by hilzoy
About that fence along the Mexican border: here's a problem I hadn't thought of. Doesn't the border run mostly along the midpoint of the Rio Grande? Why, yes it does, for 1254 of the border's 1951 miles. Are the people who want to build a fence proposing to build 1254 miles of it in the the middle of a largeish river?
" Antonio N. Zavaleta, a vice president and professor of anthropology at the University of Texas branch in Brownsville, saw a slight problem in the route of a border fence that federal officials displayed at a community meeting earlier this month.“Part of our university,” Dr. Zavaleta said, “would be on the Mexican side of the fence.”
What about traffic between classes, he wondered. “Would the students need to show a passport?”
He was not the only one who was startled. Local leaders throughout South Texas have been voicing puzzlement and alarm at the implications of the barrier, which Congress has authorized the Department of Homeland Security to construct along 370 miles of the United States-Mexico border, including 153 miles in Texas, by December 2008.
Some of the gravest concern involves the effect on wildlife in the 90,000 acres of national refuges in South Texas, where bumper stickers read “No Border Wall” and a group of naturalists, Los Caminos del Rio, has been staging ecotourism forays into a long-closed sanctuary to draw attention to endangered habitats.
Customs and Border Protection officials say that the path of the fence is far from settled and that they are discussing it with local officials.
But maps like the one shown in Brownsville on June 4 by Chief David Aguilar of the Border Patrol put the route along a levee built inland to hold back flooding on the Rio Grande. 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, the middle of the Rio Grande."
This is what comes of adopting simplistic solutions: you wind up ceding land to Mexico by mistake. Far better we just put some serious employer sanctions in place and enforce them.
"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.
Posted by: rilkefan | June 20, 2007 at 01:49 AM
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.
Posted by: rilkefan | June 20, 2007 at 01:51 AM
Far better we just put some serious employer sanctions in place and enforce them.
And a pony!
Posted by: Andrew R. | June 20, 2007 at 08:15 AM
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.
Posted by: OCSteve | June 20, 2007 at 09:26 AM
I reiterate my suggestion that if the jingoistic b@stards 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.
Posted by: Ugh | June 20, 2007 at 10:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | June 20, 2007 at 11:47 AM
"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.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | June 20, 2007 at 12:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Dantheman | June 20, 2007 at 12:46 PM
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.
Posted by: Ugh | June 20, 2007 at 12:49 PM
"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').
Posted by: Jamesaust | June 20, 2007 at 02:01 PM
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?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | June 20, 2007 at 05:21 PM
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.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | June 20, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Well… It is not like we much “contest that control” now…
;(
Posted by: OCSteve | June 20, 2007 at 09:26 PM
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.
Posted by: Dantheman | June 20, 2007 at 10:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | June 20, 2007 at 10:58 PM
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?
Posted by: Steve | June 21, 2007 at 11:09 AM
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.
Posted by: Dantheman | June 21, 2007 at 11:21 AM
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.
Posted by: tzs | June 21, 2007 at 01:09 PM
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.
Posted by: Stentor | June 22, 2007 at 12:31 PM