A humble proposal concerning Trump's wall.

[TomSlick]

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I propose that Congress appropriate the money Trump wants but only for the purpose of acquiring the necessary privately owned property by purchase or eminent domain. Given how long eminent domain proceedings would take, Trump would be long gone before they are completed. Better yet, when the federal government actually starts seizing private property the Republicans along the boarder will come unhinged.

My suspicion is that the first set of property seizures would be the end of the wall.

[dubyadiprecession]

1. I could see Trump lying to his supporters by telling them ...

(after some sort of funding is secured).. "The wall will now be built at a rapid pace, now that we have the money to build it".
His dopey supporters would of course believe him, and not understand anything about lengthy time lines for acquiring property through imminent domain.

[TomSlick]

2. Sure.

But if Trump told his supporters that the sun rose in the West, they would believe that too.

My point is that it would end the shutdown and not build a wall. In 2020, it would be abundantly clear to any other than the most die-hard Trump supporters that there has been no progress toward building a wall.

[dubyadiprecession]

4. If funding (even a small amount) is secured, they would still see him as a strong leader.

Even though the wall may realistically, never get built.

[TomSlick]

10. True, but how may federal employees and contractors

are we willing to sacrifice to deny him his victory? Democrats must govern. In this case, that means being the adults in the room. I think my solution gives Trump a pyrrhic victory.

[mr_lebowski]

12. I like your thinking ... ultimately, we need people back to work and the government functioning (nt)

[TomSlick]

14. Thanks.

From the other replies, we appear to be in the minority.

[mr_lebowski]

16. NP. And I'm just way beyond GAF how much the deplorables wanna dangle from his n*ts*ck ...

Because they're gonna dangle no matter what.

Our side SHOULD get concessions, even in the scenario you describe, however. We can't come off looking like we totally caved. Not cause I care about how his followers will perceive him and his 'victory', cause they're a buncha knuckle-dragging cult members.

Rather, because I care about morale on our side, if we give him $$$, while getting nothing we want.

[TomSlick]

17. I can accept that.

[k8conant]

3. "eminent domain" and a few articles about it and the "wall"

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/424656-texas-landowners-preparing-to-fight-eminent-domain-over
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/07/eminent-domain-emergency-powers-and-trum
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/09/texas-landowners-face-eminent-domain-land-fights/

[TomSlick]

6. I have handled eminent domain cases both for the condemning authority and the land owner.

My unshakable conclusion in my part of Arkansas - across the Red River from Texas - is that juries don't much like them. The jury reward will almost always be a multiple of the actual value.

The Republican party used to be opposed to seizing private property as a matter of policy. I suspect that when the first bit of border land is seized, the Texas Republican party will remind Trump of that fact.

(Thanks for the proof reading.)

[WeekiWater]

5. There is only one thing I would accept in giving him the wall.

Fast track to citizenship for all undocumented people in the US. No penalties. No drawn out process. They are already living here. Criminal background checks and then citizenship. Not tied to any metric of wall completion. The additional resources needed would have to be funded in the same proposal as the wall.

Your proposal is simply putting money up for a difficult aspect of building the wall. An aspect that won’t even hold the wall up as long as litigation over environmental concerns. We already have that fight to hold it up without giving in to anything. How about we fight for those living in the shadows.

[TomSlick]

7. I agree with such a deal as a matter of policy.

I don't see that kind of reasonable compromise as being in the cards. My proposal is to give Trump money the spending of which will end the wall.

I think it would be giving Trump the rope needed to hang himself.

[WeekiWater]

9. I think it would excite his base...

And set the stage for the wall. It will keep one of the GOP’s greatest rallying cries in place and give them another reason to support it. It is, in concept, acceptance of the wall. It would be Democrats agreeing to the wall. Why fund ID if you aren’t for it? It’s a running head start.

Democrats need to keep it about those being harmed.

[TomSlick]

11. My theory is that the federal government actually moving to seize private property

will be the death knell of the idea. I agree the base would be excited but I do not think they would be pleased.

[GusBob]

13. Since you know of eminent don't main

I heard on a radio program today that there are 90
cases being litigated from when Bush tried to seize land for a fence.

Could this be true?

[TomSlick]

15. I have heard a similar report.

That seems a long time but I practice in Arkansas - not Texas.