DACA and Dreamers

[rogue06]

Just ask anybody who has a seasonal spring or creek on their land that gets defined by the government as a "navigable waterway" or a "wetland", and subject to all limits and controls.



ETA: Oooooops -- I butted out.

Or the infamous example from the late 80s early 90s of someone who was in the process of building a deck that had the holes where his posts were supposed to go being declared a "wetland" after they had to temporarily stop building due to several days of rain.

[rogue06]

One of the many reasons that I supported just about every Republican candidate over Trump during the primaries was his energetic support for eminent domain

[Sparko]

One of the many reasons that I supported just about every Republican candidate over Trump during the primaries was his energetic support for eminent domain

hmm I did not know that. Seems like a very odd position for a real estate mogul to take.

[rogue06]

An illegal almost killed my oldest with his truck.

Two or three years ago a teenager who came to the U.S. illegally without his parents stole his neighbor's car to go out "joy riding," was DUI^[1], had no insurance and ran a red light plowing into the side of my then girl friend's SUV as we were coming back from diner. The SUV was totaled (not sure about the stolen car), my girl friend bruised her arm but I, who was driving and he hit that side, ended up with a pinched nerve in my lower back/pelvis that was so painful even Oxycontin had no effect. Fortunately, the pain only lasted just under two days.








1 Called DWI in some jurisdictions. And while he would have been just under the limit if he was an adult having any alcohol in your system when your underage constitutes a DUI here

[rogue06]

hmm I did not know that. Seems like a very odd position for a real estate mogul to take.

He actually had used eminent domain to get property to build on. The local government was happy to oblige since they would be getting more tax revenue.

From a 2015 WaPo story:

Source: Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse

David Boaz of the Cato Institute has an excellent article summarizing Donald Trump’s shameful history of promoting eminent domain abuse for the purpose of seizing property from homeowners and businesses who refuse to sell to him:

For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.

Trump turned to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) – to take Coking’s property….

Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”

Ultimately, as Boaz notes, Trump and the CRDA lost in court in CRDA v. Banin, an early victory for the Institute for Justice – the public interest law firm that later litigated Kelo v. City of New London and other landmark property rights cases.

As Boaz notes, this was not the only time that Trump sought to use eminent domain to seize property from unwilling owners. In 1994, he also lobbied the city of Bridgeport to condemn five small businesses so he could build an office and entertainment complex that he absurdly claimed would turn Bridgeport into a “national tourist destination.”

On this issue, unlike most others, Trump has been consistent over time. When the Supreme Court narrowly upheld “economic development” takings that transfer property to private parties in the 2005 Kelo case, the ruling was widely denounced on both left and right. But Trump defended it stating that “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.” The feral cats who currently occupy the condemned land probably agree. Trump did not merely claim that the decision was legally correct; he argued that it was “good” to give government the power to forcibly displace homeowners and small businesses and transfer their property to influential developers on the theory that doing so might promote “economic development.”



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Keep in mind this was written back when the press still liked Trump.

[carpedm9587]

well I don't consider taxation "theft" that is more of a libertarian view. I consider many taxes to be "unfair" or "unjust" but legal.

So when a tax is imposed so that we can provide healthcare to the poor, you're telling me you have never said/thought of this as theft from the rich to give to the poor?

[carpedm9587]

An illegal almost killed my oldest with his truck.

THAT explains your vehemence...

[Cow Poke]

No. Abuse of eminent domain is theft. If I accept your argument, then I have to accept that, for all intents and purposes, thieves actually own my car because they could easily take it from me. That does not make any sense to me.

Thieves don't have a legal pretense for taking your car - bad analogy.

[Cow Poke]

Taxation is legal too, but the right doesn't hesitate to call certain taxes "theft."

Overly broad brush there, friend.

[Cow Poke]

hmm I did not know that. Seems like a very odd position for a real estate mogul to take.

Why? That's one of the benefactors of eminent domain - builders convince local government that's in the best interest of the public to "repurpose" a building or property or whole swath of land, and they get to be the developer.

[carpedm9587]

Thieves don't have a legal pretense for taking your car - bad analogy.

Yes - it is a limited analogy. But the key to your response is "pretense." Abuse of a law does not translate into "ownership," even for all "intents and purposes."

So here is a better one: the state can seize my house on trumped-up drug charges too. That seizure is also a legal pretense. It does not mean that they own my house.

[carpedm9587]

Overly broad brush there, friend.

If someone is willing to call taxation they don't agree with "theft," what is the basis for then drawing the line at calling abuse of eminent domain "theft?" Both are legal. Both are done by the government. So what makes one "theft" and not the other?

[carpedm9587]

Why? That's one of the benefactors of eminent domain - builders convince local government that's in the best interest of the public to "repurpose" a building or property or whole swath of land, and they get to be the developer.

That is an education to me. As you say it, I realize it makes perfect sense. But I had never thought of it from that perspective.

[Jedidiah]

For the sake of clarity I feel a need to explain my thoughts on the “dreamers.” I agree with seer in theory, but the problem is the result of decades of failure on the part of the administrations and legislatures to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Kids brought here while young, who have lived law abiding lives, thinking of themselves as Americans should not be punished for the sins of our federal government.

The parents are another story, which is why I do not flinch with this supposed “breaking up of families.” Offspring can choose to go with their parents or stay here. “Dreamers” who have not lived normal law abiding lives, made no efforts to assimilate, and have been in trouble with the law should be subject to being ejected from the United States. Simply having not grown up in Mexico is not reason enough. If they have not assimilated by this time they are not likely to do so now.

If this is what you have taken from my posts, you read me correctly. If you saw a let them all star regardless, I have not expressed myself adequately.

[carpedm9587]

For the sake of clarity I feel a need to explain my thoughts on the “dreamers.” I agree with seer in theory, but the problem is the result of decades of failure on the part of the administrations and legislatures to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Kids brought here while young, who have lived law abiding lives, thinking of themselves as Americans should not be punished for the sins of our federal government.

The parents are another story, which is why I do not flinch with this supposed “breaking up of families.” Offspring can choose to go with their parents or stay here. “Dreamers” who have not lived normal law abiding lives, made no efforts to assimilate, and have been in trouble with the law should be subject to being ejected from the United States. Simply having not grown up in Mexico is not reason enough. If they have not assimilated by this time they are not likely to do so now.

If this is what you have taken from my posts, you read me correctly. If you saw a let them all star regardless, I have not expressed myself adequately.

Actually, your view is extremely close to my own (which may cause you to reconsider it ). The one place where we part company to some degree is "have not assimilated." To me, this is a highly subjective measure. Does it mean they have to learn English? What if they live in a context where English is simply not commonly demanded? If it is not about language, then what does "made no efforts to assimilate" mean? By definition, Dreamers must be people who were less than 16 years old when they came to the U.S. and were less than 31 years old when the program started (2012). If a dreamer came over as a very young child, it is hard to imagine they would not know English by their twenties. However, it is possible that they live in a spanish community, go to a spanish school, and primarily speak spanish at home because that is what their parents speak. Their parents set the basis for their home, chose their school, and choose their community. So if they cannot speak English, does this mean they are to be deported? Are we not back to "not their choice?"