Wolf: I never said emminent domain was illegitimate, I don’t think that, and I don’t know anyone who thinks that outside of the nutroot fringe. The question is always, as in this thread, whether it is justified or not.
You’ll find that virtually no full-fence proponents are willing to defend the idea that a fence will solve the problem of illegal immigration in any reasonable sense. They assert it as a solution, but when pressed they cheerfully back down and admit that it is only a “first step” with stiff employer sanctions (that may never be passed) and a massive expansion of federal law enforcement of one sort or another (which may never happen). And some merely offer that it will provide ourselves with evidence “that the government is trying to solve the problem”. And if wishes were horses beggars would ride.
The Interstate Highway System came out of long study and Eisenhower himself even had taken part in the U.S. Army’s first transcontinental convoy in 1919. In 1944 the legislation was enacted, in 1955 after joint action of State highway agencies, subject to approval by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, the highway system was mapped out. And Eisenhower (now president) in 1954 proposed a program to fund this highway plan that had been vetted fully by all parties traditionally (and legally) required by the US system of government. And because of this, full state cooperation and participation was obtained all the way through. The states were full participants every step of the way, and hence fully on board for the highway system. Federalism is a beautiful thing. And some people had to give up there land as the last step to completion of a large plan fully approved and legitimized by US citizens through their representatives.
Full border fence advocates have not:
-Sought or obtained any knowledge of border areas
-Studied the problem with any depth or evaluated the efficacy of alternatives
-Not sought state participation at any level
-Not sought to have their fence proposals reviewed nor participation sought that would even hint of the traditional forms of legitimacy
So you see Wolf, if you want Texans to give up their land as they did for the highway system, you’ll need to offer a lot more than merely federal legislation hurried through before an election with no funding (fence act), supported by novel rules tacked onto emergency funding bills that were not debated at all (Real ID Act) that most Americans have never even heard of.
You analogy to the Interstate Highway System fails, because you want to erect a fence that affects:
- The most heavily trafficked border in the world for legal traffic …
- that runs between us and our our 3rd largest (recently 8th) trading partner …
-Hundreds of millions of US citizens that cross per day …
-Fence proponents are not willing to predict any concrete forms of success
-That requires Texans to give up private land as a *starting point* before other measures fence proponents claim are necessary are enacted.
Well not on my watch. Ike you ain’t. Why don’t you get in place all these laws your camp claims is necessary for success to stop illegals that require democratic debate and legislation before you start claiming land? Is that unreasonable? No.
So see you in court my friend. We are a nation of law abiding citizens, and we have ways of doing things that you seem to have forgotten. Just because Ike did something the right way does not legitimize any old federal action. Restrictionists know that they can’t get what they want done through traditional legislative means, so they resort to populism supported by bitter conspiracy theories. Good luck with that.
