But you misunderstand again that I “want to allow free passage through [my] land”. First, I have family, friends, citizens in the community I know, and former employers who own property on both sides of the South Texas border, so it isn’t about “my land”. Second, none of the people and organizations that I know allow free transit on their land. They vigourously oppose it. One, a public university, even has a private security force to police it, though in the many hours, days, and nights I have walked the campus have I ever seen illegals cross. Probably because it would be stupid to cross there. But the mental image people have of the Texas border is misinformed. Some places in California and Arizona I think have all kinds of trouble and they can put up a fence if it helps there. But don’t tell me all Texans need a fence everywhere like CA and AZ have somewhere. That’s mindless, and infringes up constitutional rights without sufficient justification. I’ve lived in CA too, and I’ve learned to never underestimate the ignorance and animosity of Californians towards Texas.

So I need a fence with federal agents patrolling it when there was no problem on my land before, and the feds have no need to show there is/was a problem with illegality on my land to oppose their solution?

BTW, nice article here Wolf. We think alike. Your view on the illegal immigration problem seems identical to mine.

http://fishtacostand.blogspot.com/2007/10/americans-love-mexicans.html

Our immigration laws are broken, and they need reform. You’re right, legal immigration is related to illegal immigration. But now you’re at odds with most of the people in this thread, too bad for you. The country is going to Hell, don’t you know?

My only disagreement with you, unless you’ve changed your view as stated in the link above, is that the people wanting to claim private land don’t seem to be informed at all on border issues, immigration issues, life on the border, business on the border, trade through the border, how the Texas border differs from CA and AZ, or trade in general or borders in general. Surely one must know *something* before one’s opinion deserves to be acted upon when it entails trumping the constitutional rights of another. Is that unreasonable?

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.

Assuming that you’re telling the truth about owning border property, if you want to allow free passage through your land then find some way to have a border gate on your property and a road through it and then maybe you can build a gas station and a restaurant and rake the money in, so long as you allow the customs and border control agents at the gate to protect the rest of the US behind your property. That way you can have easy access to the Rio Grande side of your fence. How about it?

And that was just 2007.

Obtaining a waiver is not breaking the rules. Your statement is absurd, unless you intend to claim that the illegals have gotten waivers?

Wow, I missed this from days ago (Apr 8th) on this thread. This is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard. Mexico is our 3rd largest trading partner. US/Mexican trade is about 300 billion dollars now and climbing at about 15% a year. It mostly crosses in trucks right over those points of entry you speak of.

300 billion a year. You “very little legal activity” claim is absurd.

Red Pill = “Mark’s a crybaby for claiming stealing private property is wrong. Oh and (whispers) … he loves sheap laber and hires illegals, why else would he be oppose a fence? I mean, everyone knows principles are overrated.”

Why do you think the Supreme Court’s stance on imminent domain caused such an uproar a few years ago and spawned many states to form legislation to counteract it? I’ll tell you why, though it is embarrassingly obvious. Because if the government takes land, it will take more land and no one’s land is safe. Wow, what a concept!

If people thought like y’all did they’d say “Well governments sometimes need to take private property to accomplish goals I agree with, but I’m sure they wouldn’t claim private property when I don’t agree with the goal, and they certainly would never take mine.”

Is that a reasonable way to think? Nope.