Last Friday, landowners along the southern border (mainly Texas and Arizona) were told that if they did not comply with the federal government to build a fence meant to help prohibit and prevent illegal immigration, the government would take control of their land. Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, is allocating thirty days for these landowners to decide if they will permit US officials on their land to see if it is proper for fencing. If landowners decide not to let US officials on to their land, Chertoff warns that he will “turn to the courts to gain temporary access”. Also, if the department deems that the land is suitable for fencing and landowners do not oblige, the department will look to the courts to get permission. The government’s goal is to construct 370 miles of border fencing by the end of next year, but Chertoff says, “dealing with uncooperative landowners” is an obstacle. Many landowners oppose border fencing because they claim that the fence will thwart their access to the Rio Grande, their main supply of fresh water. Also, businesses claim that the border fencing will delay cross border traffic that is essential for local economies. However, some believe that the border fencing is not only to prohibit illegal immigration, but also to mend differences in the Republican Party on the immigration issue. Bush once supported an immigration bill that would provide some legal status to illegal immigrants in the US. Many Republicans were angry at Bush’s “amnesty” and argued that “enforcement should be the government’s sole response”. On one side of the issue, it is unfair to force these private landowners to build a fence on their property that would restrict their access to the Rio Grande and hurt local economies, but on the other hand, the fence prevents the major national issue of illegal immigration.
How would you feel if you were forced to comply with the government’s demand of building a fence on your property while restricting your rights, but it was to help prohibit these illegal immigrants that our taxes are helping to support and who are taking away jobs from your fellow American citizens? Should the government be allowed to force landowners to comply to help the national issue of illegal immigration, while infringing on the landowner’s rights?
15 comments:
I think its ridiculous that the federal government would force people to put up a fence on their land. This seems like a clear violation of the landowners' rights. Also, what's to say a fence is even going to help. I think it is going to be a waste of money and it will probably be detrimental to the economies in these border towns.
Isn't building this fence similar to how the government can take private land to build a highway? I think it's called eminent domain, and yea, its pretty ridiculous, but technically, the government does have the power to take some of the landowners' lands if it's for 'public use'. So maybe it isn't exactly a violation of the landowners' rights.
As for the fence itself, I guess if it was made well enough, it could deter some illegal immigrants. But like Erika said, it could turn out to be useless and just waste taxpayers' dollars.
Maybe the government isn't taking the right approach to this. Maybe the government should offer compensation, instead of being so ridiculous and violating.
A fence...? People get here from Cuba when it's surrounded by lots of water. I don't know how much good a fence would do.
This topic really is a matter of point of view. If you are against illegal immigration you obviously going to be for the fencing. If you are for the immigration then the fencing your probably going to have a problem with. Although the government looks as though they may be taking rights away from the landowners the fact is the idea of fencing is the best way to stop the nations problem with immigration. If your part of the country your going to want whats best for the country. The government uses it's power the way they see fit to control issues. I could see the government going a better way with this but we really should comply with the officials we voted into office.
I completely agree with Farrah's logic. People get here with 90 miles of water in their way; how does climbing a fence even compare?
Building a fence is a waste of taxpayer's dollars. There has to be a better approach to this. Building a fence seems so naive and last-resort when it comes to keeping immigrants out of this country.
I think the fence is more for mexico then cuba which genevieve was refering to. i think that it is a bad last resort but it will help. just look at the berlin wall didnt that stop people from being able to cross it only a small percent got by. hopefully though we dont have to resort to it being like that.
I ran across an article that talked about a program called Operation Gatekeeper (wikipedia) last year. And I thought that it was noteworthy that opponents and proponents saw this program in different lights. Like this is federal program to build a fence, Operation Gatekeeper focused on a specific area near San Diego, but it also increased the number of border patrols and the numbers of underground sensors. It will definitely take more than just a wall.
In the wikipedia page, it says that "U.S. migration routes immediately shifted eastward, and the use of professional smugglers increased." So, maybe it would deter some illegal immigration for a while, but like the people said above, they will probably just find another way around.
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to require the construction of a fence along the border of their property. This is assuming that the federal government will pay for this new construction. People shouldnt be shocked to find out that the border they bought their land next to is to be treated like *gasp* an actual border
I totally agree with Ryan. As long as the government pays for the construction, i see no reason that these landowners should raise any objections. The fact is that their land is a border and the current system of enforcing that border is not working; it has to be taken up a notch. I think that these people dont really feel all that strongly against the fence, they just dont like how it looks like the government is getting more agressive.
The whole idea of the fence is ridiculous, but besides that, I think that the government shouldn't be able to just come on to private property. They should have to make an agreement with the landowners, who could certainly be annoyed or inconvenienced by the construction.
Although I can't see much benefit from the construction of the fence, I think the federal government does have the power to build the fence on private property as long as it is beneficial to our nation's security. Of course, I also believe that the landowners should be compensated for the inconveniences that they would suffer as a result of the fence.
I think that it is really stupid for the government to force people to put up a fence. Firstly, will a fence really stop immigrants from coming into the country? If it's a 5 foot tall barbed wire fence, that doesn't do much good. I once watched something on 20/20 or 60 minutes or some show like that. There was a section on anti-immigration people who live by the border and they were putting up a barbed wire fence that was probably 4 feet high. It was basically making these anti-immigration people look really stupid. I think this is totally ineffective because people can easily cut through the wiring so it was really ineffective. But, I think the government does have the right to force people to put up a fence, like Matt said, but I think the government taking over peoples' land if they don't comply seemed unconstitutional to me because it is private property. Also, this seems like a large waste of taxpayer's dollars because it won't be effective. We just need border patrol - or anything else but a fence because people can climb, jump over, and cut a barbed wire fence.
I don't think it matter what the fence will or won't do. If something is against a person's rights, then it is unconstitutional and should not be allowed, no matter what.
Yes the government has the authority to do this even though it is really unfair. The government should give some incentive to the landowners to allow them to build a fence. However, I think building a fence to prevent illegal immigration is a waste of time and money. Immigrants are still going to find a way around the fence to come to the United States. At least the government is taking more action to prevent illegal immigration, or at least trying too.
Hm. Eminent Domain is necessary and legal in some cases (like this one, IMO). If you think this is unfair, check out Kelso v. New London, probably the most assailed Supreme Court case since Roe v. Wade.
Be wary of an absolute sense of property rights. Decrying eminent domain while downloading music illegally is hypocritical, no?
Post a Comment