Skip to comments.Border Fence Could Cut Through Backyards
Posted on 11/09/2007 3:31:11 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner
GRANJENO, Texas (AP) - Founded 240 years ago, this sleepy Texas town along the Rio Grande has outlasted the Spanish, then the Mexicans and then the short-lived independent Republic of Texas. But it may not survive the U.S. government's effort to secure the Mexican border with a steel fence.
A map obtained by The Associated Press shows that the double- or triple-layer fence may be built as much as two miles from the river on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, leaving parts of Granjeno and other nearby communities in a potential no-man's-land between the barrier and the water's edge.
Based on the map and what the residents have been told, the fence could run straight through houses and backyards. Some fear it could also cut farmers off from prime farmland close to the water.
"We want to be safe, but it's just that this is not a good plan," said Cecilia Benavides, whose riverfront land in Roma, about 50 miles upriver from Granjeno, was granted to the family by the Spanish in "It gives Mexico the river and everything that's behind that wall. It doesn't make any sense to me."
"Are we going to lose prime farmland because they are going to build a structure that's not going to work?" Salinas asked. "You're moving the border, basically two miles. You're giving it up to Mexico, and the U.S.-Mexico treaties say you are not supposed to do that."
Homeland Security documents on a department Web site say that "in some cases, secure gates will be constructed to allow land owners access to their private property near the Rio Grande." But the documents offer few details.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Too bad. Keep building.
Since there is no question about the Government being able to take over land from landowners, I would rather it be condemned to build a border wall instead of a highway or lake.
I don’t care if it cuts through whatever, build the damn fence.
As long as it's not your backyard or farm being f'ed up, right?
Ceding 2 miles of territory and the Rio Grande to Mexico is criminal. Build the wall, yes, but build it on the freakin border.
But isn't the border the middle of the river?
“Homeland Security documents on a department Web site say that “in some cases, secure gates will be constructed to allow land owners access to their private property near the Rio Grande.” But the documents offer few details.”
Some people will be leaving the gates open you know. Why the buffer zone?
“But officials say that putting the fence right up against the river could interfere with its flow during a flood and change its course, illegally altering the border”
Looks like environmentalists at work to me, getting a two-fer here by destroying public property and discrediting border control efforts.
“They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate countless worlds, and we fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they have done!” — Picard, to Lily
Maybe, but I don't see how a fence right along a river bank would work from purely engineering perspective. You need to be able to access it easily for repairs, maintenance, etc, and that requires access roads on both sides of the fence.
Your point is well taken. Giving up excess land makes no sense, and the line should be “hugged” as much as possible. But wherever the line is drawn, you’re always going to have a number of parties pissin’ and moanin’ about the unfairness of it all. Tough tamales. It happens all the time where highways or other public works projects cause forfeitures. But the politically charged nature of this project is going to amplify the caterwauling to the degree that one will think we are beheading their children or something. We must persevere and get this done. End of story.
Sarcastically its a shame the Berlin Wall couldn’t have been saved and reused at our southern border.
There must be a buffer zone or else it would be way too easy to have concealed tunnels in houses.
...Or a shopping mall, marina, and business park in New London, CT that primarily benefits private developers rather than the public good.
Here’s a better idea: declare war on Mexico, take two miles of their river edge land, and build a wall THERE.
Thinking about it, declaring war on Mexico has great possibilities. Every illegal alien from Mexico could be declared an enemy combatant or an illegal combatant or an illegal enemy combatant.
No, it doesn't change ownership. You still own all the land on the other side of your fence. And it protects 98% of your land from the migrations onto your 2%.
The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, from escaping a communist prison.
A better analogy would be Israel's West Bank wall. We really need a wall, not a fence.
It's really too bad that we even need the fence. If Mexico's economy was operating at its potential and there was less political corruption, and if we enforced our immigration and employment laws, maybe we wouldn't need a fence. Lot's of "ifs". Under the circumstances, however, we need it.
Looks like a reversal of history? Either way about who wants a wall, fence, moat or “barrier” its either we build it and be dammed or ratify a reason to NOT build it like invading Mexico, making illegals “combatants” etc. to make an ultimatum that this is OUR border and those that wish to live in OUR borders MUST adhere to our laws and policies, sadly I think the latter will never work.
Yep, compensate and or move them
Getting desperate with their excuses.
Build the fence!
The Rio Grande doesn't appear to be the most cooperative of international borders.
I'm sure the flood plain and places where the river formerly flowed are fertile farmland, and it can be challenging for residents who use the river as a water supply for drinking or irrigation.
However, there really isn't an easy or simple solution, and the fence needs to be built.
The fence should be built on the Border. Not two miles inside the Border.
Heck, I have had the Mexican/US border as a boundary fence for a ranch. Every night, pull all the batteries from every vehicle. Otherwise, either the rig or the battery will be gone in the morning.
Sure it can. We build bridge pylons in the middle of rivers and bays.
Who is designing this fence and deciding on it's location? Is this a case of "malicious compliance" on the part of disgruntled HSD bureaucrats? Seems to me that a little creative thinking and ingenuity could solve this problem. It doesn't need to be a physical fence or wall with a wide buffer zone, it just needs to keep illegals out.
The fence through this area will mostly be built atop of existing levees, which is the logical place to put it. The river meanders wildly through this area and to put the fence directly on the river would increase the fence's length at least three fold. Also if the fence were built along the river you have to figure in the additional cost that building it across every creek, arroyo and gully would add.
Better than illegals cutting through backyards.
Compensate the landowners and keep building.
A mine field would be nice.
A free fire zone?
Border security fence vs. eminent domain...an irresistible force hitting an immovable object?
I am on the side of the homeowner. They were there first. I feel the same way about the idiots who complain about the noise coming from an air base because they moved in AFTER the base was there for eighty years. I say too bad. Government find a way to go around the area.
Too bad. Keep building.
They were there first!!! Stop being rude. These people probably saved their entire lives. The government should have built the fence years and years ago before people were living there. Governments problem to fix not the homeowners.
Anything short of a physical fence will allow subjective policies and political leanings to rule the day. This process has been toyed with for far too long. Concrete measures are called for, both literally and figuratively.
You might find this article interesting then.
See my post #37
Yep, compensate and or move them
I think whoever is effected should get 1 million dollars. They are being inconvienced so they should be paid. Plus the fussing will stop. lol.
Rivers change their course. I can visualize a part of the fence ending up in Mexico. Or being dependent on access to Mexico to do repairs and maintenance. Wouldn't that be a mess.
I understand why it seems distasteful but to me building the fence just slightly north of the border makes sense.
So no roads, schools, or other services can ever be built because “ someone got there first”? Good thing the founders where more reasonable than you.
Sorry, the Constitution is the law of the land, and it provides for eminent domain.
Please step aside and allow the construction crews to continue.
It doesn’t really matter if the fence is built exactly on the border, a mile on the US side, or 500 yards from the river’s high water mark - the net intent is to stop unchecked entries into the US and controlled, secure gates at entry checkpoints to allow landowners back onto their unsecured land is the best method to check the flow of illegals.
It might “inconvenience” the landowner, but you could call it just another cost of doing business along the border. Better their inconvenience than the whole nation’s.
So, because these people were there first, our country forfeits its right to protect its borders? That’s ludicrous. If there were another terrorist attack (God forbid), by people who slipped across our Southern border, I’d love to hear you explain to the survivors’ families, “We tried to stop them, but we didn’t want to be rude!”
Oh see now that pisses me off. I was sticking up for these loons and they go and try to play games. I was even being liberal in my views for the sake of these families and I NEVER normally do that. See they just changed the way I believe the situation should go. Put up the fence and no more games.
lol. That does sound funny now that you explained it that way.
No comparison, the Berlin Wall was meant to keep people in. This wall is meant to keep people out. I lived four years in Berlin while the wall was still in place, I know the difference. So did JFK:
"Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us."
"While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your mayor has said, an offence not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.
as I recall East Germany did NOT want its citizens to move West toward democracy while now we wish to defend it from being weakened from freedom seeking immigrants, maybe history will repeat itself.
These aren't "freedom seeking immigrants." They have come here for jobs and are sending back to Mexico over $20 billion a year. Some of them are also coming here to reclaim what they consider to be part of Mexico. If you can't see the difference between a divided country wanting unification [Germany] and an invasion from Mexico, I feel sorry for you.
That wouldn’t stop drug mules and potential terrorists from just popping in anytime they choose.
A reasonable accommodation is always made when property owners are aggrieved by such policies. It’s not like they’ll be exiled to Minnesota!