Check this out:
A federal judge has ordered a Texas woman to allow the government to survey her land in connection with the ongoing construction of the Southern border security fence, the latest victory for the Department of Homeland Security in a series of legal skirmishes arising from construction of the immigration-control measure.Eloisa Tamez has been a leading figure in opposition to the fence. The federal government sued Tamez and dozens of other landowners in its efforts to complete construction of the 670-mile physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border. The law calling for the building and funding of that border fence was passed in 2006 by the former GOP Congress.
'The government is hereby granted the right to survey, make borings, and conduct related investigations on [Tamez's] tract of land,' said the ruling issued late Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
* * *
Bonus points to the first liberal law student who can figure out a way to complain the Bush administration is not doing enough to control illegal immigration and simultaneously to complain the Bush administration should not be invoking its eminent domain powers to acquire land on which it actually can build the border security fence. That would take real talent.
* * *
Here's a link to Reuters' version of events.
* * *
P.S. -- The judge who issued that ruling, Andrew Hanen, was nominated by George W. Bush. Ironic, huh?
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Judges, Justice, Law
Comments (5)
easy. stipulating that a f... (Below threshold)1. Posted by steve sturm | April 11, 2008 10:56 PM | Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
easy. stipulating that a fence is an inefficient and ineffective way of stopping illegal immigration, especially compared to more effective deterrents (like shooting illegals and those who, knowingly or not, employ them*), building a fence is by definition not doing enough to combat illegal immigration. And being a waste of money and effort, said fence provides no significant benefit to society and thus doesn't rise to the level of a justifiable use of eminent domain. how's that?
*TIAJANTBTS
1. Posted by steve sturm | April 11, 2008 10:56 PM |
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 11, 2008 22:56
2. Posted by Retired E9 | April 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Heh. Notice that the property was part of the orignal land grants after the war with Mexico? I'm surprised a Mexican lawyer's not calling for the land to revert to Mexico.
2. Posted by Retired E9 | April 12, 2008 12:14 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on April 12, 2008 12:14
3. Posted by XBradTC | April 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well this is certainly more in line with the purpose of emminent domain than the Kelo purpose.
3. Posted by XBradTC | April 12, 2008 3:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 12, 2008 15:50
4. Posted by Ryan | April 13, 2008 5:42 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I'm not really sure what to say about this. As a property owner, I'm outraged that the Feds would come in and tell me what to do with the land that I own. On the other hand, as a property owner in Utah, I have a couple other states cushioning me from this type of bullshit. I'm glad I don't own any border property. I mean seriously, If I was in some of these people's shoes, I'd rather some Mexicans cross my land to find a job than let the Feds destroy my land with an ugly Berlin Wall.
4. Posted by Ryan | April 13, 2008 5:42 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on April 13, 2008 05:42
5. Posted by Joseph Kahn | April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Didn't we Remove the Berlin wall? what was that about... won't we be hypocrites if we put up a wall between Mexico y los estados unidos?
5. Posted by Joseph Kahn | April 17, 2008 12:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 17, 2008 12:39