Show of HandsShow of Hands

KellyDimples February 13th, 2019 10:08am

Honest question I can't find the answer to. People say the government would have to seize private property to put up a border wall in some areas. Can border patrol go on private property to stop crossings, or is it off limits?

12 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

missmorganmarie ...
02/17/19 10:05 pm

this is from AZ

Border Patrol cannot go onto private land more than 25 miles inland of the border without a warrant or consent. Agents may enter onto private land without a warrant within 25
miles of the border.

However, Border Patrol agents cannot enter a home or dwelling on private land anywhere
without a warrant or consent.

Border Patrol should not cause physical damage to private property
.

Reply
RussianThunder Russia and USA
02/13/19 11:31 am

Yes, the government can seize the land to put up the fence.

In a Supreme Court ruling many years ago the justices ruled for the legality of eminent domain. If a rancher is unwilling to sell the strip of land the wall needs to sit on, the government can and I’m sure they will seize it on the grounds of eminent domain. Especially if this wall is constructed as a “national emergency” due to security concerns, there will simply be no recourse.
So, while people might say no, the government can and will say yes (which is a bit distressing)

Reply
RussianThunder Russia and USA
02/13/19 11:34 am

As for going on private property, yes. If they have reason to believe a crime is being committed. They need a warrant to search a building unless they have probable cause (like seeing a group run from then into a barn or something).

Jazzy5 USA
02/13/19 9:43 am

If you drive the highway system that criss crosses this nation, it may have been taken by eminent domain. This is how how things get done.
Like it or not!

Reply
zimmy Florida
02/13/19 4:54 am

Idk? But if I had a farm on the border, I personally would welcome federal agents on my property, I really wouldn’t want people on my land who don’t belong there.

Reply
KellyDimples NJ
02/13/19 6:11 am

I'd much prefer a wall or fence on my property over people with guns.

omniku dot com
02/13/19 6:17 am

You may. Others may not. This is where individual property rights vs the force of federal govt come into play. Which side are you on?

.

zimmy Florida
02/13/19 7:37 am

Kelly, a wall would obstruct my land, and hurt the farm, I’d much rather have Federal troops, there are guns everywhere in America already, I don’t see what difference that makes?

KellyDimples NJ
02/13/19 9:54 am

That's your choice. If there are walls everywhere but on your land because you refused, don't be surprised to have a bunch of refugees in your yard. Gonna lock your door, or leave it open for them? Leave the keys in the car while you're at it.

zimmy Florida
02/13/19 10:25 am

That’s why the feds world be better, chase them out

rons Thanks America
02/13/19 10:27 am

So the wall would cast too much of a shadow so nothing will grow in the trench on the border line. Funny.

historylover
02/13/19 12:07 pm

I wonder how many farmers and ranchers who have had illegal immigrants traveling through their property for decades really feel about a wall. I would imagine most would be ecstatic to get that wall built. I’ve read several horror stories over the years about the trespassers.

zimmy Florida
02/13/19 2:43 pm

History- idk? There could be some places where farm land is on both sides of the border and would be very upstructive, besides can’t people put up walls themselves if it’s such a problem? I mean why wait for the government?

rons Thanks America
02/13/19 3:39 pm

Both sides? The farm straddles the border? Do we have any with canada? I know they go after the Canadian fishermen who poach crabs in Washington State. North Wood Law is a great show. Fish and game wardens from various states. So far I saw Maine, New Hampshire, Texas, Washington.

historylover
02/14/19 7:11 am

@Zimmy
Many farmers and ranchers would never be able to pay for a wall to be built around hundreds of acres of property. In the west, just the border side of private property is quite long in some cases. If you put a wall up on the border of your property with Mexico but your neighbor does not, is that effective?

zimmy Florida
02/14/19 7:20 am

Well I don’t think a wall will be totally effective anyway.

KellyDimples NJ
02/14/19 8:24 am

Nothing would be totally effective. They are all tools that need to be utilized together. It would make other aspects of their job easier and more manageable. It's just common sense to me.

rons Thanks America
02/14/19 11:00 am

I like the word “totally”. I take my car keys at the mall. So my car is not totally secured.

omniku dot com
02/14/19 11:07 am

I think what everyone fails to take into account is there are lots of different reasons people support/oppose building a wall that spans the border. I’m opposed to the wall for many reasons, one of them being the PR factor. The tests on Trump’s border wall prototypes showed ZERO of the prototypes are effective. All of them can be scaled, cut through, or bypassed. They’re effectively speed bumps.

Since a wall is ineffective, I don’t see the point of wasting money on it when the huge side effect is it’s terrible PR for the US. That’s before you even get into all of the other issues which include the Fed taking individuals’ property, handing Mexico the huge asset that is complete control of the Rio Grande, wasting money that could be spent on REAL border security where we need it, disrupting animal migration patterns, lack of support among most Americans, etc etc. For me, the wall in-and-of itself is a net loss on multiple levels.

.

rons Thanks America
02/14/19 11:14 am

Why don’t we have a democratic vote on the border at the towns that are there! If they want a wall then build it.

rons Thanks America
02/14/19 11:16 am

Omn, where did you get the info that none of the prototypes were effective? Who ran the test of each wall?

KellyDimples NJ
02/14/19 11:37 am

Omniku, what exactly does REAL border security look like?

historylover
02/14/19 12:02 pm

What is totally effective? Not much. To me, a wall is common sense. It should be combined with other things. Would it be more effective to combine a wall with law enforcement and other resources or have law enforcement patrolling open land? I think the answer is fairly obvious to most people.

KellyDimples NJ
02/14/19 12:20 pm

Common sense to me.

omniku dot com
02/14/19 6:57 pm

Ron, it was a CBP report based on their own testing...

“A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) report on President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall shows more than a dozen points were “breached” during tests along the Mexican border.

Prototypes for the barrier between Mexico and the U.S. failed to meet the standards of “non-penetrable,” with the recently released CBP report revealing that several test teams were able to breach sections of the wall...

In at least one case, test crews were able to make the prototype wall completely “unstable" to the point of collapse.”

www.newsweek.com/border-wall-breach-tests-cbp-report-trump-cost-customs-failure-mexico-1128900

Oof that last paragraph is a doozy!

.

omniku dot com
02/14/19 7:12 pm

Kelly, more CBP personnel, drones, dogs, better intel, and better screening at airports and ports of entry... which is where the vast majority of drugs and all of the foreign terrorists who perpetrated major attacks on America came through.

The same reason the wall doesn’t work is the same reason I need a gun for self-defense… “when seconds count the police are only minutes away.” 😀

A wall that can be scaled, cut through, or bypassed in a couple of hours is useless when average CBP response time is several hours to DAYS. They will arrive just in time to patch the hole in the wall, take away the ladders, etc. It will be a constant closing of barn doors after the cows have left (or come in, in this case). I would rather put the money where it can be effective.

.

omniku dot com
02/14/19 7:13 pm

Plus there are major problems with the wall, a MAJOR one being bad PR. It will reflect very badly on the international stage if we wall off one of our borders. I know I’m old fashioned, but I still believe (to quote Reagan) America is the “shining city on the hill“. The reason we are the world leader is not just because of our power, it’s because we are the good guys. Once countries like China can demonize us as just as bad as them we lose our international clout. I see this as the single biggest risk to building the wall and given that I see little benefit it’s a huge net loss for me.

It’s simple logic, really.

.

KellyDimples NJ
02/14/19 8:45 pm

Well, anything short of changing our catch and release policy, our anchor baby policy, going after employers that hire illegals, deportation, I want a wall. Drones are not a deterrent, they'd be watching people come in. More BP agents - unless they're gonna be lined up every 50 feet along the entire border, it won't be enough. Absolutely boost security at the ports of entry, that should be a no-brainer and should be done already. I don't give a crap about public relations, I give a crap about our security. Most of the world hates us already.

Think Lovin Life
02/13/19 4:36 am

Yes, Border Patrol are police officers, and can go onto private property if they observe or have suspicion that a crime is being committed.

Reply
KellyDimples NJ
02/13/19 6:11 am

Makes sense.

omniku dot com
02/13/19 6:15 am

This, but must have probable cause or it violates the 4th amendment.