You're not cediing [bleep]. The historic border remains the same..
BS.
Anything you don't hold, you cede.
Who is saying Cede It? Our law enforcement, national guard, government entities, etc. would still be there south of I10 protecting our soil and citizens...
By your logic we already ceded it to the Mexicans long ago. Whats the percentage of White/ Black to Mexican ratio now south of I10?
Why not hold the fuggin BORDER?
If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
I'm done with this BS thread. Holy crap.
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
The objections you just stated about the border wall being built,,,,wouldn’t the same apply along the I-10 corridor that you proffer ?
Take your time, think about it.
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
[quote]If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
Quote
The objections you just stated about the border wall being built,,,,wouldn’t the same apply along the I-10 corridor that you proffer ?
Take your time, think about it.
Would it be easier access for equipment to build and maintain a wall on I10 instead of the actual border? Obviously, yes...
Would it be easier to control, monitor, etc...Obviously, yes...
Would their be Eminant domain issues? No...The FEDs/ States already own the Interstate and highways and land near them...
Access to water issues? No...Nothing would change. Nobody is cut off from water.
Environmental group problems, Maybe? They wouldnt have much of an argument considering their is already a big ass interstate there...And, there are already tons of walls on Interstates everywhere...Besides, you wouldn't need the wall the entire length of the Interstate...Just in remote areas outside cities and towns...Cameras could be used closer to Cities and Towns...If they are worried about animals getting across the Interstate, then tunnels like the ones used very successfully for elk crossings could be put under the Interstate in strategic places...Its actually safer for them than crossing the Interstate...The tunnels could be monitored, controlled with cameras....We would have a great shot at winning this. Good luck winning down on the actual border where you are going to have to build roads through untouched land in a lot of cases just to get equipment in to build the wall.
Politicians? The DEMS say they are all for more security and especially security at ports of entry, but who knows what the fuggers would do next, so 50/50 here...
If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
[quote]The objections you just stated about the border wall being built,,,,wouldn’t the same apply along the I-10 corridor that you proffer ?
Take your time, think about it.
Eminant domain, no...The FEDs/ States already own the Interstate and highways and land near them right?
Access to water , no...Nothing would change. Nobody is cut off from water.
Environmental groups, Maybe? They wouldnt have much of an argument considering their is already a big ass interstate there...And, there are already tons of walls on Interstates everywhere...Besides, you wouldn't need the wall the entire length of the Interstate...
Politicians. The DEMS say they are all for more security at ports of entry...So, 50/50 here...
Ahh, I see. Thanks a million.
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
I've always wondered, why don't they just build the barrier/ smart wall for border security along Interstate 10 from California all the way through Texas? No eminant domain issues, no problems with access, etc ...Im not talking about a land give away to Mexico...Any of the U.S.ranchers/ people/ cities south of the wall would still be on US soil up to the historic border with Mexico...They could get access in and out of the smart wall through ports of entry/ exit in the wall where their is 24/7 security and border patrol, scanners, etc...They would also still be under the protection of our law enforcement and military, national guard, etc. south of the smart wall. We could have facial recognition software at the ports of entry on I10 and actually be able to deport criminals and stop them from coming back to 90 plus percent of the country...
Try jumping that wall or smuggle people or drugs and not be caught at a port of entry or seen by the general public on the Interstate...Obviously, only build it where needed along the Interstate...
They would also have to change the stupid asylum laws about stepping foot on U.S. soil and getting automatic refugee status if they qualify.
I cant beleive this is the 1st time i seen this thread.
This has to be the 2019 dumbest post of the year .....
God bless Texas----------------------- Old 300 I will remain what i am until the day I die- A HUNTER......Sitting Bull Its not how you pick the booger.. but where you put it !! Roger V Hunter
[quote]If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
If a wall is built on the border, most of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land.
Would it be easier access for equipment to build and maintain a wall on I10 instead of the actual border? Obviously, yes...
Would it be easier to control, monitor, etc...Obviously, yes...
Would their be Eminant domain issues? No...The FEDs/ States already own the Interstate and highways and land near them...
If a wall is built on the border, virtually all of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land. Besides, thanks to our our last Democrat in the White House and the congress during his administration, current law allows the feds to take land within a relatively large corridor adjacent to the border for border security purposes with no condemnation or compensation.
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
[quote]If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
If a wall is built on the border, most of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land.
Would it be easier access for equipment to build and maintain a wall on I10 instead of the actual border? Obviously, yes...
Would it be easier to control, monitor, etc...Obviously, yes...
Would their be Eminant domain issues? No...The FEDs/ States already own the Interstate and highways and land near them...
If a wall is built on the border, virtually all of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land. Besides, thanks to our our last Democrat in the White House and the congress during his administration, current law allows the feds to take land within a relatively large corridor adjacent to the border for border security purposes with no condemnation or compensation.
The Roosevelt Easement is only good for 700 out of 1900 plus miles of the border. It's in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. What do you do about all the ranchers in Texas on the Rio Grande or valley on North side of Rio Grande needing the water? You think you can take their land for nothing without a lawsuit? A lady in South Texas already got 50 plus grand for 1 acre of her land in a lawsuit plus a gate in the border wall with a code she can open it up with...That's just 1 lawsuit....
Why would the government have to take a bunch of land near I10?, they already own it in both bar ditches all up and down I10...
If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
If a wall is built on the border, most of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land.
Would it be easier access for equipment to build and maintain a wall on I10 instead of the actual border? Obviously, yes...
Would it be easier to control, monitor, etc...Obviously, yes...
Would their be Eminant domain issues? No...The FEDs/ States already own the Interstate and highways and land near them...
If a wall is built on the border, virtually all of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land. Besides, thanks to our our last Democrat in the White House and the congress during his administration, current law allows the feds to take land within a relatively large corridor adjacent to the border for border security purposes with no condemnation or compensation.
The Roosevelt Easement is only good for 700 out of 1900 plus miles of the border. It's in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. What do you do about all the ranchers in Texas on the Rio Grande or valley on North side of Rio Grande needing the water? You think you can take their land for nothing without a lawsuit? A lady in South Texas already got 50 plus grand for 1 acre of her land in a lawsuit plus a gate in the border wall with a code she can open it up with...That's just 1 lawsuit....
Why would the government have to take a bunch of land near I10?, they already own it in both bar ditches all up and down I10...
Originally Posted by The_Chadster
Originally Posted by mudhen
[quote=The_Chadster]
Quote
Why not hold the fuggin BORDER?
Quote
If you are going to the time, trouble and expense you propose in this insane thread, why not just put the efforts on the damn border?
Because it's impossible to build a border wall the length of the actual border. The freaking imminent domain lawsuits alone will last for years. Most of it is in remote ass places we cannot get to easily...The changing politicians will never ever let it happen..The Environmental Protection groups will never let it happen....The ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley needing access to the water will never let it happen...The list goes on and on...It is a pipe dream man. It would take decades to get it done. Every kind of lawsuit people can think of to stop it from happening...
If a wall is built on the border, most of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land.
Would it be easier access for equipment to build and maintain a wall on I10 instead of the actual border? Obviously, yes...
Would it be easier to control, monitor, etc...Obviously, yes...
Would their be Eminant domain issues? No...The FEDs/ States already own the Interstate and highways and land near them...
If a wall is built on the border, virtually all of it would be constructed on the Roosevelt Easement (google it). Putting it on I-10 would require way more condemnation of private and state-owned land. Besides, thanks to our our last Democrat in the White House and the congress during his administration, current law allows the feds to take land within a relatively large corridor adjacent to the border for border security purposes with no condemnation or compensation.
The Roosevelt Easement is only good for 700 out of 1900 plus miles of the border. It's in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. What do you do about all the ranchers in Texas on the Rio Grande or valley on North side of Rio Grande needing the water? You think you can take their land for nothing without a lawsuit? A lady in South Texas already got 50 plus grand for 1 acre of her land in a lawsuit plus a gate in the border wall with a code she can open it up with...That's just 1 lawsuit....
Why would the government have to take a bunch of land near I10?, they already own it in both bar ditches all up and down I10...
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
