your fear has passed from your mind, who will be the next target?

Well done.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And as usual, you resort to straw man. The only people arguing against the vetting process are the Trumpers. The only people who have actually closed the border are Trump's government, just this last week.
Like almost all liberals, I have no desire for a border that one could simply stroll across, and I would be more than happy to see these asylum seekers go through the established processes, where most would likely be rejected. You're the ones blocking that, because "invaders" and other emotionally charged rhetoric.

No, of course this isn't our greatest threat, but allowing people in without vetting them is indeed a risk. You know each person in the caravan just wants a job, couldn't be any ulterior motives? We have enemies in the world. And I'm sure there would be a good deal of aid required. A welfare state with wide open borders is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, of course this isn't our greatest threat, but allowing people in without vetting them is indeed a risk. You know each person in the caravan just wants a job, couldn't be any ulterior motives? We have enemies in the world. And I'm sure there would be a good deal of aid required. A welfare state with wide open borders is a recipe for disaster.

And now, conspiracy theory, of course.

 

[Viper1j]

The federal government absolutely does have power of eminent domain (under the 5th amendment) and various federal agencies use this power all the time.

I think you mean the 5th protects people from eminent domain at the federal level.

I am still demanding 2 billion dollars for my 2 acres in the path of his precious wall.

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain

Early Evolution of Eminent Domain Cases

The federal government’s power of eminent domain has long been used in the United States to acquire property for public use. Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.” Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 406 (1879). However, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Thus, whenever the United States acquires a property through eminent domain, it has a constitutional responsibility to justly compensate the property owner for the fair market value of the property. See Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 (1897); Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1984).

The U.S. Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain power in 1876 in Kohl v. United States. This case presented a landowner’s challenge to the power of the United States to condemn land in Cincinnati, Ohio for use as a custom house and post office building. Justice William Strong called the authority of the federal government to appropriate property for public uses “essential to its independent existence and perpetuity.” Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371 (1875).

The Supreme Court again acknowledged the existence of condemnation authority twenty years later in United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railroad Company. Congress wanted to acquire land to preserve the site of the Gettysburg Battlefield in Pennsylvania. The railroad company that owned some of the property in question contested this action. Ultimately, the Court opined that the federal government has the power to condemn property “whenever it is necessary or appropriate to use the land in the execution of any of the powers granted to it by the constitution.” United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896).

Condemnation: From Transportation to Parks

Eminent domain has been utilized traditionally to facilitate transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and aid in defense readiness. Early federal cases condemned property for construction of public buildings (e.g., Kohl v. United States) and aqueducts to provide cities with drinking water (e.g., United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Company, 112 U.S. 645 (1884), supplying water to Washington, D.C.), for maintenance of navigable waters (e.g., United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913), acquiring land north of St. Mary’s Falls canal in Michigan), and for the production of war materials (e.g. Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 (1903)). The Land Acquisition Section and its earlier iterations represented the United States in these cases, thereby playing a central role in early United States infrastructure projects.

Condemnation cases like that against the Gettysburg Railroad Company exemplify another use for eminent domain: establishing parks and setting aside open space for future generations, preserving places of historic interest and remarkable natural beauty, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the earliest federal government acquisitions for parkland were made at the end of the nineteenth century and remain among the most beloved and well-used of American parks. In Washington, D.C., Congress authorized the creation of a park along Rock Creek in 1890 for the enjoyment of the capitol city’s residents and visitors. The Department of Justice became involved when a number of landowners from whom property was to be acquired disputed the constitutionality of the condemnation. In Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893), the Supreme Court affirmed the actions of Congress.

Today, Rock Creek National Park, over a century old and more than twice the size of New York City’s Central Park, remains a unique wilderness in the midst of an urban environment. This is merely one small example of the many federal parks, preserves, historic sites, and monuments to which the work of the Land Acquisition Section has contributed.

Land Acquisition in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

The work of federal eminent domain attorneys correlates with the major events and undertakings of the United States throughout the twentieth century. The needs of a growing population for more and updated modes of transportation triggered many additional acquisitions in the early decades of the century, for constructing railroads or maintaining navigable waters. Albert Hanson Lumber Company v. United States, 261 U.S. 581 (1923), for instance, allowed the United States to take and improve a canal in Louisiana.

The 1930s brought a flurry of land acquisition cases in support of New Deal policies that aimed to resettle impoverished farmers, build large-scale irrigation projects, and establish new national parks. Condemnation was used to acquire lands for the Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks. See Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 91 F.2d 884 (6th Cir. 1937)). Thousands of smaller land and natural resources projects were undertaken by Congress and facilitated by the Division’s land acquisition lawyers during the New Deal era. For example, condemnation in United States v. Eighty Acres of Land in Williamson County, 26 F. Supp. 315 (E.D. Ill. 1939), acquired forestland around a stream in Illinois to prevent erosion and silting, while Barnidge v. United States, 101 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1939), allowed property acquisition for and designation of a historic site in St. Louis associated with the Louisiana Purchase and the Oregon Trail.


During World War II, the Assistant Attorney General called the Lands Division “the biggest real estate office of any time or any place.” It oversaw the acquisition of more than 20 million acres of land. Property was transformed into airports and naval stations (e.g., Cameron Development Company v. United States 145 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1944)), war materials manufacturing and storage (e.g., General Motors Corporation v. United States, 140 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1944)), proving grounds, and a number of other national defense installations.


Land Acquisition Section attorneys aided in the establishment of Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida and the enlargement of the Redwood National Forest in California in the 1970s and 1980s. They facilitated infrastructure projects including new federal courthouses throughout the United States and the Washington, D.C. subway system, as well as the expansion of facilities including NASA’s Cape Canaveral launch facility (e.g., Gwathmey v. United States, 215 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1954)).

The numbers of land acquisition cases active today on behalf of the federal government are below the World War II volume, but the projects undertaken remain integral to national interests. In the past decade, Section attorneys have been actively involved in conservation work, assisting in the expansion of Everglades National Park in Florida (e.g., U.S. v. 480.00 Acres of Land, 557 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2009)) and the creation of Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Land Acquisition Section attorneys secured space in New York for federal agencies whose offices were lost with the World Trade Towers. Today, Section projects include acquiring land along hundreds of miles of the United States-Mexico border to stem illegal drug trafficking and smuggling, allow for better inspection and customs facilities, and forestall terrorists.


Properties acquired over the hundred years since the creation of the Environment and Natural Resources Section are found all across the United States and touch the daily lives of Americans by housing government services, facilitating transportation infrastructure and national defense and national security installations, and providing recreational opportunities and environmental management areas.


For information on the history of the Land Acquisition Section, click here. To learn more about the range of projects undertaken by the Land Acquisition Section, click here to view the interactive map titled Where Our Cases Have Taken Us. And for more on the procedural aspects of eminent domain, click here to read about the Anatomy of a Condemnation Case.
***

The term "Far Market Value is fluid and subjective. Markets rise and fall. Which means I get paid big dollars because the demand for my land increased.

1 billion an acre seems "fair" to me.

 

[Viper1j]

They are documented citizens of another country. Their home country must take them back, or block new visas.
The wall is meant to block the undocumented.

After all, it worked so well in Berlin.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And now, conspiracy theory, of course.

Conspiracy?? What are you talking about?

 

[WelshBloke]

Looks like there are thousands of people at our border looking to invade, right fucking now. Do you keep an eye on the news, do you understand the subject we are talking about? Try and keep up.

And the wall will provide defensive value against them in the same way as the great wall of China provided defensive value against the Mongols? Because that's what you were suggesting earlier.

 

[Vic]

No, of course this isn't our greatest threat, but allowing people in without vetting them is indeed a risk. You know each person in the caravan just wants a job, couldn't be any ulterior motives? We have enemies in the world. And I'm sure there would be a good deal of aid required. A welfare state with wide open borders is a recipe for disaster.

NO ONE wants to let anyone in without some form of vetting.

 

[SlowSpyder]

NO ONE wants to let anyone in without some form of vetting.

Then you should understand how having a wide open border in which they can walk across is an issue. And to pretend that doesn't happen today is dishonest.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

So you want women and children to stay where they are and somehow make things better in a place that has the brutality of little to no rule of law and the death, poverty and misery that comes along with it? Please tell me how they are going to make that change they need. More guns? Fill in the blanks here because otherwise what you said is fucking stupid.

I'm going to guess that you're one of those "compassionate conservatives".

My wife is active in local politics, she is a woman. You are just being naive if you think women cannot accomplish any political goals.
The vast majority of the 'caravan' is men anyhow so the woman argument is moot for the most part. I only have compassion for people that obey the same laws I obey and uphold.
Making things better in your own country might seem stupid to you, but that's because the hard work has already been done for you by previous generations.

 

[fskimospy]

Then you should understand how having a wide open border in which they can walk across is an issue. And to pretend that doesn't happen today is dishonest.

The areas where they can 'walk across' are incredibly inhospitable already, which is why tons of people die every year doing it. Somehow you think though if we waste billions of our tax dollars on a wall people who can already overcome those natural barriers will just give up when they see Trump's wall?

That's hilarious. If Trump ever does build his wall we will become a laughingstock around the world as it becomes obvious just how easy it will be to circumvent. I mean everyone is already laughing at us because of Trump anyway, you really want to make it worse?

 

[fskimospy]

My wife is active in local politics, she is a woman. You are just being naive if you think women cannot accomplish any political goals.
The vast majority of the 'caravan' is men anyhow so the woman argument is moot for the most part. I only have compassion for people that obey the same laws I obey and uphold.
Making things better in your own country might seem stupid to you, but that's because the hard work has already been done for you by previous generations.

Your argument is that people should go back and defeat murderous cartels because your wife is active in the local county commissioner's office or whatever?

This must be a joke. You can't possibly be serious.

 

[Vic]

Then you should understand how having a wide open border in which they can walk across is an issue. And to pretend that doesn't happen today is dishonest.

Your straw man died a long time ago. A 'wide open border' was never on the table. The issue is about how the Trumpers want to CLOSE the border to the detriment of our economic trade and values.

 

[Vic]

Your argument is that people should go back and defeat murderous cartels because your wife is active in the local county commissioner's office or whatever?

This must be a joke. You can't possibly be serious.

Well, he did just accuse someone who voted for a woman in the last Presidential election of believing that women can't achieve politically, so I'm going to say that his real malfunction is dishonesty.

 

[Jhhnn]

Conspiracy?? What are you talking about?

Why about the ulterior motives of the migrants, of course. What about the middle easterners Trump said were among them? I mean, you know, the Jihadis...

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Why about the ulterior motives of the migrants, of course. What about the middle easterners Trump said were among them? I mean, you know, the Jihadis...

Don't forget the plague ridden rapist gang members.

 

[Jhhnn]

Humanitarian crisis? What crisis? Fuck those invaders!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/migrant-camp-tijuana.html

 

[blackangst1]

So Im assuming most of you guys think the official stats by DHS is fake news?


Q: Are there criminals in the caravan?

A: Yes – so far, there are over 270 individuals along the caravan route that have criminal histories, including known gang membership.