Thread: Chertoff readies court fight over Texas border land

Comments are being left after this article.
~~
Dec. 6, 2007, 3:24PM
Chertoff readies court fight over Texas border land


By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is giving Texas landowners opposed to a border fence one last chance to allow access to their land before he takes court action against them, a Texas senator said today.

Sen. John Cornyn said letters from the Department of Homeland Security are expected to go out Friday. But for those who refuse access, the department would likely seek a court order to enter the property, he said.

"He assured me that negotiations would continue and his hope is the vast majority of these cases could be resolved without litigation, maybe in handful of cases litigation would be required," he said.

A Homeland Security Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

President Bush last year approved 700 miles of fencing and barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. Unlike other states, most land in Texas is in private hands.

Some landowners along the border have opposed government plans to build fencing to curb illegal immigration on the Texas-Mexico border.

"All that will do is fire people up more down here," John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association, said of the impending letters.

"Nothing makes a landowner more unhappy than the idea of condemnation of land, the idea of being forced to turn land over to government," McClung said.

Several members of the group could lose access to the Rio Grande, which they rely on for irrigating crops, or to rich farm land that abuts the river.

Opponents have criticized the government for failing to keep them fully informed on fence plans and refusing to listen to residents' proposals for alternatives to the fence. Others say the fence is a waste of taxpayers' money and will hurt border economies.

"It's just a continuation of a battle with our government. We are for security; however the way they are approaching solving security problems, we just disagree with," said McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez. "We just don't see how a non-continuous fence, when you have 6,000 miles of land borders, is going to stop terrorism and illegal immigration. We continue to believe it is a waste of taxpayers' money."

Federal officials say they need access to the land to assess possible sites for the fence. They say the fence is one of several tools being used to curb illegal border crossings, including "virtual fence" and more patrols.

Cornyn said Chertoff told him about 40 landowners have refused to provide access to their land. Of the total, 110 have not responded or can't be located and 258 have given the government the access, a congressional official familiar with the statistics said on condition of anonymity because the Homeland Security Department had not released them.

About 127 miles of land are being considered for the fencing and about 15 miles of that is on property where the government cannot get access, the aide said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5358074.html

It would depend on a lot if it were my land.

If this fence is really, truly, going to be a fence built to do the job and built quickly enough to have an effect - 2 years, 3 years, will probably be too late.

How much land are they taking?

Will they back up the fence with border patrol agents that have the go ahead to actually do their job?

Will they back the fence with interior enforcement"

The one thing that got me to thinking - when that fence is put up - we loose the Rio Grande River - it belongs to Mexico, in all actuality.

Are we asking those landowners to give up their land for something the government intends NOT to work?

They should NOT take the land, they should pay RENT on that land.

If they take the land for the fence, then they can take the land for the NAFTA highway.

Watch and see, when they go to court - there will be a national ruling. This ruling will enable the government to take the land at will - so the fence is just the leadin for the highway..

Purchase the land, build the damn fence, and be done with it already!

Border land owners and communities shouldn't dictate national security issues for the entire country. The border communities and landowners have their own agenda which doesn't include doing what's best for the country. For goodness sakes, we're not talking about taking someones land to build a Safeway grocery store. We're talking about our national security!

No, purchasing the land along the border for the building of a fence doesn't mean anyone will take land for the NAFTA SuperHighway. Such an undertaking doesn't have the support of the majority. However, the border fence does. Actually, the fence and the highway are unrelated. One serves to stop people from entering and the other is an open access for them to enter - HUGE DIFFERENCE!

The 854-mile double-layered fence is part of the complete package which includes more border patrol and ICE agents, more holding areas for illegals, more immigration courts, enhanced interior enforcement, employer verification checks, extremely tough penalties for employers that hire illegals, more deportations, etc., etc. IMO, we need need to utilize every piece of the puzzle to fight this problem. Is it unrealistic to expect so much? Maybe, but the fence is a critical part of the equation and it needs built. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the entire border fenced off.

The Mexican government and border communities are screaming their bloody heads off about the fence for a reason, and I suspect that is because they fear it will work.

This is the one time in my lifetime that I would support imminent domain. That border concerns the entire country, not just a few people that happen to live on it. It really is millions to one.

Dixie

People you have to think about this.

These people have been living with this nightmare for 30 years. They have had illegals walking across their land, doing damage, frightening people, breaking into the homes and they have been begging for something to be done for all that time. It hasn't been for the 2 - 5 - even 10 years that some of us have been aware of.

They have been threatened if they protect their land.

Their schools have been going broke for longer than many on here have been adults.

The federal government has virtually ignored the problem.

Now what's the government going to do - they are going to take their land and their river, and give it to Mexico. I read somewhere they are coming 2 miles inland. Why?

Why is the government so hep on spending billions and billions on building a fence, taking people's land, and they won't spend a few million enforcing laws against employers, cutting them off welfare - all things that will pay for themselves in the end. Why haven't they tried the laws we have on the books that will make them go home on their own.

Has the government announced - even suggested - that the illegals should go home? No!!

The government has yet, in 30 years, to do anything substantive about the illegal problem - and somehow we are going to believe they are doing what's best on the fence.

Think about it - really, really, think about it.

The fence sounds tough - but in this case do you really want to give Mexico a river - and perhaps 2 miles inland all along our border?

Dixie wrote:

This is the one time in my lifetime that I would support imminent domain. That border concerns the entire country, not just a few people that happen to live on it. It really is millions to one.

Well said, Dixie! I agree with your position on imminent domain. It's not something I typically support either, however, as you eluded to - this is a national security issue. The strengthening of our national security is not an issue that should be left to the biased communities living along the border.

It is strange somehow the government has realized - after only 30 years - that's it's a national security issue.

Anytime the government sticks a carrot out there for us - it is usually something that isn't in our best interest.

Do we want to give Mexico that river and perhaps 2 miles of US territory?

Always, always be leary of anything our government decides to do - it isn't usually the right thing and it certainly isn't for our benefit.

WE don't know if it is the right thing - but let's don't fall for the first thing they offer - ask yourself why this. Why this when they haven't done anything on the interior - when they haven't even attempted to fix the problem any other way.

How can we, after all we have seen, trust this government so implicitly - on anything?

Okay, nntrixie, you don't have to keep repeating yourself to make a point. We are 100% convinced that you do not support a fence along our southern border. Fortunately, you are in the minority on this issue. Americans want our borders secured, and most of us realize that's not going to happen without a quality physical fence being part of the equation.

You can poo-hoo the 854-mile fence all you want, however, it is the law and nothing less than an act of Congress can change that. We're insisting that our government enforce the immigration laws, aren't we? So what is wong with also demanding that they build the lawful fence? After all, it is what the majority of the American population wants, and it's the law!

Anytime the government sticks a carrot out there for us - it is usually something that isn't in our best interest.

What carrot? They've been constantly fighting against the building of the double-layered fence. Geez, doesn't their lack of progress prove there is no carrot being offered? If Chertoff had his way, he wouldn't build the fence, and we all know that.

It is strange somehow the government has realized - after only 30 years - that's it's a national security issue.

What's your point? Unfortunately a lot of this nations problems are only fixed after the American people demand it.

Do we want to give Mexico that river and perhaps 2 miles of US territory?

We're not giving Mexico anything. For example, if you decide to fence in your backyard, but not the front, does that mean you're giving away your front yard?

Always, always be leary of anything our government decides to do - it isn't usually the right thing and it certainly isn't for our benefit.

You're not even making logical sense. Besides that, regarding the fence, it was written into law because the American people demanded that our borders be secured! If you know how to build a better mouse trap - I'm all ears. Rest assured, a virtual fence is not the answer, nor is doing nothing.

I am simply suggested we give this some thought.

Why is everyone falling for this crumb the government is throwing us?


I am not against the fence - totally. I am against thinking it will solve all our problems - it won't. I'm against swallowing anything the government hands us without looking at it from all perspectives.l

The fence is supposed to be 854 miles - at 1 mile a day - how long will that take? But first of course, we have to design the fence - and make it aesthetically pleasing, and it has to be a deterrent, so far they haven't resolved those issues.

Then they have to comdemn people's land - land they have refused to protect for 30 years - yet they don't mind taking it and giving it to Mexico.

Then, they must see which of their coporate croonies gave the most donations , so they know who gets the contract - that will cost us billions - and we may then see the beginnings of a fence.

In the meantime, nothing is being done on the interior - outside of a few, very, very publicized raids and we don't know how many of those have been deported.

Haven't we learned anything from the double dealing this government has been doing for all these years - don't take them at face value.



You can poo-hoo the 854-mile fence all you want, however, it is the law and nothing less than an act of Congress can change that. We're insisting that our government enforce the immigration laws, aren't we? So what is wong with also demanding that they build the lawful fence? After all, it is what the majority of the American population wants, and it's the law!


It's the law that the illegals can't be here, can't work, can't get freebies, can't drive - yet our government is doing less than nothing about that.
So why can they build a fence - but not simply enforce the laws?

Could it be because they don't intend for it to do any good?

If we don't learn to doubt the government - we are lost.