Connect with us

Border Security

CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall

Published

on

To build a wall along the United States’ international border with Mexico, President Donald Trump could order the sale of approximately 500,000 to 5 million acres of federal land.  The U.S. Government currently claims ownership of about 640 million acres of land — or about 28% of the total land mass of the nation.  This could raise the entire $25 billion needed to finance building the wall (not just the next installment we are currently fighting over).

But one must understand that out of 640 million acres there is a vast diversity of terrain. The task is to select only between around 0.08% to 0.78% of that total land. Most federally-owned land is not suitable.  But some land would be appropriate for sale to the State government, the County, or the general public.  Some Western public land is nothing but empty grassland, just ordinary grazing land. Some public land is indistinguishable from the type of land currently owned and used by private citizens. In some cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the federal government to be holding the land at all.

Decisions about which public lands within a state to consider as candidates must be nominated by each State government.  It cannot be the President deciding, because left-wing interests groups will demagogue the issue.  The State must identify which lands are not environmentally sensitive, culturally historic, important for scenic or recreational purposes, or reasonably claimed by Native Americans.  Throwing those decisions to the States allows all the stake-holders to debate the choices, minimizing left-wing hysteria.

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

The wisest plan might be to sell federal land to the State or County government at a discount, like $5,000 to $10,000 per acre on average.  This would allow the State or County to then decide what is best to do with that land, including deciding when if ever to sell the land to private owners.  Transferring the land at a very low price might win support from some States or Counties (ignoring those who don’t want to participate).

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1713(a), allows a tract of the public lands that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (except land within the National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and National System of Trails) to be sold by the Secretary of Interior.

In fact, a recent court case just upheld the unrestricted right of the U.S. Government to sell public land.  On November 2, 2018, a federal judge in California struck down a California law SB 50.  The law was actually quite mild, giving the California State Lands Commission the first shot at buying any land that the U.S. Government wants to sell.  This is actually a reasonable position, that perhaps should be built-in as a policy nationwide.  Why not let the State or County have a right of first refusal, to make as many people as happy as possible about the sale?

But the Trump Administration filed a lawsuit. Judge William Shubb ruled that the power of the federal government to sell the land it owns to anyone it wants is so clear and powerful, that California cannot restrict who the land can be sold to.  In other words, the land can clearly be sold.

Critics will focus, as always, on the wrong examples. This is why each State — not the President — must select and nominate candidate land after debate within each State.  Depending on the politics of their leadership, some States will not participate at all.  Not a problem.  There are plenty of other options.  Some States will be eager.  Talk to those States, not the trouble-makers.  (In fact, that was California’s rationale for its law:  They wanted to make sure that sensitive public lands were not being sold to private buyers.)

Excessive Federal ownership of 554 million acres of land in 12 Western States is a source of enormous irritation.  The U.S. Government owns 47% of all the land in the West and as much as 84.9% of Arizona.  There have been intense campaigns like the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 70s and 80s to demand this be changed.

Trump would spark a surge of support heading into the 2020 election if he simply convened a blue ribbon commission to review and examine the possibility of releasing or selling federally-owned land.  Trump would earn the undying loyalty of an intense group of involved citizens.

We would be remiss, though, in failing to notice that many of the Sagebrush Rebellion critics of federal ownership argue forcefully that the U.S. Government’s claim on 554 million acres in those 12 Western States is illegal and unconstitutional.  There is even at least one lawsuit now pending, with strong legal arguments and historical proof that the U.S. Government was authorized only to hold that land like a trustee, never to actually own that land.  Those legal challenges insist that the U.S. Government illegally and unconstitutionally converted temporary stewardship into a claim of ownership.  The land was supposed to be distributed as new States became established and organized practically.

However, for the purposes of this proposal, there is still a super-abundance of federally-owned land regardless of such disputes.   In West Virginia — part of the original 13 colonies then part of Virginia — the U.S. Government owns 1,133,587 acres (7.4% of the total State). In Tennessee, 1,273,175 acres (4.8%) are owned by the federal government.  Among the original 13 colonies, in New Hampshire, 798,718 acres (13.8%) and in Georgia, 1,474,225 acres (4%) are owned by Uncle Sam.  In Pennsylvania 617,339 acres (2.1%) are federally owned , and in Virginia 2,514,596 acres (9.9%).  Likewise 4,599,919 acres of Florida (13.2%) and 1,793,100 acres of Wisconsin (5.1%).   In Texas, the U.S. Government owns 2,998,280 acres (1.8%).

Clearly, federal lands include tracts that should remain publicly-owned.  There are national forests, parks, military bases, and such that obviously should be maintained as public lands (although perhaps the State governments could handle some of these with more local knowledge and awareness).  A shocking 13.2% of Florida is owned by the U.S. Government, but we are not going to consider selling the Everglades nor vast stretches of watery grasslands.  But when 23,870,652 acres of Colorado (35.9%) are federally owned, you’re going to find at least a few hundred thousand acres that are really over-kill and could be sold off.

As a lawyer with an (inactive) real estate sales license, this author glanced quickly at some real estate listings for ranch land for sale in Arizona.  It rapidly becomes clear that the price at which Western land is for sale is “all over the map” (literally and figuratively), from under $1,000 per acre to over $45,000 per acre  With varying locations and terrain, one cannot generalize easily even within the farm land / ranch land market.  Therefore, $25 billion might be raised by selecting the most suitable land totaling anywhere from 500,000 acres to 5 million acres.

However, the Trump Administration’s legal teams need to prepare for Trump’s bold and innovative initiatives carefully to achieve success.  Trump should maintain his energetic momentum, but anything worth doing is worth doing carefully and right. A lot of legal groundwork must be laid first.

Any plan by any Administration for giving up Federally-owned lands must be carried out with great caution.  Different parcels of land come under very different legal regimes and considerations.  Most is managed by BLM, but not all.  Different legal requirements apply in different cases.

The law requires the Secretary of Interior to officially make certain findings about a particular parcel of real property in order to activate the legal right to make the sale. The process has to be implemented with meticulous care by officials who are not sabotaging the goal. A particular tract of land must be already governed and managed within the BLM’s “land use planning” procedures. The Secretary must then make a formal determination that:

(1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or

(2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or

(3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership.

Furthermore, we will face the same debate about whether the funds raised can be “reprogrammed” to specific projects, like building the wall, rather than being dumped into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. But that involved legal debate will have to be explored in another installment.

“Reprogramming” federal funds from one program to another is a real thing that happens all the time.  Trump’s legal team will have to burn the midnight oil to navigate the details. And Big League Politics will have to point the way in a later installment.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Border Security

Dan ‘McCain 2.0’ Crenshaw Outlines His Plan to Give Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens

Crenshaw is a faux-conservative.

Published

on

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) recently outlined his plan to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens while appearing on a podcast.

A clip is going viral on social media of Crenshaw detailing his plan to flood the U.S. with third-world migrants and crowd native workers from well-paying jobs in the marketplace.

“I put it in simple terms, uh, ya know, zero tolerance on illegal immigration. We truly lock down the border, and then we can have a conversation about a more streamlined legal immigration system that is based on merit rather than familial connections,” he said.

While Crenshaw may want to lock down the border (or so he claims), he is open to schemes that would allow the low-income workers to flood into the U.S. from desolate countries and squeeze Americans out of quality employment.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“I’m willing to have a conversation about a more streamlined version of work visas,” he said.

Crenshaw noted that after the U.S. has “plugged the leak,” conservatives should embrace giving amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens that have broken the law to come into the country.

“I think restitution might be an option there… Here’s generally what I think. If you’ve committed a crime, a crime other than your VISA overstay or crossing the border illegally, I have zero tolerance for that. ICE should deport you,” Crenshaw said.

He went on to explain that conservatives need to recognize that amnesty is inevitable and surrender to the Left on the issue.

“If you’ve just been here working, we can’t deport 15-20 million people. That’s not feasible. Conservatives have to, like, recognize that fact,” he said.

The clip from Crenshaw on the podcast can be seen here:

In addition to being an amnesty lover, Crenshaw also supports red flag laws that eliminate due process and make a mockery of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution:

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) has revealed a bombshell, perhaps accidentally, that he supported red flag gun control since before he started his run for Congress, showing that he lied on the campaign trail about his firm support of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

“I’ve been thinking seriously about this policy for years. It was not something I recently heard of. The NRA supported well-crafted GVRO,” Crenshaw told Kaitlin Bennett of Liberty Hangout, referring to a gun violence restraining order that would allow a judge to order the seizure of firearms from an individual deemed a public safety risk.

Crenshaw has gone further than supporting GVROs. He publicly endorsed pre-crime legislation such as red flag laws and The Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act following mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton earlier this month.

After Bennett, an Infowars reporter and avid 2nd Amendment supporter, criticized Crenshaw on social media as a gun grabber, he sent a series of demeaning private messages to her on Twitter criticizing her activism and unwillingness to accept his excuses for infringing upon the 2nd Amendment. She exposed Crenshaw’s untoward behavior in a YouTube video.

“I hope you rethink your tactics in the future, because they are only effective at alienating people on both sides. You won’t ever persuade anyone, and you’ll drive out your allies,” Crenshaw wrote condescendingly to Bennett.

“When you alienate people, you remove yourself from any productive conversations. As you move forward as an activist, you should ask yourself if that’s really what you want,” he added.

Crenshaw was recently photographed having one of these “productive conversations” with gun confiscation activists from Moms Demand Action, a front group funded by billionaire former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Crenshaw has picked up where the late songbird John McCain left off, continuing his predecessor’s promotion of globalism wrapped in the U.S. flag to unsuspecting Republicans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending