Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

CNN had a constitutional expert on last night saying how the President can use a declaration of emergency to reallocate funding already allocated to the military (other Presidents have done it on numerous occasions). Although I personally think its a bit muddled by the fact that this would obviously be a bogus "emergency" declared for political reasons to bypass Congressional oversight, at least to anyone who hasn't drunk the Trump Kool Aid.

However, it most definitely does not mean that he can just have the military seize private lands for his pet project. That would be illegal.

Edit: And since the majority of land on the border is privately owned... yeah. Not much of a wall for Dickless.

[Broomstick]

I'm not at all sure the PotUS can commandeer state-owned land, either. As opposed to Federally-owned land.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup.

If he does this, I fully expect California, at least, to tell him to fuck right off, and take a challenge all the way to the Supreme Court.

[Knife]

If deep red state Texas gun nuts don't defend against the government taking their land, I will relentlessly mock gun nuts their bullshit 2nd amendment claims are useless.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, see, governments taking your private property is only bad if the Democrats do it. When Dear Leader does it, its okay.

[bilateralrope]

Anyone else worried that, if this land theft goes ahead, they might try to grab Mexican land at the same time ?

Maybe because it makes the wall cheaper if they cut through Mexico, maybe because someone misreads the map.

[LadyTevar]

Anyone else worried that, if this land theft goes ahead, they might try to grab Mexican land at the same time ?

Maybe because it makes the wall cheaper if they cut through Mexico, maybe because someone misreads the map.

Misreading a map is a part of Grand US History! See Fort Montgomery (aka Fort Blunder), Minnesota's Northwest Angle, and I'm sure dozens of other mistakes where mountains or rivers/creeks are in the wrong place.

[Solauren]

I doubt we'll see a land grab attempt against Mexico. I believe that would be considered an Act of War.

If Trump did try that, I can't see the US Congress or Senate NOT impeaching him and removing him from office.

[bilateralrope]

On that note, how far from the border would the wall need to be for it to be constructed without any of the builders stepping into Mexico ?

[Patroklos]

A large portion of the border is already in Federal hands.

[Broomstick]

There is a definite lack of such Federally owned land in Texas, though. And while there is Federal land abutting the border in California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico it is not contiguous. You're still looking at grabbing a fuck-ton of land.

[houser2112]

There is a definite lack of such Federally owned land in Texas, though. And while there is Federal land abutting the border in California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico it is not contiguous. You're still looking at grabbing a fuck-ton of land.

Nevada?

[Broomstick]

Right- sorry, for some reason I thought a bit of Nevada hit the southern border. My bad.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

The last map Patraklos showed made it look as if Nevada was on the southern border. A likely source of confusion.

[Broomstick]

Especially pre-dawn when one has not finished one's first mug of tea for the morning....

[EnterpriseSovereign]

For some reason, the sector boundaries don't match the state borders where Nevada is concerned on that map.

[Napoleon the Clown]

A large portion of the border is already in Federal hands.<snip images>

And a more substantial portion isn't. How much should the owners of the private land be compensated? What about the tribal lands? Do you propose the government seize even more?

[Patroklos]

A large portion of the border is already in Federal hands.<snip images>

And a more substantial portion isn't. How much should the owners of the private land be compensated? What about the tribal lands? Do you propose the government seize even more?

You will find no advocate for eminent domain from me. And while I am an advocate for a significant expansion of physical barriers along certain portions of the border, I am no fan of a contiguous barrier.

But yes, where the wall is expanded for whatever reason, market value should be paid or lease/access equitably negotiated. I don't think the big issue here will be the land itself in most cases given the vast majority of it that needs to be acquired is a state friendly to the proposal and border land owners are some of the greatest advocates of the initiative. Its the water rights and access to the Rio Grande that the land owners rely on that will be the sticking point.

This is the best I could find for state land for Texas.



It should also be noted that for basic illegal immigration purposes you don't have to have the barrier or whatever enforcement mechanism directly on the the border. If it makes sense geographically or land rights wise to have it well inside it serves the same purpose as long as it provides for detection/apprehension/prevention, especially if whatever land ends up outside the barrier is uninhabited or otherwise barren/inhospitable. It gets trickier with asylum seekers.

[Elfdart]

CNN had a constitutional expert on last night saying how the President can use a declaration of emergency to reallocate funding already allocated to the military (other Presidents have done it on numerous occasions). Although I personally think its a bit muddled by the fact that this would obviously be a bogus "emergency" declared for political reasons to bypass Congressional oversight, at least to anyone who hasn't drunk the Trump Kool Aid.

However, it most definitely does not mean that he can just have the military seize private lands for his pet project. That would be illegal.

Edit: And since the majority of land on the border is privately owned... yeah. Not much of a wall for Dickless.

Nixon tried to "impound" federal funds Congress had decided to spend. The courts laughed his case out the door. Congress has the keys to the vault for a reason. When Truman declared an emergency and tried to seize a bunch of steel mills, he was also laughed out of court. The problem is, today's courts are so stacked with outright fascists that Il Douchebag could say that all Muslims should to wear a yellow crescent patch on their clothes and this Supreme Court would give it the OK.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, not quite. We have four liberal justices*... and Roberts. Roberts doesn't always vote Republican as a Justice, and he seems to value maintaining the Court's image of impartiality. So I doubt he would vote in favour of what would amount to a massive upheaval of the system of checks and balances on which America was founded.


*All this presumes RBG lives until Trump is out of office. We can only hope.

[Napoleon the Clown]

A large portion of the border is already in Federal hands.<snip images>

And a more substantial portion isn't. How much should the owners of the private land be compensated? What about the tribal lands? Do you propose the government seize even more?

You will find no advocate for eminent domain from me. And while I am an advocate for a significant expansion of physical barriers along certain portions of the border, I am no fan of a contiguous barrier.

But yes, where the wall is expanded for whatever reason, market value should be paid or lease/access equitably negotiated. I don't think the big issue here will be the land itself in most cases given the vast majority of it that needs to be acquired is a state friendly to the proposal and border land owners are some of the greatest advocates of the initiative. Its the water rights and access to the Rio Grande that the land owners rely on that will be the sticking point.

Ask (often former) land owners how that went down in 2008. I have seen no indication that there are people who own land near the border that actively want the government to come and pay them a pittance, take the matter to court (for years) to get something approaching market value, or be forced off the land by force. Have a Twitter thread by the Texas Tribune that gives an indication of why it's a terribly naive to think the US government would offer a fair deal. Especially under Donald "Stiff the Contractors" Trump.

This is the best I could find for state land for Texas.

<image>

It should also be noted that for basic illegal immigration purposes you don't have to have the barrier or whatever enforcement mechanism directly on the the border. If it makes sense geographically or land rights wise to have it well inside it serves the same purpose as long as it provides for detection/apprehension/prevention, especially if whatever land ends up outside the barrier is uninhabited or otherwise barren/inhospitable. It gets trickier with asylum seekers.

Physical barriers suck at doing anything about immigration unless you're willing to go so far as to have armed guards patrolling them, ready to gun down anyone that tries to cross. In which case, Добро пожаловать в Советский Союз, товарищ!

Hell, Trump is proposing steel slats instead of a big, concrete wall. An almost... curtain like barrier. Made from a substance that is primarily iron. An iron curtain, if you will.

[Gandalf]

You will find no advocate for eminent domain from me. And while I am an advocate for a significant expansion of physical barriers along certain portions of the border, I am no fan of a contiguous barrier.

But yes, where the wall is expanded for whatever reason, market value should be paid or lease/access equitably negotiated. I don't think the big issue here will be the land itself in most cases given the vast majority of it that needs to be acquired is a state friendly to the proposal and border land owners are some of the greatest advocates of the initiative. Its the water rights and access to the Rio Grande that the land owners rely on that will be the sticking point.

What happens to those for whom the land is more than a fiscal asset, and don't care about "market value?"

[Patroklos]

What happens to those for whom the land is more than a fiscal asset, and don't care about "market value?"

I am pretty sure I covered this from my personal perspective:

You will find no advocate for eminent domain from me. And while I am an advocate for a significant expansion of physical barriers along certain portions of the border, I am no fan of a contiguous barrier.

You do what you can, where you can, where you feel you need to. There are places that don't have a wall that probably need one, and places that do where it really doesn't make sense. We don't get to build highways wherever we want either, (or at least shouldn't be able too) but we adapt.

As for where a wall doesn't make sense, a good portion of that is exactly where the majority of non federal border land is in Texas:

[EnterpriseSovereign]

President Donald Trump has threatened to declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress if he cannot reach a deal with Democrats to fund his promised border wall.

He spent most of Thursday in Texas near the US-Mexico border in a bid to draw further attention to his case after negotiations with politicians stalled.

The partial government shutdown dragged into a 20th day with hundreds of thousands of federal workers off the job or working without pay as the wall fight persisted.

Asked about a national emergency declaration, Mr Trump said as he left the White House: “I’m not prepared to do that yet, but if I have to I will.”

He contends such a declaration would allow him to direct the military to begin wall construction.

Link. So he's throwing a tantrum and paving the way for the military to be deployed on US soil.

[Broomstick]

Yep, basically.

And fuck the people who actually do the work of the government.