liberals will continue to rail against the “racist” Administration that is determined to build a “racist” wall

Border Wall: NOW libs are worried about property rights

By —— Bio and Archives--February 12, 2018

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Border Wall: NOW libs are worried about property rights
It’s okay to weaponize environmental regulations to restrict land use by farmers and ranchers, even seize property… but build a wall along the border to protect Americans from the influx of more and more criminal aliens and, all of a sudden, the government is infringing on property rights.

Included in the mixed-up argument being made against the Trump Administration to bar constructing a wall meant to decrease illegal cross-border traffic, is the claim made by groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity that “natural migration of people and wildlife” will be interrupted.


Here’s a clue for environmental activists – borders are political lines drawn in the sand (or mountains) to protect national interests, which includes that of citizens domiciled on each side of the border. Borders serve the practical purpose of restricting entry of citizens from another country for good reason, that being national security. Believe it or not, impeding the “flow” of wildlife comes under the same heading since animals are bearers of pestilence that can infect the native wildlife population, just as immigrants carrying tuberculosis or other virulent diseases endanger lives.

The difference here, for those challenged with the concept of private property rights, is that the environment does not have rights equal to or above that of individuals. Landscape, flora and fauna are not sentient beings and, thus, cannot have individual rights… period. Organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council make a show of “defending” their “rights” for one purpose only: to control, undermine and deny the real rights of individuals.

It comes down to this – you can’t pick and choose what “rights” suit your cause du jour. Making it plain, let’s denote how the two issues actually aren’t equal:

  1. Protecting our borders from foreign agents (benign or criminal, there is no distinguishing between them as both are illegal entrants) is properly Constitutional.
  2. Protecting so-called endangered species has no standing under the Constitution as having no “rights.” It is a contrivance by special interests to exert influence over privately owned property.

A border wall comes under the Preamble of the Constitution to “provide for the common defence” of the nation and Article 1 Section 8 where the federal government has the power and is, in fact, commanded to defend the integrity of the nation by installing and maintaining “Post Roads … and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;…” (bold emphasis mine)

The government, however, is not meant to impose regulation that disrupts “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” as outlined by the Declaration of Independence. Neither is it to commandeer property without just compensation or “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process…” as outlined in Amendments V, IX and XIV of the Constitution.

A border wall comes under this category of protecting life and liberty of citizens. Restricting the use of private property in order to protect or conserve wildlife is not covered by the Constitution – these entities are not citizens of the nation. The same argument is applicable to illegal border-crossers as non-citizens.

This is where the two protectionists’ stands are divergent. The Constitution guards the rights of individual citizens, not anything or anyone that is not a citizen. Hence, the challenge to “Trump’s” wall that it is an impediment to preserving the environment (and its so-called rights) is specious. The 2005 law empowering the Bush Administration to construct a wall, overriding environmental protection regulations, upheld in 2008, shouldn’t be stricken. California’s dispute that the waiver of regulations expired in 2008 in nonsensical as it then implies other laws instituted without specific sunset dates would simply disappear.

There is one other remark that could be made here regarding the jurist who sat to hear arguments from the State of California against the border wall February 9.  U.S. District Court Judge Curiel Gonzalo indicated that he was inclined to decide that he has jurisdiction to rule in this case. As a precaution to assure all sides that his opinion is not colored by reaction to past comments made by now-President Trump, it might have been wise for Judge Gonzalo to have recused himself from the proceedings of such a high profile suit, which in no way assumes that he will not be just in his deliberations.

Realizing that liberals won’t or can’t understand the basic logic outlined above and will continue to rail against the “racist” Administration that is determined to build a “racist” wall, this short discourse may be considered a waste of time. It is hoped otherwise.


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

A. Dru Kristenev -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev,  grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as both a representative of the paper and non-profit organizations.

Since 2007, Kristenev has authored four fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon.

ChangingWind (changingwind.org) is a solutions-centered Christian ministry.

Donate Here

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: