« Hair today, gone tomorrow | Main | Three And Out »

Doing squat about border security

One of the founding principles of the United States is property rights. In fact, the first five Amendments of the Bill Of Rights are all based, in part or in whole, in respect for property rights.

But those rights are not limitless. In fact, it’s a principle of law that if you don’t defend your rights to your property, you can lose them.

Companies put a lot into their trademarked names. As a consequence, they have to defend their use fiercely, or they can lose them to public domain. The owners of the names Xerox, Jeep, Q-Tip, and Band-Aid live in terror of ending up like the company that once owned Aspirin.

But it isn’t just abstract property that can be taken away. If you allow people to cross your property freely, eventually they can assert a legal “right of way” and you can’t get in their way.

You can lose more than just the rights to your land. You can lose your property itself. There’s a legal principle called “squatter’s rights.” If someone lives on someone else’s property for 12 years or longer, they can file paperwork and just take the land away from you.

Someday, some wise-guy immigration lawyer is going to cite the above precedents and apply it to the way the US regulates it’s southern border. Through lack of enforcement, he’s going to argue that Mexicans have established a “right-of-way” to enter into our country, and try to get a court to forbid the securing the border (and if it’s the 9th Federal Circuit, he’ll probably get it). The thought gives me cold sweats. And even worse, it makes me want to quote (puke) Pat Buchanan: “For a country that cannot control its borders isn’t fully sovereign; indeed, it is not even a country anymore.”

Comments (9)

Interesting idea. But I am ... (Below threshold)

Interesting idea. But I am less concerned about that abstract, than a bunch of Al Quaeda wack jobs making the entire southern border a nuclear wasteland.
And believe it or not, you just hit one of my conservative spots. The way we handle immigration policy, we might as well just hand Tejas, Nuevo Mexico, Arizona and California back to Mexico, they will annex it soon enough with the ballot box anyway.

Ahem. Maybe Nuevo Mexico, A... (Below threshold)

Ahem. Maybe Nuevo Mexico, Arizona y California, pero no Tejas. Punto.

Did I mention I'm a Texan?

Coincidentally, the local proprietor (Kevin) lives in a county (Loudoun County, Virginia) where the Board of Supervisors last year decided to remove the rights of many landowners to develop their land. Fortunately, the voters decided to kick the bums out, and sanity is returning.

Aligning with your premise, Jay, this is all getting straightened out because the landowners are suing the county for stripping them of control of their property. In this case, at least, our justice system is returning sanity to our fair county.

I've got no clue if I'm approaching anything close to lucid. Too much Scotch.

Ain't life grand?

Boyd whats up you Magnifice... (Below threshold)

Boyd whats up you Magnificent Bastard you!

Y tambien Tejas, su segundo idioma es Espanol!


This was the beginning of t... (Below threshold)

This was the beginning of the end of my voter support for Senatore Dianne Feinstein (well, this and the fact that she wrote to voters, encouraging them to support John Kerry): she has promoted legislation that will bestow citizenship on "undocumented workers" who have lived in the U.S. for ten years or more without committing crimes and who "have paid taxes".

I objected to that, saying that that only encourages illegal immigration and that anyone in the country illegally, working or not, is here illegally and should be dealt with as someone who HAS committed "a crime" and that bestowing someone of such description with citizenship only rewards the behavior.

Feinstein didn't agree and wrote back that "our resources are" limited and that border patrol should be pursuing "undocumented workers" who commit crimes and not those who "live peacefully and pay taxes" (who she feels should receive citizenship instead).

I also asked the Senator why, if someone was in the country illegally ("undocumented worker" she continues to write instead) that when and if they are paying taxes, why haven't they been identified by our government as being "undocumented" and how are they paying those taxes? With forged/fake S.S.numbers? And what if they aren't working but are illegal and in the country, paying taxes, are they also eligible for citizenship?

And, for heaven's sake, why is not an "undocumented worker" in the country NOT someone who is recognized as already having committed a crime? Because they have, but Feinstein won't respond to that, or at least, never did...

The discrepancy in these points astounds me. Our legislators are entrusted to enforce the laws, not provide assistance to those who defy and violate them. Illegal immigration communicates a defiance of our very laws and I can't understand why the violation isn't firmly reprimanded as that.

So, what we now have is: get to the U.S. but disregard the country's laws, stay under the radar for ten years, get a fake S.S. # so withholding can be assessed on your fake identity, and you can be a citizen as long as you remain unknown to law enforcement for ten years of your stay. Senator Feinstein (a Democrat, in case anyone doesn't know that, and a conservative Democrat at that, but an ardent Kerry supporter) says that's worthy of citizenship. I'd say that she's supporting the theory of loss of property by encouraging illegal access, right-of-way across the borders, have full privileges..

Why don't the Democrats also offer them free cakes and cookies? Seems that more funding for the Border Patrol is a better idea than free citizenship for illegal immigrants, um, that'd be, "undocumented workers."

Boyd why dont you, Bo, JT, ... (Below threshold)

Boyd why dont you, Bo, JT, Kevin, The Commissar, Bill, Beck and a few other of you shitkickers come down here to CR and hang with me on the beach for a couple of days. (Along with Oliver of Course) I will invite the models from Tia Zelmira, I promise. ;-)

Interesting. Did you send B... (Below threshold)

Interesting. Did you send Bush a letter after his new Immigration proposal:

Right now, I believe there ... (Below threshold)

Right now, I believe there are active lawsuits regarding 1848's Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which gave the southwest to the U.S. Some people don't consider that treaty valid even today.

However, politically speaking, the attempt to erase our border with Mexico is a bipartisan effort.

John Kerry has an amnesty plan, but so does Bush. While getting the "Hispanic vote" might be part of it, I'd tend to think helping those companies that like cheap, illegal labor plays a big part as well. And, donning our tinfoil, perhaps they're both globalists who don't believe in national sovereignty.

The Bush administration supports letting banks take the Matricula Consular card, which is Mexican ID only of use to illegal aliens. The FBI testified before Congress that the MC card is a security risk.

There were recently a small series of immigration arrests 100 miles from the border in SoCal. The Bush administration caved into pressure from the Mexican government and Mexican-"American" congressman and cancelled the sweeps.

Bush's "point man for immigration," Chris Cannon (R-UT) sat next to an aide on a Spanish-language radio show while the aide suggested ways illegal aliens could donate to Cannon's campaign. Cannon probably speaks Spanish (he did his mission in Central America). The Wall Street Journal ran a column supporting Cannon and smearing immigration reform groups.

Etc. etc. etc.

Regarding the border, the FBI just confirmed that it's investigating a Pakistani woman who crossed illegally and had a fake South African passport. That links to other reports about congressmen complaining about Catch n' Release of Middle Eastern illegal aliens and a report of the arrest of a large group of supposedly Middle Eastern illegal aliens.

David (that's pronounced Da... (Below threshold)

David (that's pronounced Dah-veed, by the way), I've never had any problem with my fellow Texans of Hispanic extraction. We're all Texans.

But being Texans, we'll never again be a part of Mexico. That was settled about 170 years ago, and I feel confident in saying we Texans all feel that way.

And you keep inviting me to CR, you might be surprised one day to see my ugly mug on your doorstep. :)

You know I would be delight... (Below threshold)

You know I would be delighted Boyd. And its only a few hours from Dallas or Houston.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy