[ad_1]
Will Hurd, a Republican from Texas representing one of the congressional districts along the southern border, said more than 1,000 farmers in his country could see their lands seized by the federal government to facilitate the construction of the wall. long promised by President Trump.
"In the great state of Texas, we care about a little thing called private property, and there will be more than 1,000 potentially affected farmers and farmers if the government comes in and takes their land," Hurd said Sunday in a statement. "In the face of the nation" .
To build a wall along the US-Mexico border, the Trump administration will likely attempt to seize private property along the border using the power of an eminent domain, allowing the government to initiate a process of purchasing and acquiring private lands for public purposes.
"What we do with an eminent domain is that in many cases we reach an agreement in advance, we have already done it, the secretary has done a lot of it," said the president. told reporters in January, offering no details to support the application. "And if we can not reach an agreement, we take the land and pay it by the courts, which happens rather quickly, and we are generous, but we take the land, otherwise you could never build anything. you have not used the eminent domain, you would not have a single highway in this country.You must use the eminent domain. "
But Hurd said some landowners would surely oppose the strategy and force the government into a prolonged legal battle.
"[Government officials] Say, "Hey, we need this land. Here is what we will give you. And they manage to take it automatically. And then the farmer or the landowner has to come in and fight in court, "he added.
Hurd, who expressed opposition to the construction of a continuous border wall, said that an effective plan to strengthen border security involved investing in technology, increase the number border agents and create barriers along the border. A national emergency proclamation, he added, is not a "tool the president needs to solve this problem".
"Our government was not designed to function in a national emergency, but unfortunately a Congress that existed before my birth has usurped some of their power, ceded some of their power to the executive," he said. declared. National Emergency Act, 1976. "Our government has been designed so that the ultimate power, the power of the purse, lies in Congress, and we should not have an executive – I do not care if it's Republican or Democrat – who tries to bypass Congress with this declaration of national emergency. "
After the legislators approved the spending legislation with only $ 1.375 billion financing For 55 km of physical barriers along the US-Mexico border, the president bypassed Congress and declared a national emergency to access billions of dollars of funds for the construction of a border wall.
"We will face the national security crisis on our southern border," Trump said during a televised speech on Friday. "And we will do it in one way or another."
This extraordinary initiative, which allows the White House to use $ 3.6 billion in military construction funding for the construction of a border wall, faces a multitude of legal and legislative challenges. By a separate decree signed Friday, the president will also be able to divert $ 2.5 billion from drug interdiction initiatives and $ 601 million from a confiscation fund of the Treasury Department .
The president's decision to act unilaterally without the legislator's consent provoked much criticism from the Democrats, who quickly introduced a bill disapproving of the proclamation of national emergency, and even of some moderate Republicans , including Senator Susan Collins, who accused Trump of "usurping the authority of Congress." Despite the concerns expressed about the proclamation before it was released by Trump, most Republicans Basic, including Senate and House leaders, have expressed their support for the White House since Friday's announcement.
Echoing remarks by several of his Congress colleaguesHurd said the White House's decision was a "dangerous precedent". He added that he would be willing to support bipartisan legislation to review – and possibly limit – the president's emergency powers and prevent him from diverting funds earmarked for the military.
"I am always ready to have Congress reclaim some of that power as an equal branch of government, and I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion," he said. "We are almost in unfamiliar ground now because I think that, according to my research, it is one of the first times that there is a disagreement between the I & # 39; Executive Committee and the Congress on what actually constitutes a national emergency. "
[ad_2]
Source link