Trump's Executive Order Calls for Concentration Camps for Undocumented Immigrants

[Elixir]

Compensation amounts are always negotiable.

You've never worked on a project that took property using eminent domain before, have you? Guns and the police getting involved isn't unheard of. And some people don't want to give up their property and will fight it a long way.

What WP calls "negotiable" informs of his ignorance. How many times have YOU tried to "negotiate" seizure by eminent domain, WP?
Let me guess: ZERO.
Amirite?

 

[Trausti]

You've never worked on a project that took property using eminent domain before, have you? Guns and the police getting involved isn't unheard of. And some people don't want to give up their property and will fight it a long way.

What WP calls "negotiable" informs of his ignorance. How many times have YOU tried to "negotiate" seizure by eminent domain, WP?
Let me guess: ZERO.
Amirite?

Suppose a positive thing about Trump's wall is it makes lefties appreciate property rights.

 

[rousseau]

I don't understand what your end game is here? Why would someone capable of stringing a sentence together say anything supporting the Trump regime right now?

Because it is their job?

Ok, in that case.. whichphilosophy you should stop doing your job

 

[DrZoidberg]

Compensation amounts are always negotiable.

No, compensation amounts are not always negotiable. Although this is generally left up to the States, they legally only need to provide "just compensation", which is generally taken to mean the fair market value. Not all States have the same idea of what is fair. When it comes to negotiation, one side has all the power, as the feds can also simply take the property by passing an act, and forcing the landowner to sue the government for any compensation at all. Knowing Trump, this is the tactic his administration would take with anyone who decides to "negotiate".

Also, people tend to let go of property when they can get a good price. Eminent domain can force people to sell regardless of where the market is.

And then there's the issue of that most people consistently over value their own property. Most people wouldn't recognise a fair deal even if they get it

 

[whichphilosophy]

You've never worked on a project that took property using eminent domain before, have you? Guns and the police getting involved isn't unheard of. And some people don't want to give up their property and will fight it a long way.

What WP calls "negotiable" informs of his ignorance. How many times have YOU tried to "negotiate" seizure by eminent domain, WP?
Let me guess: ZERO.
Amirite?

I'm not aware that seizing land was legal in the USA. If the land is needed just like any other projects compensation is something to negotiate.

 

[Elixir]

What WP calls "negotiable" informs of his ignorance. How many times have YOU tried to "negotiate" seizure by eminent domain, WP?
Let me guess: ZERO.
Amirite?

I'm not aware that seizing land was legal in the USA.

Is that supposed to surprise anyone? Nope, just another item on the list of things you are not aware of, upon which you propound nonetheless.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Because it is their job?

Ok, in that case.. whichphilosophy you should stop doing your job

I merely provide reality checks.

 

[Elixir]

Ok, in that case.. whichphilosophy you should stop doing your job

I merely provide reality checks.

You might want to have THAT checked...
Your "reality checks" are bouncing all over this place.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I merely provide reality checks.

You might want to have THAT checked...
Your "reality checks" are bouncing all over this place.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, compensation amounts are not always negotiable. Although this is generally left up to the States, they legally only need to provide "just compensation", which is generally taken to mean the fair market value. Not all States have the same idea of what is fair. When it comes to negotiation, one side has all the power, as the feds can also simply take the property by passing an act, and forcing the landowner to sue the government for any compensation at all. Knowing Trump, this is the tactic his administration would take with anyone who decides to "negotiate".

Also, people tend to let go of property when they can get a good price. Eminent domain can force people to sell regardless of where the market is.

And then there's the issue of that most people consistently over value their own property. Most people wouldn't recognise a fair deal even if they get it

Yet if it is worthwhile to the buyer he may well pay more than the real value.

In the UK some years ago a cop bought a small piece of land as investment for GBP10,000. (I think around 1986). The same day a developer bought it for GBP100,000.
When asked about it, the developer said he had a good deal.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not aware that seizing land was legal in the USA.

Is that supposed to surprise anyone? Nope, just another item on the list of things you are not aware of, upon which you propound nonetheless.

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

 

[Elixir]

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

There are actually mechanisms for exactly that. More commonly, an amount is offered and it doesn't matter if that amount is totally unacceptable to the owner.
You really should try to educate yourself outside of the Miscavige Compound before telling people what they "should" do. You'd look less a fool...

 

[KeepTalking]

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

Yes. Congress can pass an act to take any citizens land with no compensation whatsoever. It is then up to the citizen to sue the government for compensation. As we are currently under the thumb of Don Cheeto Mussolini, and his party has control of both houses of Congress, I will not be surprised if this exact scenario plays out when some land owner on the border decides to "negotiate" with Prima Donald. He should also have the Supreme Court stacked in his favor by then, so suing Putin's Puppet government likely won't help much either.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

Yes. Congress can pass an act to take any citizens land with no compensation whatsoever. It is then up to the citizen to sue the government for compensation. As we are currently under the thumb of Don Cheeto Mussolini, and his party has control of both houses of Congress, I will not be surprised if this exact scenario plays out when some land owner on the border decides to "negotiate" with Prima Donald. He should also have the Supreme Court stacked in his favor by then, so suing Putin's Puppet government likely won't help much either.

I would think it is cheaper to come to a reasonable solution than to waste time in the courts.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

There are actually mechanisms for exactly that. More commonly, an amount is offered and it doesn't matter if that amount is totally unacceptable to the owner.
You really should try to educate yourself outside of the Miscavige Compound before telling people what they "should" do. You'd look less a fool...

When the Chinese government built the 3 Gorges Dam it compensated the 5 million people as far as I am informed and built new towns and cities. The US government should compensate them.

So the US system is unfair and this should be reformed.

So when something sensible or desirable is not done, we use the word Should.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

There are actually mechanisms for exactly that. More commonly, an amount is offered and it doesn't matter if that amount is totally unacceptable to the owner.
You really should try to educate yourself outside of the Miscavige Compound before telling people what they "should" do. You'd look less a fool...

It seems there are provisions for land compensation which has got nothing to do with anyone's compound.
The US government should exercise fairness in such matters.

https://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/compensation-for-land/

To award an owner less than the value of the property taken would be unjust to him/her. Also, to award him/her more than the property’s value will be unjust to the public[viii].

The U.S. exercising power of eminent domain can acquire property in two ways:

the government can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or
the government can institute condemnation proceedings.
In physical seizure, the property owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act to recover just compensation. In condemnation proceedings, compensation is given through court[ix].

When a government opts for the physical seizure method, acquisition occurs at the moment of seizure, even though title does not pass until compensation is actually paid. From the beginning of acquisition proceedings, the government’s possession is lawful and an owner’s title represents only his/her claim for compensation.


- - - Updated - - -

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

Yes. Congress can pass an act to take any citizens land with no compensation whatsoever. It is then up to the citizen to sue the government for compensation. As we are currently under the thumb of Don Cheeto Mussolini, and his party has control of both houses of Congress, I will not be surprised if this exact scenario plays out when some land owner on the border decides to "negotiate" with Prima Donald. He should also have the Supreme Court stacked in his favor by then, so suing Putin's Puppet government likely won't help much either.

Why should the US pass laws on taking land when they exist already and are established in case law (precedent)?

 

[Elixir]

There are actually mechanisms for exactly that. More commonly, an amount is offered and it doesn't matter if that amount is totally unacceptable to the owner.
You really should try to educate yourself outside of the Miscavige Compound before telling people what they "should" do. You'd look less a fool...

It seems there are provisions for land compensation which has got nothing to do with anyone's compound.
The US government should exercise fairness in such matters.

https://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/compensation-for-land/

To award an owner less than the value of the property taken would be unjust to him/her. Also, to award him/her more than the property’s value will be unjust to the public[viii].

The U.S. exercising power of eminent domain can acquire property in two ways:

the government can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or
the government can institute condemnation proceedings.
In physical seizure, the property owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act to recover just compensation. In condemnation proceedings, compensation is given through court[ix].

When a government opts for the physical seizure method, acquisition occurs at the moment of seizure, even though title does not pass until compensation is actually paid. From the beginning of acquisition proceedings, the government’s possession is lawful and an owner’s title represents only his/her claim for compensation.


- - - Updated - - -

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

Yes. Congress can pass an act to take any citizens land with no compensation whatsoever. It is then up to the citizen to sue the government for compensation. As we are currently under the thumb of Don Cheeto Mussolini, and his party has control of both houses of Congress, I will not be surprised if this exact scenario plays out when some land owner on the border decides to "negotiate" with Prima Donald. He should also have the Supreme Court stacked in his favor by then, so suing Putin's Puppet government likely won't help much either.

Why should the US pass laws on taking land when they exist already and are established in case law (precedent)?

Have someone read this to you:
TO
MAKE
IT
EASIER.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It seems there are provisions for land compensation which has got nothing to do with anyone's compound.
The US government should exercise fairness in such matters.

https://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/compensation-for-land/

To award an owner less than the value of the property taken would be unjust to him/her. Also, to award him/her more than the property’s value will be unjust to the public[viii].

The U.S. exercising power of eminent domain can acquire property in two ways:

the government can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or
the government can institute condemnation proceedings.
In physical seizure, the property owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act to recover just compensation. In condemnation proceedings, compensation is given through court[ix].

When a government opts for the physical seizure method, acquisition occurs at the moment of seizure, even though title does not pass until compensation is actually paid. From the beginning of acquisition proceedings, the government’s possession is lawful and an owner’s title represents only his/her claim for compensation.


- - - Updated - - -

So the government can simply take land without compensation?

Yes. Congress can pass an act to take any citizens land with no compensation whatsoever. It is then up to the citizen to sue the government for compensation. As we are currently under the thumb of Don Cheeto Mussolini, and his party has control of both houses of Congress, I will not be surprised if this exact scenario plays out when some land owner on the border decides to "negotiate" with Prima Donald. He should also have the Supreme Court stacked in his favor by then, so suing Putin's Puppet government likely won't help much either.

Why should the US pass laws on taking land when they exist already and are established in case law (precedent)?

Have someone read this to you:
TO
MAKE
IT
EASIER.

I'm not telepathic so would not know what your answer-specific point is.
My point is there. Laws are in place and the courts can adjudicate on a case by case basis if the parties can't agree.
If it means sealing the borders against illegal immigration then the construction would be a good thing but set up correctly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not telepathic so would not know what your answer-specific point is.
My point is there. Laws are in place and the courts can adjudicate on a case by case basis if the parties can't agree.
If it means sealing the borders against illegal immigration then the construction would be a good thing but set up correctly.

The wall would merely be an impediment to getting people or drugs across the border, not a solution. So taking people's land to build something that won't stop people or drugs from getting into the country seems like an unfair seizure.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes. Congress can pass an act to take any citizens land with no compensation whatsoever. It is then up to the citizen to sue the government for compensation. As we are currently under the thumb of Don Cheeto Mussolini, and his party has control of both houses of Congress, I will not be surprised if this exact scenario plays out when some land owner on the border decides to "negotiate" with Prima Donald. He should also have the Supreme Court stacked in his favor by then, so suing Putin's Puppet government likely won't help much either.

I would think it is cheaper to come to a reasonable solution than to waste time in the courts.

That is what separates you from someone like our current Molester in Chief. Seriously, have you seen anything about the way this asshole operates his businesses?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I'm not telepathic so would not know what your answer-specific point is.
My point is there. Laws are in place and the courts can adjudicate on a case by case basis if the parties can't agree.
If it means sealing the borders against illegal immigration then the construction would be a good thing but set up correctly.

The wall would merely be an impediment to getting people or drugs across the border, not a solution. So taking people's land to build something that won't stop people or drugs from getting into the country seems like an unfair seizure.

eal
at is part of the process.
I would agree; it would reduce the flow across the border and it seems more likely there will be compensation but in a dispute the courts would have to evaluate the loss in real as possible terms.