« Rudy Giuliani And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day | Main | Carrot Sticks And Onion Rings »

June 19, 2007

Comments

"That location, some here say, would in effect cede to Mexico the land on the other side of the fence up to the official international border"

As in the Clinton proposal for resolving the I/P conflict, some land swaps would be required. We could for example agree to extend California a bit farther south.

Actually, I'm more concerned about the composition of the multinational force that would monitor the border and enforce the agreed-upon policies about water rights and so forth.

Far better we just put some serious employer sanctions in place and enforce them.

And a pony!

Blue Dog Democrats in the House go for enforcement only?

Is Pelosi going to risk those seats by twisting their arms to vote for what their constituents will see as an amnesty bill?

A shot across the bow from House Republicans?

In a sharp rebuke to President Bush, House Republicans unveiled legislation Tuesday that would bar illegal immigrants from gaining legal status in the U.S., require tamper-proof birth certificates for Americans and make English the nation's official language.

The measure's core principles include gaining control of the border and enforcing existing immigration laws. It does not provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as the Bush plan does.

This is starting to get interesting – at least in the House.

I reiterate my suggestion that if the jingoistic [email protected] who really want to build this fence were actually that serious about border security they would provide funds for lining the border with anti-personnel mines and cluster bomblets.

The fact that they're not willing to do this just shows that the only reason for a useless fence is to appeal to the fears of that portion of the population who feels threatened by anyone who's not white and doesn't speak English (which includes a good number of my relatives, sadly).

That or they could just get gay.

This is what comes of adopting simplistic solutions: you wind up ceding land to Mexico by mistake.

Dunno about international borders, but if I build a fence that's one foot over to my side of the property line, the property between the fence and the line is still mine.

Without that, though, the fence is still unsmart.

"they would provide funds for lining the border with anti-personnel mines and cluster bomblets."

I dare say that it would be improper to line the border with mines, without first fencing off the area the mines were to be placed. So, everything in it's proper time.

Slarti,

"but if I build a fence that's one foot over to my side of the property line, the property between the fence and the line is still mine."

Initially yes, but over long periods of time if the parties are acting as if the fence is the dividing line (e.g., the other person mowes the land between the property line and the fence), under the doctrine of adverse possession (a/k/a squatter's rights), that will not be true.

it would be improper to line the border with mines, without first fencing off the area the mines were to be placed

Nope, all you need is a bunch of signs saying "Warning: Minefield" - of course, they'll all be in English as that will be the official language by then.

"Far better we just put some serious employer sanctions in place and enforce them."

I guess you are under the mistaken assumption that the typical "illegal" alien doesn't present valid work information.

Absent a police state with mandatory identification documents (which identifies the entire set of "legal" workers), you can't really eliminate forged identifications (and those outside of the set of "legal" workers).

But that'll never happen because the first subject change after the introduction of government identification cards into public conversation is the topic of 'black helicopters' (quickly followed by 'one world government').

Initially yes, but over long periods of time if the parties are acting as if the fence is the dividing line (e.g., the other person mowes the land between the property line and the fence), under the doctrine of adverse possession (a/k/a squatter's rights), that will not be true.

Sure, but if the property owner continues to maintain that strip, all of that goes out the window. I mean, if I put a fence around my garden, that does not entitle my neighbors to divvy up the rest of my property. Or does it?

Traditionally "adverse possession" requires the other party to assert control over the territory in question, and that you not contest that control. Putting a fence along side the border where putting it on the border isn't feasible scarcely precludes mantaining control over our territory on the other side of the fence. Presumable we WILL be capable of crossing the fence ourselves, it's only meant to slow intruders enough that somebody can arrive before the intruders disappear into the local population.

Well… It is not like we much “contest that control” now…
;(

Slarti,

"Sure, but if the property owner continues to maintain that strip, all of that goes out the window."

Exactly. That's why I said "if the parties are acting as if the fence is the dividing line". The conduct of the parties matters.

I'd imagine that the conduct of only one party matters: the party whose property it is.

The other guy can do what he likes, provided he doesn't break any laws.

It seems like it might get a lot harder to use your land productively if the government put a big fence in the middle of it. Are you supposed to climb over the fence to plant your string beans?

Slarti,

"I'd imagine that the conduct of only one party matters: the party whose property it is.

The other guy can do what he likes, provided he doesn't break any laws."

Not really. The conduct of the party who is claiming to be the new owner through adverse possession is equally important. Go back to the example of a fence a foot off from the property line. If the person who has title to the land does not maintain it, and the person who does not have title to it does, after the passage of the period for adverse possession, the party who does not have title can claim it. On the other hand, if neither party maintained it, the person who does not have title has not acted as if he has control over it, and would not be able to claim the land by adverse possession.

Also, the party who does not have title to the land is violating the law -- entering property which is not yours and which you have not been invited onto is called trespassing. Therefore, the party who has title can bring an action for damages due to the trespass from the party who is not in title maintaining the land before the period for adverse possession expired.

And no matter what, I bet rabbits and the neighbor's dog will STILL get through.

Didn't we learn anything from China and the Great Wall? That didn't work, either.

This is actually better than what I would have cynically expected, which is that we'd be trying to twist Mexico's arm into letting us build the fence on *their* levee.

Didn't we learn anything from China and the Great Wall? That didn't work, either.

I don't think the US-Mexico wall will work, but the Great Wall of China was about stopping military invasions. I'd rather not use analogies that validate paranoia about the literal reconquest of the southwest.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad