Don't Fence Me In
In what can only be described as one of the greatest ironies in modern conservatism, the US Federal government plans to build a fence along the Mexico/Texas border, long a favorite of hard core conservatives, has just hit something stronger than a fence, a property owner who wants to keep her land her own. Apparently, Eloisa Tamez wants to keep her land, 3 acres, and not be forced to sell it to the government so they can build a fence on it. She says the land came to her through generations from a 1767 land grant from the Spanish government. In 1757, the furthest southwest the US government was John Adams' basement. Her family has had this land longer than the US has, and the US is trying to move her out to build a fence that won't really work on keeping people out. The real wrinkle is this, the political factions that support the fence (and indeed, often want more) are usually the ones supporting individuals' right to own property against government intrusion. And to say this is a line in the sand is just a bad metaphor.
So this woman is invoking her property rights against federal intrusion, as is very common in this country. It's one of the bedrocks of the American legal system, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. We love our property rights in this country. It's one of the more "sacred" rights we hold as citizens and was one of the things we used to separate ourselves from being "subjects" of the king. And there are any number of case law citations that could be put down, but for reasons of space, you'll be spared all that. Just realize that whenever the government tried to, fairly or unfairly, take someone's land for some reason, all kinds of case law and precedents get trotted about how the government can't do that. Usually, the government wins the case because they can prove they need the land for a needed project for the public good, but every so often the individual will win. Property law in the United States is one of the most hotly contested and firmest rights in the legal sphere. People don't like giving up their without a fight, and add in the joys of the 10th Amendment and you got a real fight against the government going on.
This is an even more fun argument to have since she can claim the property rights predate the United States claim, but oddly enough that may not matter. Since 1767, that land has gone back and forth a few times. Mexico, to the Republic of Texas, to the United States again, to the Confederacy then back to the United States of America. There are also state's rights issues, which Texas does love to show and guard. Texas Governor Rick Perry has been vocal in his opposition to the fence (yes, I'm as mortified as you are that I had to link to something called "lonewacko"), which means he probably not going to try and take this woman's land to make the border fence. Of course, he supports a virtual fence made up of cameras, motion sensors and other damned technology to make it monitorable via the internet. Which is an invitation to vigilantism, but Texas rarely has a problem with that. But this fence will not do what it's setting out to do, prevent illegal immigration.
First of all, most illegal immigration doesn't happen overland on foot, it happens in cars. It also happens in shipping containers, over planes or boats. Building a fence along the Mexico border to stop illegal immigration into the United States is like fighting terrorism by banning AK-47s, since that's a common weapon of terrorists. And for those who do travel over land, people will cut holes in the fence or get ladders that are just a little taller. Military options will not help much either, for a great example of this examine the history of the Republic/Empire border in Ireland (oh, fine, Ireland/Northern Ireland border). Some of the busiest heliports in Europe are in Northern Ireland to service the helicopters that guard the border, which saw heavy movement for decades between North and South of men and arms. Note, this was after "unauthorised roads" notably bridges, were blown up to limit number of ways from Eire to the United Kingdom. Yet, men, money and arms still crossed at alarming rates. Not people looking to work, but actual fucking terrorists. And, more to the point, as long people profit from coming across the border and Americans profit from having them here. A fence can barely stop a determined dog, let alone a determined human.
But this fight is the crucible for extreme Libertarians, and presidential candidate Ron Paul has gone back and forth on the border fence. The basic premise of the fence is to secure American territory. The basic premise of this woman is to secure her territory as guarantee by the laws of America. She wants to express her views in the most basic and respected way possible to effect change in the government: non-violent, non-participation. She's just taking that to different level and claims to have no fear of prosecution by the government. This is usually where the militia groups love to line up, show support and talk about how the government can't take away land, but in this case it would be going to something they love, a stronger border with our southern neighbors. How will people who detest the use of force by the government on citizens feel when this woman has to be evicted from her land if the government wins all the legal fights that are sure to ensue?
Legally, means it's going to end up in the 5th Court of Appeals located in Dallas, Texas. Now, Eminent Domain will probably fall against the woman, but if there were a federal court in the land who would stand up for this, it would be the 5th. This is a court based out of Dallas, but the judges come from all over the southwest and represent all kinds of feelings on the issues of immigration, border security, property rights and eminent domain. In another rant, how lawsuit becomes law will be examined, but for right now, suffice it to say, there are enough issues of oddness that it would not surprise anyone to see this before the Supreme Court in 3 or 4 years. And if that's enough time for a president to appoint a new justice or two, that could be fun. And we get to watch Scalia squirm given his view on personal rights (generally strong) versus his view on the government grabbing land (he was against Kelo v New London).
And yet, dishes will get washed in America.
So it is written, so do I see it.
So this woman is invoking her property rights against federal intrusion, as is very common in this country. It's one of the bedrocks of the American legal system, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. We love our property rights in this country. It's one of the more "sacred" rights we hold as citizens and was one of the things we used to separate ourselves from being "subjects" of the king. And there are any number of case law citations that could be put down, but for reasons of space, you'll be spared all that. Just realize that whenever the government tried to, fairly or unfairly, take someone's land for some reason, all kinds of case law and precedents get trotted about how the government can't do that. Usually, the government wins the case because they can prove they need the land for a needed project for the public good, but every so often the individual will win. Property law in the United States is one of the most hotly contested and firmest rights in the legal sphere. People don't like giving up their without a fight, and add in the joys of the 10th Amendment and you got a real fight against the government going on.
This is an even more fun argument to have since she can claim the property rights predate the United States claim, but oddly enough that may not matter. Since 1767, that land has gone back and forth a few times. Mexico, to the Republic of Texas, to the United States again, to the Confederacy then back to the United States of America. There are also state's rights issues, which Texas does love to show and guard. Texas Governor Rick Perry has been vocal in his opposition to the fence (yes, I'm as mortified as you are that I had to link to something called "lonewacko"), which means he probably not going to try and take this woman's land to make the border fence. Of course, he supports a virtual fence made up of cameras, motion sensors and other damned technology to make it monitorable via the internet. Which is an invitation to vigilantism, but Texas rarely has a problem with that. But this fence will not do what it's setting out to do, prevent illegal immigration.
First of all, most illegal immigration doesn't happen overland on foot, it happens in cars. It also happens in shipping containers, over planes or boats. Building a fence along the Mexico border to stop illegal immigration into the United States is like fighting terrorism by banning AK-47s, since that's a common weapon of terrorists. And for those who do travel over land, people will cut holes in the fence or get ladders that are just a little taller. Military options will not help much either, for a great example of this examine the history of the Republic/Empire border in Ireland (oh, fine, Ireland/Northern Ireland border). Some of the busiest heliports in Europe are in Northern Ireland to service the helicopters that guard the border, which saw heavy movement for decades between North and South of men and arms. Note, this was after "unauthorised roads" notably bridges, were blown up to limit number of ways from Eire to the United Kingdom. Yet, men, money and arms still crossed at alarming rates. Not people looking to work, but actual fucking terrorists. And, more to the point, as long people profit from coming across the border and Americans profit from having them here. A fence can barely stop a determined dog, let alone a determined human.
But this fight is the crucible for extreme Libertarians, and presidential candidate Ron Paul has gone back and forth on the border fence. The basic premise of the fence is to secure American territory. The basic premise of this woman is to secure her territory as guarantee by the laws of America. She wants to express her views in the most basic and respected way possible to effect change in the government: non-violent, non-participation. She's just taking that to different level and claims to have no fear of prosecution by the government. This is usually where the militia groups love to line up, show support and talk about how the government can't take away land, but in this case it would be going to something they love, a stronger border with our southern neighbors. How will people who detest the use of force by the government on citizens feel when this woman has to be evicted from her land if the government wins all the legal fights that are sure to ensue?
Legally, means it's going to end up in the 5th Court of Appeals located in Dallas, Texas. Now, Eminent Domain will probably fall against the woman, but if there were a federal court in the land who would stand up for this, it would be the 5th. This is a court based out of Dallas, but the judges come from all over the southwest and represent all kinds of feelings on the issues of immigration, border security, property rights and eminent domain. In another rant, how lawsuit becomes law will be examined, but for right now, suffice it to say, there are enough issues of oddness that it would not surprise anyone to see this before the Supreme Court in 3 or 4 years. And if that's enough time for a president to appoint a new justice or two, that could be fun. And we get to watch Scalia squirm given his view on personal rights (generally strong) versus his view on the government grabbing land (he was against Kelo v New London).
And yet, dishes will get washed in America.
So it is written, so do I see it.