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.
(snip)
"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."
(snip)
"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 ...
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.
Damned right!
A reasonable accommodation is always made when property owners are aggrieved by such policies. It’s not like they’ll be exiled to Minnesota!
A fence is nothing more than a physical barrier that is a force multiplier, i.e., you need less people to control the border. It is neither good or bad, anymore than the front door on your house is.
It should be built where it makes the most sense from an engineering and topographical point of view.
The further back the fence is the more territory will become a “No Man’s Land”. At one time in Texas, the land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande River was just such a place. Both Mexico and Texas (and later the U.S.) claimed it.
The Texas Rangers took decades and the lives of countless Mexican Bandidos (and others) to basically reconquer this area.
Today, we can no longer use the same tactics as the Rangers did. We’re too PC.
Resistance is futile.
Maybe it’s me but I would WANT a fence by my house?
In the grand scheme of things, it really isn’t that significant in terms of territory lost or gained due to a meandering river. If we have a defineable, enforcable border, that is sufficient for me. We should build the fence with that in mind.
why two miles inland?
just build it on the river.
The MSM suddenly discovers property rights.
If the BP is guarding on the two miles of the other side of the fence it isn’t giving the land up if no one is allowed to build there. Give the people that are already living there the opportunity to stay or sell. There are people that have private property on federal land behind fences. This could actually be reserved as a wilderness area for camping, rafting, etc like in Big Bend.
Then I guess you guys won’t have a problem with the government giving your land and/or houses to them as compensation. Thats good because border fence proponents are the ones who should pay for the fence. The rest of us understand that illegal immigration will continue as long as illegals are able to get welfare benefits, free health care, and jobs in the US. It’s an offer worth thousands of dollars and one too good for illegals to pass up no matter what the difficulty or cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.