DOD seizes 100,000+ acres of BLM land along Mexican border

[Hydra6]

So in your professional experience there has never been a single instance in the history of the US where a court got involved with anything involving a military base?

Guess this one never happened...

Air Force Settles $25 Million Lawsuit for F-16 Strafing Run That Killed Contractor

Charles Holbrook, a retired master sergeant, died Jan. 31, 2017, at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

www.military.com

Sure, as you pointed out previously, environmental issues such as "endangered" critters are inconvenient. Nothing that would restrict a DoD facility from keeping out trespassers.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Let’s see what happens… want to bet on if that land gets transferred to DOD authority?

You are missing the point of transferring that land to a different use doctrine, it’s not to set up a range, or massive base it’s using DOD federal laws to in rich trespass and detainee ability. There is no environmental impact, infact environmental impact maybe the best reason to implement it.. aka to suppress foot traffic and littering that’s destroying it……

Again there has to be a damaged party….

This has nothing to do about protecting a butterfly, a tortoise, or cultural treasures; they were examples to disprove folks' claims that courts could not get involved with a military base. I am unsure how folks on this site cannot grasp the simple fact that any potential lawsuit would likely not be about ultimately winning on merit in court but to get headlines, slow things down, throw mud on the Orange Man, etc. Lots of examples of generating massive number of was

Thankfully the military is doing their due diligence to take a look at potential legal issues.
"As part of the effort, senior Pentagon officials have asked military officers to examine whether any legal complications could arise from having U.S. troops temporarily hold those crossing illegally when CBP agents are not immediately available to arrest them, officials said."

If military personnel eventually do "detain" a trespasser, then there is your potentially damaged party; it can be a US citizen hunting, a drug smuggler, or an illegal immigrant. From there it just takes a lawyer (easy to find a sleazy one), a judge (also easy to find a friend of "the cause") and file a lawsuit that it was an unlawful detainment (or whatever the proper legal phrase is). Merit doesn't matter especially in the short term.

So far about 400 individuals have been nabbed by BP (smart move to not use military personnel) on these "military bases" with at least 1/2 of those cases tossed out so far. Unfortunately no article mentioned if these individuals were released (at which point why bother) or still in BP custody (good thing).

It is a novel approach and we'll see what will happen eventually. It would not be a surprise for any litigation to continue well after this thing sunsets in three years.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Sure, as you pointed out previously, environmental issues such as "endangered" critters are inconvenient. Nothing that would restrict a DoD facility from keeping out trespassers.

I understand your position and agree with you that a DoD facility should be able to keep unwanted individuals out. Same concept applies (to me) for other facilities such as an ICE detention facility.

You and others fail to understand that a lawsuit, with or without merit, can potentially slow down or even halt this endeavor.

 

[Hydra6]

The Army has a tactical term "occupy by force" as a technique for seizing/gaining control of key terrain. I suggest that the Army has already occupied this strip of land. Securing the Southern border is effective right now - big issue now is deportation of millions.

 

[CJ19]

again you are completely correct.

you did forget one caveat. the reason you really don’t hear from those organizations or people about illegal issues is they aren’t getting paid or subsidized to say it. they are all grifters.

I agree but for many of these organizations or entities the issue is actually worse when you look back at what happened. Not only were they not subsized to say anything- Corporations and the last administration used funding or internal policy tied to DEI and ESG as means to ensure anyone who said anything was going against company policy or deemed racist.

A concerted effort was made across the corporate world and the last administration to fund DEI and ESG initiatives. ESG initiatives requiring mandatory DEI training and policy for identity politics from the corporate overlords at some of the largest outdoor/hunting companies. Those DEI/ESG initiatitives undertaken by some of the largest outdoor and conservation NGOs in many cases were part of an organized and publicly subsized political movement directly fueling social engineering with, among other things, the narrative that opposition to illegal activity along the border was due to racism and not legitimate problems. So the response normal everyday Americans commonly got when they said, "hey there are issues with immigration and border policy" was essentially.....youre just a racist.

The result when viewed from a conservation and public land hunter perspective? basically 10,000 people a day illegally crossing the border. Frequently those illegally entering the United States via public land. Taking dumps, trafficking humans/drugs, and destroying or displacing wildlife/plants and lawful US public land users. Total silence from the entirety of the big conservationist NGOs and some of the largest outdoor companies bc having a coherent immigration policy was seen as racist according to the DEI and ESG initiatives those groups had undertaken. Or simply a case of team politics and not biting the hand that feeds.

So here we are. Hundreds of thousands of acres now used for security and most hunters reactions for better or worse??? - Good, its about time something was done.




And good for rinella if he called it out. I dont listen to those podcasts anymore so i did not know.

 

[Billinsd]

How about take a 3 mile swath on THEIR side if the border. Temporarily.

I'll raise you 10 miles, "temporarily", of course.

 

[pirogue]

again you are completely correct.

you did forget one caveat. the reason you really don’t hear ….

 

[pirogue]

Speaking of not hearing about things… A few years ago we were javelina hunting on a friend’s ranch that bordered BLM. A week afterwards, at the same spot we parked, a car with 5 occupants were found massacred gangland style. LEO told the rancher he would not hear about this in the news. Sure enough, no one heard about it.