Posted on 12/06/2007 1:17:42 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is giving Texas landowners opposed to a border fence one last chance to allow access to their land before he takes court action against them, a Texas senator said Thursday.
Sen. John Cornyn said letters from the Department of Homeland Security are expected to go out Friday. But for those who refuse access, the department would likely seek a court order to enter the property, he said.
"He assured me that negotiations would continue and his hope is the vast majority of these cases could be resolved without litigation, maybe in handful of cases litigation would be required," he said.
A Homeland Security Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
President Bush last year approved 700 miles of fencing and barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. Unlike other states, most land in Texas is in private hands.
Some landowners along the border have opposed government plans to build fencing to curb illegal immigration on the Texas-Mexico border.
"All that will do is fire people up more down here," John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association, said of the impending letters.
"Nothing makes a landowner more unhappy than the idea of condemnation of land, the idea of being forced to turn land over to government," McClung said.
Several members of the group could lose access to the Rio Grande, which they rely on for irrigating crops or to rich farm land that abuts the river.
Opponents have criticized the government for failing to keep them fully informed on fence plans and refusing to listen to residents' proposals for alternatives to the fence. Others say the fence is a waste of taxpayers' money and will hurt border economies.
"It's just a continuation of a battle with our government. We are for security, however the way they are approaching solving security problems, we just disagree with," said McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez. "We just don't see how a non-continuous fence, when you have 6,000 miles of land borders, is going to stop terrorism and illegal immigration. We continue to believe it is a waste of taxpayers' money."
Federal officials say they need access to the land to assess possible sites for the fence. They say the fence is one of several tools being used to curb illegal border crossings, including "virtual fence" and more patrols.
Cornyn said Chertoff told him about 40 landowners have refused to provide access to their land. Of the total, 110 have not responded or can't be located and 258 have given the government the access, a congressional official familiar with the statistics said on condition of anonymity because the Homeland Security Department had not released them.
About 127 miles of land are being considered for the fencing and about 15 miles of that is on property where the government cannot get access, the aide said.
THIS is where a proper exercise of eminent domain is warranted.
I would be in favor a simple choice to those in the pathway.
Do you want to be on the Northside of the fence or the Southside?
Ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
127 miles? Thats all? As for those 15 miles, go around them and they can become citizens of Mexico.
If they want access to the river, why not build a gate?
Otherwise, I’m suspect of the reasons.
If it was just a developer who wanted Mrs. Crabapples acres for a mall, the bulldozers would have already rolled across her house.
So far several US cities have been hit by Islamonazis and Chertoff does NOTHING .. except to delay and work to give them Amnesty.
Chertoff et al simply hope to divide and conquer - pitting private property rights against the constitutionally mandated federal charge to protect the borders - and to delay the construction for as long as possible. We of course won't see any of this humming and hawing with the TTC (or gated retirement complexes).
Livestock can't use keys or unlock combination padlocks.
But, honestly, based on their actions to date, it sounds like the government has no interest in accommodating the landowners or listening to their (legitimate) requirements.
They're being ham-handed. Either, by nature...or intentionally.
John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association opposes the fence. Hmm...Texas Produce Association. Who uses a lot of illegal alien labor?
That’s what makes me think that this is a ploy - that the land selected was picked specifically to cause an uproar and the Chertoff knew at least some landowners would balk.
“...This is hilarious coming from a Democrat Mayor of a federal money sinkhole located 8 miles north of the border.”
Amen. The eastern third of Mexico is receiving US food stamps and WIC payments. Talk about a federal money sinkhole!
The Tennessee Valley Authority was unconstitutional?
I’ve been to McAllen and that whole area. A lot of those land owners are farmers. They can get water from the Rio Grande through pumping and standard plumbing. The real reason they don’t want a fence is because they rely heavily on illegals to work the fields down there, especially the cane fields. This is about super cheap labor.
You may own the land, but you don’t own the border. There is a compelling government interest, here. This is a legitimate use of eminent domain.
Maybe they would prefer it if we fenced around the other side of their property and ceded their land to Mexico so we could have a defensible border...
bttt
Exactly.
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.