Alternatively, the government can go to court with counterclaims regarding the location of the boundary. There the landowner stands a chance of losing any compensation at all.
Another option would be to build the fence AROUND the distrungled property owner conveniently leaving him on the Mexican side (with no entrance into the US).
Of all the solutions possible I prefer moving the border to the North. If these guys don't want to play ball with the US, then the US shouldnt play ball with them.
The fence should be built where there is no river. Not that many people try to cross the river especially in
Brownsville. It is deeper and wider at the mouth of the Rio Grande river. Not many people try to swim it.
Think about it. With only 700 miles of fencing approved, the fence should be built where there is not a barrier already. It should be built where that scraggly bobwire fence is.
The Dept. Of Homeland wanted to place the fence where it isn’t necessarily needed.
Gov. Perry certainly thinks the state of Texas has the right of eminent domain to take the land from farmers for the Trans Texas corridor, so surely the US should have that same right along its southern border. Let’s have some consistency here.
Ayiii, NO, Señor! That would REDUCE local tax revenue, so the government can't use eminent domain. See Kelo.... /sarc>
I like #3. :)
Nah, just use ‘electronic’ means for that stretch. There are other places along the border where a physical fence would not work, so they’re planning electronic monitoring in those places, why not here, as well?