Texas border wall construction underway, Gov. Abbott says

Percentage wise? Who gives a ****, percentage wise, what other countries do. That's their business.

It's more than 15%, thank you very much. And that's why crime is up, the family unit is down and it takes two income earners to make it as opposed to the days before every illegal and FAKE asylee came here. We're turning into a 3rd world shithole.

 

They should start by taking the stepping stones out of the river. I'm sick of seeing these illegals walking across stepping stones in the river and having border patrol agents holding out their hands to help the illegals out of the water while other agents hand out goody bags.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/...VZVdEAAAlBsbsvhEQV6tVUBpzNTKOHWJi0QtABxZHgusA
We'll be sure to send them your way. You'll be sure to send them to Canada

 

For starters: You don't have a right to HALT eminent domain. Takings clause.
Yes they **** people over, they're the government. Is this your first time?

As stated: Yes, there's quite a bit of hippie ****ery to be complied with or worked around, hence the large budgetary outlay.

You can simply 1) watch the park and the rez border for illegals and 2) let the feds stack up there while you have an easier time policing your own space. Incremental positive change is worth it.

Salesmanship? You think I'm trying to sell it? Dude I'm telling you how its going to be. No one HAS to sell it. Its all over but the crying.

LOL the state bar would not do a damn thing and wanting something to go in doesn't mean I don't want to get my Client top dollar. That doesn't violate state bar rules.
Again with the emotionally manipulative horseshit.

Yes we're trying to exclude foreign corps from buying up the housing market. That's a thing a state can do. PEOPLE can buy what they want. Foreign corps cannot.
A foreign corp has no right to do business in the US, no matter if its owned by US citizens. US citizens would form a domestic corp and not have a problem.
You're LITERALLY talking to a texas property law attorney lady. FFS try that bullshit on someone stupid enough to buy it.

If I steal things and give them to my kid, the kid has to cough them up. If I break into a house, the kid has to get evicted too. The kid has no legal right to stay just because their parent ****ed them over.
Period. Its not fair to the legal immigrants who followed the law, complying with the arduous process.

 

Preach brother

 

FYI, Canada is not TX.

 

LOL, the truth comes out. On the one hand you say you don't give a **** and then give a **** as well. And yes, it is 15.3%, not more, not less. You just don't like people of different skin colors.

If you want to look at a thrid world mentality, you may want to look at the mirror. You will be starring right at the problem.

 

For starters, I never stated or argued to halt eminent domain. Only the state legislature can do that, and it did after the eminent domain issue when the ATT stadium was built. It basically gave landowners more say, which makes it more expensive to do, which makes it less likely it will occur. Yes, you are doing a salesmanship side here. And yes, it is a forced sale, similar, but not exactly as a foreclosure or abandonment. But it is a forced sale whether one agrees to it or not. Why do you think property owners do not want a forced sale of their property to the state no matter what the reason is. You obviously have not lived in Texas very long, or you have lived here with not being too observant.

Second, immigration is a labor-intensive endeavor, both on the USCIS side and the State Department side. The amount of paperwork a nonimmigrant or immigrant has to provide is staggering, along with FBI and terrorism watch list checks. YOu just can't do this with algorithms no matter how hard you try. Even for the simplest visas such as B1 or a K1, the amount of paperwork is staggering, both for the alien and the US citizen or US corporation sponsoring the alien on the K1 visa. I know, I went through it, helped plenty of people go through it, and so forth. And if you ever traveled abroad to a country where a Visa is required for your stay, at best, you will be given a short form, ask a few questions, and in a couple of days, get your visa. We have one of the most powerful passports in the world to most countries, even places like China or Russia.

For my solution, no one is talking about the root cause of illegal immigration. Part of it is our broken, complicated, and expensive legal immigration system. Another part is the lack of economic opportunities in their home country in which they have to deal with gangs, a corrupt government/police, and the laws not working for the little guy. This is why I like the Blue Card idea which does have wide bipartisan support. I would also add that business or trade organizations be allowed to hire straight out of the embassy or consulate for those types of jobs. Japan and South Korea do this for their teaching jobs BTW and it works pretty well. But first I would try to modernize the current immigration system to help alleviate some of the illegal alien issues we have. Then I will deal with foreign policy and aid to help with the other half concentrating on improving economic opportunities in those countries. But for DACA recipients, it is not their fault because of their parents and they should not be punished for their parent's mistakes. That is a fundamental principle in our judicial system and you want to forget that, which causes me to question your legal standing in total. I'm also not giving DACA recipients a blank check either. They do have to meet certain requirements as explained in the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill was proposed. Even immigrants find that reasonable to them. What they are upset about generally are the illegals who are already here and who are not DACA recipients. And that I have not decided yet on what the solution is.

finally, foreign corps owned by US persons and foreign persons owning US corporations have every right to do business here. We have treaties, trade agreements, and so forth that make it so. But for certain countries, we can prevent that with sanctions, and we have with certain people in those countries such as Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. But for the average joe, or Ching, or Sanchez, or whoever, that should not be the case and it violates the 14th and 24th Amendments. But in reality, it is how US persons avoid taxes in the US with these foreign corporations. Only the effectively connected income or non-effectively connected income in the US will be taxed per IRC 969 and other code sections of title 26 of the United States Code.

 

And there we have it boys. When someone wants a border, low crime and a high standard of living.....they're RACIST!!

Take that tired old outta here, my wide-ass open border liberal friend.

Over a million people come legally every year, brown black purple yellow whatever color.....and that's not enough for the left. I hope Trump wins and slams the border shut so fast it sets off an 8 magnitude earthquake. I will gladly take showers with liberal tears.

 

For starters, I never used the R word. You did and that tells all of us where your mind was, in the gutter, when you made that comment here.

We already have a border. Crime is not congruent with immigration. That is a myth in and of itself. Most of the crime is done by US citizens. A border wall is not going to stop illegal immigration. It will hinder one type of illegal immigration, namely EWI, but it won't stop it. Further, illegal immigration is not static, it is fluid, which means it changes constantly, namely the visa violations and the overstays, and some EWIs, very few.

Again, if you read the RAISE act, that would literally cut legal immigration in half, especially from areas of Asia, South America, Central America, Africa, and Mexico. Already provided that link, and will not do it again. Further, the RAISE Act would have severely limited refugees and asylees, again, legal immigrants. so your total argument is the typical NumbersUSA BS.

 

And with Biden in office, e'll soon be paying that much for a good steak!

 

No ****.

Its kinda odd you'd ship those folks you wanted so bad to a different country though, don't you think?

 

Your post implied that the landowner had the right to do anything but bitch they weren't getting enough money and try to offer good evidence of that to get a bit more. Which is silly. Theoretically speaking you can try to SCOTUS but every argument has already been tried. Fairly recently too, up to an including public taking for private gain.
Lady I was ****ing born here, and my family descends from the original settlers in Austin's colony. How ****ing dare you suggest otherwise. This is just more of your low rent emotional manipulation. Take the ****ing hint lady: That **** pisses people off and makes them less likely to entertain whatever asinine bullshit is flowing from your yawning portal.

You confuse my telling you you can't stop it, and trying is a waste of ****ing time, with some sort of sales pitch. Its simply false of you to say.
I have to tell Clients all the time that no one cares about their feelings or what they'd like or what they want or what they think. The law is like that. Sugar coating it for a client while the meter is running is actually against my ethical rules, since you wanted to bring those up. My outright sworn ethical duty is one of candor. The law and facts either work out to give you a colorable claim and an effective remedy that works out on a cost benefit analysis chart or you need to stop wasting my ****ing time and your money.

Candidly: You don't get anywhere trying to be Kelo 2.0, most clients don't have the scratch to even TRY that anyway, I'm under no obligation to do it pro bono nor is any other lawyer, and in fact most of the time you won't even be able to GET MORE MONEY than it costs to obtain the evidence showing their appraisal was a bit low.
I say this as a person who has handled those VERY rare cases where 1) the person is a millionaire who sure as **** can pay 2) its over family land they planned to develop and sell eventually so they're willing to fight over the principle of the thing knowing the risks and 3) the county is saying the land is essentially worthless when it ain't and I have hard proof of that.

Gosh I just don't ****ing care that someone who wants something has to provide us their info or **** right off. We have one of the most powerful passports mostly because Russia and China etc aren't worried about Americans showing up to squat there permanently and shovel .gov services in our wide open traps forever. Amongst other reasons. Most immigrants of the type we're talking about, illegals, do not have that national advantage nor is it a smart idea to give it to them.

If you allow DACA, as with ANY OTHER amnesty given historically (looking at Reagan with a jaundiced eye here in particular) all you do is encourage further law breaking. THOSE people got in because enough of them did it and the people felt bad, WE can do it TOO. That's how we GOT the DACA folks in the first place: Reagan's amnesty and a refusal by later admins to deport the ****ers who followed in their wake with their hands out.

The solution is simple: Here illegally? Bye. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00, do not get to stay, do not get to pop a kid out here for jus soli purposes of chain migration. You're gone. Hell, garnish their ****ing bank account or freeze their assets while you're at it. They'll ****ing stop coming if you enforce the rules and guard the ****ing border.

 

Walls only work when they are erected at say, the SOTU event

 

You made the accusation that other states were moving immigrants to tx, now you can't back it, not surprised.

BTW, have the immigrants stopped coming to tx.

 

WTF are you talking about?
Quote me.

I said that other NATIONS CITIZENS were coming here. That's demonstrable, illegal immigrants are all over Texas.
No one gives a **** if Californians and New Yorkers don't want to come here. That's the ****ing idea dude, don't threaten me with a good time.

 

The Texas State Legislature in 2021 gave a landowner a bill of rights which included the landowner's consent to be willing to sell the property on any attempt by the government or private enterprise to take your property, aka eminent domain. So, when it comes to the border wall, Texas through its legislature, has already made it impossible for the government to take the property, which means, no continuous wall until the Texas GOP decides to change its mind. So, if Texas, as a government, made it almost impossible for an eminent domain for those who are not willing to sell, what makes you think the government will use an eminent domain now after the Bill of Rights was passed? And for the government to take it, it has to be passed by a bill in the State Legislature, which means every odd year in regular session or in a special session called by the governor. But so far, no legislation is on the books as we speak. Thus, the wall being built by the state is not going to use eminent domain.


[/QUOTE]You confuse my telling you you can't stop it, and trying is a waste of ****ing time, with some sort of sales pitch. Its simply false of you to say.
I have to tell Clients all the time that no one cares about their feelings or what they'd like or what they want or what they think. The law is like that. Sugar coating it for a client while the meter is running is actually against my ethical rules, since you wanted to bring those up. My outright sworn ethical duty is one of candor. The law and facts either work out to give you a colorable claim and an effective remedy that works out on a cost benefit analysis chart or you need to stop wasting my ****ing time and your money. [/QUOTE]
Again, the state legislature pretty sure made it stop in the link I had. That is something you don't know and never did your due diligence, which makes you a pretty piss poor lawyer to begin with. A lawyer worth his salt would have researched every possibility instead of shooting from the hip.

Most eminent domain compensation will use the assessed value on the books, not the FMV of the property that Zillow or other real estate apps use. It has never been that way, and they take ou, China,ion of that compensation to pay for their own attorneys, usually. Hence why the eminent domain is always lowballed no matter what you say. That is a fact, historically speaking.

Our strength of passports has dropped over the last decade or two. But the point is that if you had to do to provide that much information to say, take a cruise from Florida, Texas, New Orleans, etc, most people won't go. But we do it for even the simplest immigration visas, it is ridiculous to say the least. And when i went through this with my spouse, I provided the same information, updated for current year, three times. Once for the K1, once for the State Department, and finally for the 485. It is also why it is labor intensive for approval with current waits of over a year for the green card to be issued once the 485 is approved. There are other inequities in the legal aspect and that may cause some to get here illegally.

We had the Cuban Adjustment Act and a few others before Reagan came to become President. And they all worked pretty well. But they were limited. And with DACA, who through no fault of their own, are stuck in that the law does not allow any adjustment to. Hence why I am willing to give DACA the benefit as long as they meet certain requirements as specified in the 2007 immigration reform bill. For the others, I am not too sure. I think we should separate the chaff from the wheat approach.

Well, I have one better for you. Violate any law, misdemeanor or felony, you lose everything, your license to practice law, your property, your financial accounts here and abroad, and so forth. The only thing you will have left is your name and no one will be allowed to give you a stick of gum. Want a go for that buddy? Or will you give the "but, but, but, but, but" argument?

 

Governor Abbott has said he wanted Californians who are Republicans to come here, as well as New Mexico. He just don't want people from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia not to come here, legal or illegal, per SB 147 as it is currently written.

 

Quote in that document where it says the landowner themselves must consent or eminent domain cannot occur.

1. You are entitled to receive adequate compensation if your property is taken for a public use.
2. Your property can only be taken for a public use.
3. Your property can only be taken by a governmental entity or private entity authorized by law to do so.
4. The entity that wants to take your property must notify you that it wants to take your property.
5. The entity proposing to take your property must provide you with a written appraisal from a certified appraiser detailing the adequate compensation you are owed for your property.
6. The entity proposing to take your property must make a bona fide offer to buy the property before it files a lawsuit to condemn the property – which means the condemning entity must make a good faith offer that conforms with Chapter 21 of the Texas Property Code.
7. You may hire an appraiser or other professional to determine the value of your property or to assist you in any condemnation proceeding.
8. You may hire an attorney to negotiate with the condemning entity and to represent you in any legal proceedings involving the condemnation.
9. Before your property is condemned, you are entitled to a hearing before a court appointed panel that includes three special commissioners. The special commissioners must determine the amount of compensation the condemning entity owes for the taking of your property. The commissioners must also determine what compensation, if any, you are entitled to receive for any reduction in value of your remaining property.
10. If you are unsatisfied with the compensation awarded by the special commissioners, or if you question whether the taking of your property was proper, you have the right to a trial by a judge or jury. If you are dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, you may appeal that decision.


^ none of those stop if you don't like it.
They have to make a bonafide offer based on their appraisal to you first. THEN they can ED. When they ED, you have a right to offer a better appraisal and argue your case to the commissioners court first (made of local landowners serving for a term, like a grand jury for eminent domain and tax issues) and the district court second. Even to appeal that decision to any higher court up to and including the US Supreme Court.

None of that means you have to consent or the transaction doesn't go through.

Stop practising law without a license if you're going to state it incorrectly.

Further: No, the legislature doesn't have to continuously pass bills for it every year. They can pass a bill authorizing the whole project and could dog ear funds and set them aside if they wanted to. They're choosing to do it one section at a time for their own purposes.

Again: Your suppositions are absolutely false, demonstrably so, starting with your premise that the landowner must consent to the takings. You don't even need to be a lawyer to understand that's not how it works. You could've read your own ****ing link for ****'s sake.


"Most eminent domain compensation will use the assessed value on the books, not the FMV of the property that Zillow or other real estate apps use."
O? And how many eminent domain and tax protests before the commissioners court have you handled young lady?
The state has its own appraiser. The appraiser goes out and DOES an appraisal. Sometimes they used the tax assessed values for that, sometimes they use recent sales they have the information on.
FFS stop talking about a subject you know nothing about just because you don't like Texas.

"But the point is that if you had to do to provide that much information to say, take a cruise from Florida, Texas, New Orleans, etc, most people won't go."
^ We're not talking about a domestic cruise in your own nation ffs. We're talking about applying for legal immigration to a foreign nation.

"Well, I have one better for you. Violate any law, misdemeanor or felony, you lose everything, your license to practice law, your property, your financial accounts here and abroad, and so forth. The only thing you will have left is your name and no one will be allowed to give you a stick of gum. Want a go for that buddy? Or will you give the "but, but, but, but, but" argument?"
How do you think character and fitness requirements work lady? I had to let the bar get up my ******* with a proctoscope. They called my friends, my family, my references, my current and former employers and employees etc. I was required to provide them my entire background, with an explanation for any events, sworn to under the penalty of perjury then verified by background check.
I had to have interviews with legal examiners.
If I committed a ****ing smuggling or human trafficking offense I'd sure as **** lose my law license, and the process of civil asset forfeiture would take my assets until I could PROVE that I legally obtained them.
That's CURRENTLY the law we all as citizens must deal with. Why are the illegals somehow immune? Why does human trafficking and smuggling dope make them special?

 

Duplicate please delete

 

You tell me. You make a wild claim, I tell you that's false and demand you back up your claim in accordance with forum rules and only THEN do you shut up.

 

Are more immigrants coming into TX now than previously.?

 

Illegal immigrants are crossing the border at a high rate, yes.
I never said they were coming in from other states as you claimed I did. I said they were coming across the border from out of the country for purposes of illegal immigration at an alarming rate.

 

No one was talking to you.
Its not surprise then that your reply is off topic and wildly incorrect.

Barring foreign owned corps from owning domestic real property does not halt legal immigration to the US.