Eminent Domain

Anti-Wall GOP Rep. Will Hurd: 'There's a Thing We Care About in Texas Called Private Property Rights'

Some members of Congress still care about private property.

|

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

In an interview published today with Rolling Stone, Rep. Will Hurd (R–Texas) poked holes in President Donald Trump's proposed wall on the U.S.–Mexico border.

A wall would be "the most expensive and least effective way to do border security," said Hurd, whose congressional district runs along the southern border from El Paso to San Antonio. Among Hurd's concerns is that building the wall would require lots of land seizures. "There's a thing in Texas we care about called private property rights," he told Rolling Stone. "To get the property rights with eminent domain," he said, "would impact 1,000 property owners in Texas."

There are indeed significant private property concerns when it comes to building a wall, particularly in Texas, where most of the border land is private property. "You have the people who have farms that go up against the Rio Grande because the Rio Grande is a source of water for agriculture and ranching," Hurd told Rolling Stone. "In some areas where there has been a proposal for a wall, in my district alone there's the potential of ceding 1.1 million acres of land to Mexico."

Many landowners aren't happy. And as some have explained to Reason TV, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, they don't plan to go down without a fight.

President Donald Trump, for one, doesn't seem to have a problem with seizing land to build the wall. "You have to use eminent domain," he declared earlier this month. "If we had one person that wouldn't sell us…then we wouldn't be able to build proper border security because we'd have that big opening," he added, before calling it "a fair process."

But what happens if people won't comply? "[Lawsuits are] not going to hold [the wall] up because under the military version of eminent domain and under, actually, homeland security we can do it before we even start," he said. This is technically legal under federal law, which allows for military department secretaries to "acquire any interest in land" if "the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense." Whether building a wall on the southern border is really an issue of national defense is another question.

Aside from Hurd, not very many GOP House members have expressed concern over the private property ramifications of building a wall. The exception is Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.), who last week introduced a bill that would likely stop Trump from using the "military version of eminent domain."

"It is unjust for the government to seize someone's property with a lowball offer and then put the burden on them to fight for what they are still owed," Amash said in a statement. "My bill will stop this practice by requiring that a property's fair value be finalized before DHS takes ownership."

The bill has zero cosponsors, and its passage is uncertain, if not unlikely. Still, it's encouraging to see that some members of Congress, like Amash and Hurd, still care about private property.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

173 responses to “Anti-Wall GOP Rep. Will Hurd: 'There's a Thing We Care About in Texas Called Private Property Rights'

  1. “Private property rights” aren’t an absolute blank check to decide a country can’t have a border. Protecting the border is a public purpose. If private property is used for that protection, the property owner must be justly compensated. That’s all.

    Everyone knows this. The founders knew this and wrote it into the US Constitution.

    Of course the Reason writers also know it. You guys should stop trolling people and gaslighting people with this stuff.

    1. The Wall =/= a border

      1. When people want to cross and won’t obey the law then a border requires a wall. No wall, no border.

        1. So then the US doesn’t have a border with Canada then. Huh. Hear that Rufus? You’re one of us now!

          1. We aren’t streaming across your northern border illegally.
            Did you miss the part where Ben says “and won’t obey the law”? Of course you didn’t you disingenuous cunt. You just don’t give a fuck about honesty when you’ve got a narrative to craft.

            1. “One of the first things that comes to mind is what we know to be certain radicalized populations in Montreal and other parts of Canada,” Nolan said in her Burlington office.

              She recently met with Canadian prosecutors, “and they indicated to me they had a healthy docket of cases pending that involved homegrown radicals who were attempting to travel overseas and fight for ISIS,” Nolan said.

              In response, Canada has made pre-emptive arrests. In the past three years, at least 10 students have been arrested before leaving Montreal allegedly to join ISIS. An alleged ISIS cell was uncovered in Ottawa in 2015, and in another case, a Kuwaiti-born Canadian has pleaded guilty to plotting attacks for ISIS in New York.

              “I do worry that our lightly manned northern border could be an avenue for them to travel to the U.S.,” Nolan said.”
              http://digital.vpr.net/post/fo…..a#stream/0

              Sounds like a clear cut case for a wall.

            2. Wait. So are you saying that absolutely no one from Canada tries to come to the US illegally? Really? Huh.

              1. Sure they do. And Canada is actively trying to stop the flow of illegal immigrants from the US to Canada. Canada understands the purpose of borders. Why can’t you figure it out?

                1. Immigrants is nothing on the northern border.

                  Other stuff.

              2. Jeffy,

                Walls are not perfect, they are a deterrent, kinda like the locks on your front door. As breakin’s increase in your neighborhood, you might first add a deadbolt, then replace the door with a steel door, then a steel door with an camera, and then the POA hires private security (LOL).

                On our northern border, although we have some invaders, the number of them has not proven large and so we consider border patrol to be sufficient.

                On the southern border, we have already gone from border patrol only, to electonic monitoring, to fences, and in some places walls. We have areas that need new robust fences because border patrol is not enough, and areas where they are cutting holes in fences where we need walls. We have places where the walls are not tall enough, or where they are tunnelled under.

                No system is going to be 100% effective, just as not home security system is going to prevent all breakin’s. But by ramping up security it can be reduced.

                Despite all the hype, Trumps 5.7B is not going to put a wall on the entire southern border. It will put in new walls, new fences, new electronics along that border.

        2. Why do you wish the Nazis had caught the Von Trapp family?

          1. So we wouldn’t have to endure that awful movie?

            1. Oh that movie… so bad… so bad… *dead eyed 1000yd stare*

          2. Yeah, this analogy is dead on because remember how all the Jews and Gypsies were struggling to get into Nazi Germany… oh wait.

          3. Contrary to the movie, the real Von Trapp family left by train, not by climbing over mountains. The Nazis weren’t after them at all.

            1. Well the train would only get so far if there was a wall in the way.

              1. Poor Tony.

              2. LOL!

                OMG!

                As the old ladies say here … “Bless your little heart” then pat the retarded kid on the head.

        3. The sad thing is that, just as with “free college,” we’ve already been down this road. We built a wall. You know what happened? Tunnels.

          The wall didn’t work, but your solution is “wall harder.” Build walls in places people aren’t crossing. They’ll work eventually!

          1. – Building dams doesn’t work because it still rains on the land below the dam.
            – Eating food doesn’t work because you get hungry the next day anyway.

            1. Building a dam in a desert won’t hold any water and won’t protect your house from getting flooded.

              Pouring food down your shirt won’t abate your hunger.

              What part of “we already built a wall and it didn’t stop anybody” did you miss?

              1. There’s many dams in the dessert. Just several miles north of the border there’s Elephant Butte and Caballo reservoirs.

              2. Hoover dam called and says….DAMN!

              3. There are quite a few dams in the desert.. You may want to educate yourself on these things called flash floods as well.

                1. Oooo, you cheated in “Jeffy World”, you said educate!

                  Jeffy may have to hide under the table. I bet you triggered him!

          2. Chemo doesn’t work 100% either, let’s stop fighting cancer.

            What a fucking stupid argument to make.

          3. TUNNELS! It’s pure gold! There is no way the feds could do anything about tunnels! You know, because they’re underground, where the U.S. Government can’t possibly go! Genius!

      2. A border wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ectiveness

        It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

    2. Then you will not bitch when President Warren seizes all private hospitals for the public purpose of universal healthcare.

      1. Health care is a service to an individual, not the public.

        1. Highly arguable distinction and not one that’s relevant to any intelligent discussion of public policy. Kids get educated individually too, by that standard.

          1. It’s not the least bit arguable. The benefit of healthcare is the individual who gets health care. Health care is a service to an individual by another individual. The recipients of a national defense are the entire public, all at once. I know some dumb people can’t tell the difference. But I think you’re just dishonest and greedy for others’ money, not dumb.

            Education is none of the US Government’s business either. If your town wants to get together and offer education or health care as a government service, you and the people in your town can go ahead. Leave the folks in the other towns out of it.

            1. There will be no wall, Ben.

              Most people don’t want it. Some because they finally recognized that Mexico won’t pay for it, others because they understand it would be a pointless waste of public resources.

              Even if the yahoos find enough money in couch cushions for a symbolic initial show of construction, that construction will cease when Trump leaves office. The belligerence and bigotry exhibited by wall fans likely would precipitate a dismantling of any demonstration project wall that might be built in the next couple of years.

              Libertarians, liberals, moderates, and RINOs understand and welcome this situation. Wall fans will wail.

              1. Too boring to read. I can’t believe you still post this stuff.

                1. Kirkland seems to have some sort of comment template he works from.

                  1. Are you guys genuinely gullible enough to believe a wall is to be built?

                    I am grateful my children get to compete economically with Trump supporters.

                    1. By compete I assume you mean tax the people who actually produce things in order to fund gender exploration centers.

                  2. Actually he has several:
                    Asshole #1
                    Asshole #2
                    Asshole #3
                    etc.

            2. So that’s a no to universal education. Because nope, there’s no social utility in making sure the children of the poor have access to books and information like the children of the rich. Child factory workers and scullery maids don’t need to know more than what we tell them to know!

              1. “So that’s a no to universal education”

                You’ve been here long enough to realize that it is a “No” to universal public education.

              2. It’s a majority view, and it has been for hundreds of years, that the US Government should butt out of children’s education and leave it to states and local school boards and families.

                Why are you so greedy for money other people earned? Why do you want to invade people’s lives and bully them into your government schemes? If you hate regular Americans that much, why not just leave us alone to live our lives?

                1. Because you don’t want to be left alone. You want government goons to show up to protect your property and your other interests, you just can’t expand your little mind to appreciate the fact that other people have interests too, and you might even have interests you’re not aware of, like making sure the poor neighbor children aren’t feral or diseased.

                  1. Government schools do a bad job of teaching poor children and everyone knows it. The system is specifically setup that way by people like you. And you have no intention to make any fundamental changes to it that would help any poor children. Your side’s plan is to take even more money from everyone in the name of education, put it in special interest pockets, and offer the rest of America nothing in return except the usual leftist hatred and condescension. Maybe you’ll also degrade the education of rich people’s children for “fairness”.

                    And then you want to bring the same values and schemes to health care.

              3. So that’s a no to universal education. Because nope, there’s no social utility in making sure the children of the poor have access to books and information like the children of the rich.

                Do you read this stuff before you post it?

                Even right now – with universal education – the poor don’t have access to the books and information like the children of the rich. Your very own preferred system doesn’t achieve that. You are, literally, comparing the ‘textbook, theoretical’ model of your preferred system against the ‘worst possible outcomes’ example of the one you don’t like.

                1. Sure they do, more or less. Public schools and public libraries are a long and successful tradition. Of course there remain inequities and probably always will, but those won’t be solved by removing the existing public access.

                  1. USA has one of the worse education systems in the 1st World.

                    And Lefties want more money for it.

                    1. Leftists want more money in the name of education. They don’t intend to spend any of it actually teaching children anything.

      2. I know, right?
        It’s funny how these “libertarians” cannot see how they are empowering the statists with their border wall fantasies.

        “It’s only a small fraction of the budget!”

        1. This is my biggest concern with the possibility of Trump declaring a “National Emergency” over this – if POTUS can declare a National Emergency and confiscate private property and appropriate money over the objections of Congress, then what is stopping the next (D) POTUS from declaring a National Emergency about healthcare and nationalizing the healthcare industry, or declaring a National Emergency about Climate Change and nationalizing the energy sector? They’ve already been talking about such things.

          1. What stops them either way?

            1. Perceiving that there may be negative political consequences? Can we get Trump to test those waters for them, just to remove some of the initial discomfort?

              1. They lie and the news media covers up for them. They commit crimes and the FBI makes it go away. What consequences?

                1. Apparently they exercise positively heroic restraint, then, if your assumptions about the world are as true as you believe they are.

              2. You would be shocked to learn about the shame Andrew Jackson serves for denying Congress its will. Oh wait, nobody gave a fuck.

          2. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

          3. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

            1. Holy shiite. My squirrels are pissed at your squirrels cause they think they have to reply to all of your squirrel’s work. Your squirrels must do work my squirrels won’t. Imports?

              “…pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.”

              Nice try. Your national security stops at my right to healthcare. And my source is Big Libs who told me it’s a right and there is a consensus. We can all agree on the settled truths to trust Big Libs and a consensus.
              S off

          4. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

          5. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

          6. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

          7. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

          8. Meh. Agree with the wall or not, it’s a pretty easy case to make that a barrier on the border is for national security, as opposed to say, healthcare.

            1. Hell yeah! My squirrels are the squirliest squirrels to ever squirrel!

              1. The biggest! The best. Believe me, I know.

              2. Even though you said it quite a few times, Jeff the Goldfish won’t be bothered to read it.

                National defense is a literal 1.8 power, while healthcare is not. But Mr. Goldfish can’t be bothered with an education.

          9. “… if POTUS can declare a National Emergency and confiscate private property and appropriate money over the objections of Congress,…”

            Fuck congressional objections. What’s their favorability polling numbers these days. Guess congress should not have granted presidents the power in the 1st place. More so-called unintended consequences.

            Who cares! What difference does it make now, anyhow.

            “For more than a century, the “people’s” branch of government has been systematically handing over to presidents powers the framers vested in Congress in the naive belief that each branch would jealously guard its constitutional powers rather than dispense with them.”
            -washingtonpost

        2. You don’t know jack shit Mr. Goldfish. You actively refuse to learn.

        3. “It’s funny how these “libertarians” cannot see how they are empowering the statists with their border wall fantasies.”

          There is already a wall between two nations, dude. Other nations have it. Should we dismantle it to weaken the “statists”?

          The farmers who aren’t happy about this are likely subsidized to the heavens and benefit from government protectionist policies. Let’s not pretend that an eminent domain negotiation is some grave intrusion on these champions of libertarianism.

          If they don’t want to sell, that’s fine. But if the caravan situation does reach worst case scenario, we might have to seize their land. All you need a handful of casualty in the caravan or the border patrol for public sentiment to shift on this issue.

      3. ‘President Warren’. Just when I thought the direction of this thread or the nation couldn’t get any more depressing.

    3. I’m guessing your last name is Dover? Fuck off and die you miserable piece of shit.

    4. There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

      So a $25 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters just 190,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

    5. Define “justly compensated”. Government stooges and property owners likely have different definitions.

  2. Trump has plenty of experience utilizing eminent domain for his personal interests, the little man standing in his way is nothing to him.

    1. I know, and he’s backed by the New York Times and the DNC on the eminent domain issue. Tricky moving forward here.

      1. It’s unfortunate that more Republicans can’t see that, at the end of the day they’re all authoritarian.

  3. Texan Gun toting property rights-absolutists fight Trump’s wall.

    1. There is a certain surreal beauty to our Modern Moment.

    2. Well, they could revert to an independent Texas. (And later, rejoin Mexico.)

  4. “Git off my lawn” types protesting the mother of all “git off my lawn” policies. How avant garde.

  5. Arguments like this only convince people that we aren’t serious about eminent domain reform with regards to more egregious abuses, like seizure of entire neighborhoods for corporate development on the basis that it will be a net positive for the state. Hurd will use any argument to oppose the wall. If he really cared about eminent domain, he would use a better argument.

    1. ED for private use is highly dubious of course, but the Wall is totally legit in principle, except that it’s not actually a service to the public so much as a service to Donald Trump’s mental illness.

      1. I almost never say this to you, but you’ve actually made a cogent and somewhat nuanced point.

        1. Tony never does.

      2. ED for private use is highly dubious of course

        you misspelled “unconstitutional”.

        1. Guess who gets to decide what’s constitutional? Hint: he likes beer.

          1. MAGA!

            1. I wonder if Ivanka ever thinks about how when daddy bought her plastic surgery when she was a teenager, it would end up being useful only to make her more popular among the bull dykes in minimum security prison.

            2. Poor Tony.

              He losses so many arguments that he is now super worried about how his brain could possibly make his delusion into reality.

              1. I hope you’re Russian because the fact that someone could be so fucking stupid is depressing.

    2. Arguments like this only convince people that we aren’t serious about eminent domain reform

      In what world? Reason has been a huge critic of Kelo ever since it was passed, with numerous articles talking about new abuses and generally an anniversary article every year. It just so happens that the big eminent domain news of today is our president looking to appropriate land on the border.

      Hurd will use any argument to oppose the wall. If he really cared about eminent domain, he would use a better argument.

      Again, why? One must assume that the property owners about to get their land taken from them are his constituents. Why shouldn’t he be arguing on their behalf? It is a valid argument that even if the wall weren’t a pointless waste of money, its construction also shreds some property rights in the process.

      The Eminent Domain argument should absolutely be brought up, because it is yet one more reason not to build the wall. Yet one more cost to be compared against an already dubious benefit. The fact that some people want the wall built, costs be damned, is no reason to ignore all of those costs.

      1. Kelo was decided not passed. Other than that, spot on analysis.

      2. “The Eminent Domain argument should absolutely be brought up, because it is yet one more reason not to build the wall.”
        As it should have been for the Cnd oil pipeline, regardless of that lying POS Obo opposing it in the hopes that no one will bring the oil to market.
        It is the only reason I opposed the pipeline; buy the damn property at market rate, or admit your pipeline is a loser.

        “Yet one more cost to be compared against an already dubious benefit. The fact that some people want the wall built, costs be damned, is no reason to ignore all of those costs.”
        Yeah, and those ‘thousands'(?) who walked the length of Mexico are still in Mexico AFAIK. But….
        1) Who in hell ‘arranged’ that? It did NOT happen spontaneously, nor were those folks fed and provided with poop-places by the good graces of the Mexicans; I have yet to see any news organizations address that issue which seems quite important to me. QUITE important.
        2) I’m on the open-borders side of the issue; allowing ambitious folks to get away from more oppressive regimes and flourish here is a great idea!
        Does that describe all of the folks waiting at the border? I doubt it. What sort of vetting is appropriate?

  6. There seems to be a lot of conflation in these articles between the federal land that the wall is actually built on, and seizing private property adjacent to the border for possible construction access roads, when owners refuse to lease.

    This can’t be deliberate can it?

    1. 67% of the land along the border is not owned by the FedGov.

      The parts that are owned by the FedGov already have various barriers (although many are unimpressive). The vast majority of the land that remains to be fenced off is privately owned and will have to be seized through ED.

      The Wall is a proposed solution to the “Immigration Crisis” that has already failed. It is the new Drug War.

      1. And we shouldn’t gloss over one of the points that Hurd called out- some of the property owners rely on that land for irrigation purposes, since it accesses the Rio Grande. In the process of EDing a small strip of land, it may actually ruin much more of their land by blocking access to irrigation. I am sure the owners will still retain rights to the water, but if it is walled off, how are they to get it? At the least it is yet another cost that the government will have to shoulder to build this silly wall.

        1. At the least it is yet another cost that the government will have to shoulder to build this silly wall.

          Government will not need to pay that cost because there will be no wall.

          Just not enough backward and bigoted Americans to pull it off.

          1. Asshole, you were the one proposing a packing of SCOTUS, scumbag.
            You expect a sympathetic response to your assholish posts?
            Fuck off, asshole

      2. Again, the conflation of “land adjacent to”, with the 250 feet of Federal land that comprises the boarder.

        1. Where do you get that ‘250 feet’?

          There is no ‘250 of Federally-owned land’ on the border. Lot’s of property owners have property that extends straight to the border. There is no ‘neutral zone’ on the border.

          1. There isn’t even an easement for access along the border.

            The closest you get is the courts having decided that CBP can enter and cross property in the course of their law enforcement duties within 25 miles of the border.

            Even if there were a specific easement for access along the border – that wouldn’t translate into ‘we can build whatever we want’.

            And then there’s *still* the problem that along the whole Rio Grande you can’t do much within 250 feet of the border as its in the middle of the river. And then there’s the riverbank you can’t build on because its unstable. So you’d have to build waaaay north of 250 feet – as the government has already done in several cases and in doing so trapping people between the wall they built and the border. In the US but not in the US.

        2. Me too; got a cite?

      3. “The Wall is a proposed solution to the “Immigration Crisis””

        Yet areas with walls have less invasion and over 67% of the border has no protection at all.

        Does that sound like it has been tried enough to say it failed?

        Not in my book.

    2. “It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us in trouble. It’s the things we know that ain’t so.”

      Attributed to various authors including Mark Twain, Yogi Berra, Eubie Blake, Frank “Kin” Hubbard, Charles Kettering, Will Rogers, and Artemus Ward.

      Whoever said it hit on one of the eternal truths.

      1. And “the 250 feet of Federal land that comprises the boarder[sic]” just ain’t so.

  7. People who think that the Iron Curtain was an ideal that should be emulated are unlikely to be concerned about private property rights.

  8. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” – Patrick Henry.

    1. Come on – we all know that was Spock.

    2. You are, and always will be, my friend- Dolly Madison

    3. Seems like the needs of the few are outweighing the needs of the many this time around.

    4. F*ck that statist Patrick Henry.

      The rights of the individual outweigh the power grab of the many.

      I wonder what liberty he preferred to death.

      1. The rights of the individual outweigh the power grab of the many.*

        *except if the individual lives at the border

    1. 30 days are up on Sunday because of the length of the furlough. Mass federal employee firings?

  9. Of course, the chump change amount currently under discussion will not trigger any takings, because the feds already own or control more land than that measly few billion dollars can fence.
    If property owners don’t want to sell their land, that’s just fine. Of course, they may be open to charges of conspiracy to violate immigration laws by assisting criminal border crossers. Just a thought – – – –

    1. A remarkably dumb thought.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|1.18.19 @ 10:19PM|#
        “A remarkably dumb thought.”

        A typically assholish comment from the asshole

      2. I am a remarkable person.

    2. Nice land you’ve got there. Shame if anything happened to you…

      Have there always been so many collectivists on Reason? The staff, the editors, the commentariat… what’s left is just a weird fringe list of links to Vox. And no one even gets invited to the cool parties. Libertarian moment indeed.

  10. Has Mr Seyton or anyone here actually read the Rep Hurd RS interview..?????? (I have)

    The title of the RS piece is…TRUMP’S BORDER CRISIS A MYTH….
    But in the interview Rep Hurd says…” I think $67 billion of drugs coming into our country is a crisis.”
    Wait….I thought there was no crisis…..Which is it??????????? HUH??????

    Rep Hurd: A wall would be “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security,”
    RS interview, Rep Hurd: “But where there’s cities, where there’s urban-to-urban contact, some kind of physical barrier makes sense.” ..
    Wait….I thought you said….????????

    RS interview, Rep Hurd: When I crisscross my district, the thing I hear the most, people are like, “We need workers.” Whether it’s agriculture or artificial intelligence, we need workers.
    I think the part Hurd left out was…”We need workers…especially the work-for-shitty-under-the-table-money workers.

    Rep Hurd:”There’s a thing in Texas we care about called private property rights,” But apparently those same Texans don’t care about illegal alien trespassers…???? What happen to “Get the Hell off my Spread”????????????

  11. OT: The Make-A-Wish Foundation is getting weird:

    Dreams really do come true ? even for quadriplegics who want to make gay porn.

    That is at least the case for Kenneth Connin, 27, who lost the use of his legs and the feeling in his arms from the biceps down when he suffered a spinal cord injury at 18 years old while competitive cheerleading, according to Gay Star News.

    But the injury didn’t stop Connin, who says he always wanted to have sex on the internet, from filming his first gay porn scene with Pierce Paris, a veteran of the industry, for porn studio Himeros.

    It’s getting pretty dusty in here…

    1. Didn’t see any reference to Make-A-Wish; did I miss it?

  12. Remember when the media backed up Souter’s Eminent Domain position?

  13. Anti-Wall GOP Rep. Will Hurd: ‘There’s a Thing We Care About in Texas Called Private Property Rights’
    Some members of Congress still care about private property

    Yeah. Some. The rest are either cowards or Trumpistas, neither of which give two shits about property rights. Or economic freedom. Or just freedom.

    1. Texas. Flat as your ass and almost as interesting. Build the wall.

  14. MAGA

  15. “We like private property, we just hate the institution that makes it possible”

    muh anarchy

    1. “We had to destroy liberty in order to save it”

    2. Chemjeff hates that Libertarianism is okay with tiny and limited government and rule of law.

      It allows for national defense and securing a nation’s borders.

      1. Yes, he is one of the anarchists here who claim to be libertarians, as if there was no difference.

  16. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  17. What a load of bullshit. The US government has every right to seize private land with fair compensation if necessary to defend the southern border.

    1. yup. 5th Amendment: …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      1. So the public gets to use the wall?

        1. Or are you one of those Kelo prog fanboys that conflates public use with “public good”

        2. Yes, exactly as you get to use Fort Bragg.

  18. A 2,000 mile wall is both stupid and unnecessary. There are certainly some sections of the border that would be better off with a wall, but most of it can be better patrolled and protected by electronic surveillance – drones and sensors – with a nearby force for apprehension of the illegals. Placing sensors on and flying drones over private property are not eminent domain takings.

    1. Or you could just let desperate people go where they need to go. You are supposed to be the freedom maximalists, damn the consequences (especially social consequences). Suddenly when it comes to Mexicans (but not Canadians!), everyone is concerned with the fucking collective.

      1. Maximum freedom under rule of law.

        Our rule of law under the US Constitution grants power to the federal government to regulate migration and slaves , national defense, and naturalization.

        1. Nobody cares what you have to say.

          1. I know, it really pissed you off when he says things that are correct, and you know it.

    2. Well then, Trumps 5.7B is not nearly enough for a wall on the entire border. It will pay for walls in some places, hardened fences in others, and electronic surveillance in others.

      Sooo, you support that then … right?

  19. Placing sensors on and flying drones over private property are not eminent domain takings.

    Perhaps not, but…

    http://constitutioncenter.org/…..discussion

    Last month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it has obtained records that showed Customs and Border Patrol drones were lent to other national and local agencies, and were used 700 times between 2010 and 2012 for domestic surveillance.

    1. Yes, there are 4A issues for drone use for domestic surveillance. The border is a special case, more like the entrance to a public building or military installation. Individual warrants should not be necessary.

      1. Huh. So I guess those private *citizens* at the border just have to put up with losing their 4th Amendment rights in the name of stopping the supposed illegal invasion. Too bad so sad for them!

        1. Well Jeffy, is perfectly legal to fly over any private property in the country and take photos, look around with binoculars, or whatever. Your property does not extend to the moon. 500 ft AGL and they can fly over and look at anything they want …. and I can too.

      2. Placing sensors on and flying drones over private property are not eminent domain takings.

        Not a taking for the purposes of eminent domain but suddenly your property is in the same category as a ‘public building because you’ve lost all 4th amendment protections?

        Honestly, that sounds like a taking to me.

  20. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  21. Hurd is ex CIA and a Forever-Warrior. From Wikipedia:

    Hurd called for a ramp-up of U.S. military action against ISIL in Libya and in Syria, using the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan as a model.[44][45] He blamed ISIL’s rise on the Obama administration, accusing it of underestimating the threat.[46] Hurd has written that Islamic extremists “are in it for the long haul, which means that we have to be also.”[46] On the broader Syrian civil war, Hurd has written that “the brutal dictator Bashar al-Asad must go.”[45]

    But whooping for open borders excuses that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd

  22. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…… http://www.mesalary.com

  23. A defensive wall is pretty much a text book definition of one of the uses of eminent domain. Yet we have liberals pretending it is a okay to use eminent domain to increase tax revenue by forcing business/home owners to sell to richer investors. Make up your god damn minds. At least in this case a border protection wall is actually a share public service.

    1. Defensive wall… What century are we pretending this is? Are we making like 2000 miles is pretty much the same as protecting a fort against a siege, or are we going all out in a futile effort to protect us from other homo sapiens who don’t speak the right language, once called barbarians? Leave aside massive public investment in useless barriers to freedom… what’s libertarian about letting politicians make you stupider than you already were?

      1. If a wall is so ineffective why then all the opposition? Old Beaner understands the effectiveness of a wall, which is why he opposes it so stridently. But you twit, do you also have several hundred relatives you want anchored in?

        1. I am going to repeat this slowly. It’s shameful for a libertarian to let politicians make them stupid. Donald Trump is not an expert on immigration policy. Does this not compute or what?

          1. You give the lesser shit about immigration, much like the Beaner You both well know a wall would have little effect on true immigration. It would simply narrow access to points that could effectively vet those applying. You are opposed simply because Trump’s proposal wasn’t simply rhetoric. When Obama proposed the same solution we heard nothing from you, or the Beaner.

            1. I honestly don’t give the first explosive yet unsatisfying shit about immigration. It’s just not a national problem. It really isn’t. There are 100 things more important to deal with right now, but few of those activate the lizard brain xenophobia in such a way that the Republican party has so depended on for 50 years. Nothing sells for stupid people like hatred of other people who are slightly different from them. My issues is you’re taking up so much fucking airtime and causing so much hysteria about literally nothing. Just fucking take a nap or something, Jesus fuck. It’s so goddamn stifling. Go away. Nobody with any brains cares. Find a hole and go there and leave the people who haven’t been brainwashed by fucking Tits McGee on Fox & Friends alone. Leave us the fuck alone you morons!

              1. You’ve just given a truly appropriate reason why you should look the other way and let the wall go up.

                1. Give Trump his win, he’s still going to be the most criminal president in history. Give him a fucking tiara, who gives a shit. You can’t really expect this is going to end well.

    2. Lefties know that a fence along more of the border works.

      Its why they are fighting it so hard.

      Lefties have no problem building bridges to nowhere and other infrastructure projects that costs tens of billions.

  24. Isn’t Texas the number one state for civil asset forfeiture? Isn’t the gov’t stealing more from the people than all criminals combined? What happened to respecting private property rights in that regard?

  25. The mantra, “Walls don’t work” is ridiculous. I used to think I was a Libertarian until I learned real Libertarians don’t believe in borders. Unless every entitlement is removed from our system, we need borders.
    Before Donald Trump ran for president, I remember landowners on the Mexican border were crying out, begging for a fence or a wall. After Trump was elected, I read an org was formed and partially funded by George Soros. The purpose of this org was to get border, landowners to fight the wall.

    1. Libertarians believe in borders.
      Anarchists who say they are libertarians do not believe in borders.

  26. I say fine. Don’t bother going to court. Just build the wall where owners welcome it and everywhere else.
    Let’s see how those obstructionist landowners like having illegals funneling through their property. They will be BEGGING for a wall.

    I support private property rights too. But with these caravans coming and knowing Democrats are inviting these people because they want a dependent class to vote for them changes everything. Most sovereign countries have walls. Why? Because walls most certainly DO work. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda.
    Stat after stat proves walls ALWAYS work.
    If I believed the landowners weren’t paid off by progressive groups, I might feel differently.
    I remember the stories from people living on the border. They’ve been robbed, assaulted, held hostage, raped and even murdered.

    It’s Democrats who have made the wall political. Yes, many voted for Trump because he promised a wall.
    It’s just common sense and we’ve been promised one ever since Reagan granted Amnesty. It’s time for that debt to be paid.

    1. This country has become so fucking dumb. Or dumb people have become so fucking empowered to think their opinions should be heard in public. We’re owed something? We’re owed a racial cleansing after what Reagan did to us?

      It’s not gonna work. White people are gonna be a minority. Suck it up. And who gives a shit, it’s not like you’re gonna live forever to see what happens.

      1. Wow, such hostility against white people.

  27. Are you interested in making extra cash? $650 every two weeks? all you need is a fast reliable internet and a Desktop/laptop. We are looking for reliable workers to advertise and promote our various home vacations.
    We are a small boutique style vacation rental business located in Orange Beach, AL.
    We are a team, trusted by the owners of vacation homes, to take care of maintenance,
    housekeeping and reservations. We are a local group and will walk you through the entire process.
    Email for more enquiries: alicjaowczarak@gmail.com

  28. “There’s a thing in Texas we care about called private property rights.”

    That’s an odd thing for him to say, seeing as how the drug war is a war against property rights.

  29. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…………… http://www.mesalary.com

  30. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…………… http://www.mesalary.com

  31. Every property owner in my little town knows that the city holds an easement on the part of our property bordering the street. It’s there so the city can put in sidewalks. I know of no reason why it should be different for property owners whose property borders another country.

  32. I am sure the owners will still retain rights to the water, but if it is walled off, how are they to get it???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.