The Department of Homeland Security waived more than three dozen environmental laws and regulations Wednesday to speed up the first phase of construction of border wall projects near San Diego.

#NoWallsNoWaivers
#Resist#ResistTrump#RevitalizeNotMilitarize#OurLands pic.twitter.com/80JZkd5Maa

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

The projects will be constructed along an approximately 15-mile segment of land that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward toward a point called Border Monument 251, according to a statement from the DHS. The waiver follows one of President Donald Trump’s January executive orders, which called for greater security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The DHS invoked a 1996 law to waive several environmental protections, including a law that would have required the department to assess the environmental impact the wall would have. In spite of the waivers, the department maintained in a statement that they are “committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects.”

The statement read:

DHS has been coordinating and consulting–and intends to continue doing so–with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible.

However, environmental advocates and border wall opponents weren’t convinced. The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the DHS in June to obtain documents on Trump’s border wall prototypes, published a statement condemning the waiver and the wall. Brian Segee, and attorney for the center, criticized Trump’s planned wall for being harmful to the environment and the people who live near the border.

“Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people,” Segee said in the statement. “Trump’s wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities.”

In another critique of the decision, American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers cautioned against impulsively expediting the border wall.

“Today’s announcement by DHS is a disturbing sign that President Trump will barrel ahead with building a border wall no matter the cost to taxpayers or effect on our environment,” he said. “Given the widespread skepticism towards the effectiveness of the border wall by leaders in both parties–including the new White House Chief of Staff–effective safeguards are more important than ever to prevent President Trump from spending tens of billions of dollars and radically transforming our Southwestern border based solely upon his whims and impulses.”

Environmentalists fear that Trump’s border wall would negatively impact the surrounding environment through actions such as impeding animal migration and increasing floods in the desert. Segee pointed out that the construction wouldn’t be limited to just the wall, but would include roads, lighting, and other infrastructure that would accompany it.

In a May study, the Center for Biological Diversity found that the wall and related infrastructure would potentially affect 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. But the full impact of such large-scale construction projects cannot be known unless an environmental impact assessment is performed, a procedural step that DHS does not appear to see as a necessity.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DHS Waives Environmental Rules To Build San Diego Border Wall appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

Start your Monday off right, and catch up on some of the trending articles you may have missed last week. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

An Executive Order Without Justification: Attacking the National Parks

After President Trump signed an executive order last week, every national monument of 100,000 acres or more created since January 1, 1996, is under threat. At least 25 national parks and monuments established under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton will all be subject to review.

Cannabis in America May 2017: Learn How Legislators Are Aiming to Protect Cannabis Customers

Check out our May Cannabis in America Newsletter for an exclusive interview with Oregon State Rep. Carl Wilson (R-3rd District), where he discusses his state’s new bill that protects cannabis consumers’ private information from being stored by dispensaries and other marijuana businesses.

Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall?

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns from a two-week recess–the Senate returns on Monday, the House Tuesday–its legislative to-do list is stuffed to the brim. President Donald Trump is expected to propose a tax plan on Wednesday. He has suggested a revamped version of the Republican health care plan, which failed to hit the House floor for a vote last month, could be introduced this week. But foremost on Congress’ agenda: passing a government spending bill and staving off a government shutdown, a prospect that would be deeply embarrassing for an administration that will see its 100th day in office on Saturday.

Funding for the government, absent a spending agreement, is set to run out on Friday. To avoid a shutdown–which last occurred in 2013 when congressional Republicans and former President Barack Obama were deeply divided–the White House will have to come to an agreement with Congress. Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill differ with the administration in their spending priorities, especially when it comes to Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Many GOP lawmakers, and most, if not all, Democrats oppose paying for the wall with funds from the government’s coffers. Trump is adamant on following through on a promise that he sees as central to his election victory, however. On Sunday morning, the president reiterated his promise that Mexico will pay for the wall but asked for funding in the meantime:

Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a security hawk who is generally seen as a hard-liner on immigration, recently said the wall will get funded “one way or another.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, said: “We expect money for border security in this bill.” Priebus added: “And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.”

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, also insists the administration will push hard for the border wall to be included in a final budget agreement. “We want our priorities funded and one of the biggest priorities during the campaign was border security, keeping Americans safe and part of that was a border wall,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Mulvaney did add, however, that Trump would sign a bill that did not include funding for the wall. “I don’t think anybody is trying to get to a shutdown. Shutdown is not a desired end. It’s not a tool. It’s not something that we want to have,” he said.

On Friday, the administration floated a proposal to bridge the divide with Democrats–whose support for a final budget deal is vital to keeping the government afloat–on the border wall issue. For each dollar spent on the wall, according to the administration’s offer, the government would spend a dollar on Obamacare subsidies. Through a spokesman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said the trade-off idea was a “complete non-starter.”

Trump, who is still hoping to secure a legislative achievement by his 100-day mark, sent a tweet on Sunday morning that encapsulated his lack of leverage heading into the budget battle with Democrats:

ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Border Wall: the Issue That Could Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Tough Week Ahead For Donald Trump?

It’s going to be an important and busy week for President Donald Trump. This morning at 10 a.m., the hearing on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election began. FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee and acknowledged that there is an ongoing investigation into the matter. The FBI leader also disclosed that there’s an investigation into any collusion between Trump aides and Russians officials. Comey also said he has “no evidence” of Trump’s claims that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. This morning, seemingly to divert attention, Trump went on a tweet storm and claimed that the Russia story is fake news.

The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Trump also claimed that there has been contact between Russia and the Clinton campaign, a claim for which there is seemingly no evidence.

What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Today is also the first day of confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS nominee. And on Thursday, the House will vote on the new health care plan. NBC reports that at least 17 Republican House members do not approve of the plan, so it could be a close and interesting vote.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Mexican presidential hopeful Andrés Manuel López Obrador submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) accusing President Donald Trump of persecuting migrants. The petition could indicate a swelling international resistance to Trump.

In a press conference at the National Press Club, López Obrador and his team announced that the petition challenged Trump’s anti-immigration executive orders. While the petition lists 30 specific cases involving Mexican and Guatemalan citizens, López Obrador’s team claimed to be acting on behalf of immigrants around the world.

Signed by over 12,000 Mexican and American citizens, the petition will be placed under initial review. If the IACHR allows it proceed, the case could go before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, even if the court denounces the U.S., such a ruling would have little, if any, effect.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are components of the Organization of American States, and collectively uphold the American Convention on Human Rights. While the U.S. signed the convention in 1977, it did not ratify it. Therefore, the U.S. is under no legal obligation to accept rulings issued by the Inter-American Court. Furthermore, Trump has regularly expressed his contempt for international organizations and would most certainly dismiss any ruling that denounced his policies.

It is unlikely that López Obrador submitted the petition with the intention of mounting a genuine legal challenge. He will be well aware that U.S. is not beholden to IACHR rulings. However, by submitting the petition, the left-wing politician has cast himself as a determined political opponent of Trump. Though candidates for the Mexican presidential race are not expected to file until the summer, López Obrador has been working to drum up early support and currently leads opinion polls.

While the extremely unpopular Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto received an outpouring of support  after he canceled a meeting with Trump, his approval rating has since dropped to a record low. López Obrador is promising a platform that stands to the left of the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Speaking at the National Press Club, López Obrador said he was “disappointed” with how Peña Nieto handled early conversations with Trump. He accused the Mexican president of “submitting” to the U.S. by agreeing to avoid publicly discussing Trump’s proposed border wall and immigration policies. López Obrador declared that Mexico “is not a colony” and that the two countries “need a relationship based on respect not force.”

Riding the same wave of anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Trump to the White House, López Obrador is a refreshing alternative to many who are tired of the status quo. Though largely symbolic, López Obrador’s petition sends a clear statement of intent to both those in Mexico and those in the U.S.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican Presidential Hopeful López Obrador Accuses Trump of Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

One of President Donald Trump’s main campaign promises was to “build a wall” on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. During his first few days in office, President Trump signed an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement improvements. In Section 2 of the order, it reads that it is the policy of the executive branch to: “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Many of President Trump’s supporters are also ardent fans of the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite encountering intense opposition from Democrats and some Republicans, the Trump Administration appears to be committed to beginning construction as soon as possible. However, there may be roadblocks ahead for the massive security project, such as issues of eminent domain and private citizens blocking or severely slowing construction of the wall, in addition to environmental concerns and waivers that must be obtained before beginning construction.

Border Wall Plans

Border security is critically important to our overall national security. As noted by the order, aliens who illegally enter the U.S. without inspection or admission present “a significant threat to national security and public safety.” President Trump’s executive order seeks to expedite determinations of any apprehended individual’s claims that they are eligible to remain in the U.S., as well as promptly remove any individuals whose claims have been lawfully rejected.

“Mexico / US Pacific Ocean Border Fence” Courtesy of Tony Webster : License (CC BY 2.0)

A critical component of Trump’s presidential campaign was regaining control of America’s borders. Now that he’s president, the particulars of how he will finance the massive border wall are still up for debate. The wall is estimated to cost $21.6 billion (though other estimates put it anywhere between $8 billion to $25 billion). The executive order signed by Trump in January contains no mention of the cost of construction. Mexico has repeatedly stated that not only will it not pay for the wall, but it will retaliate if a border tax is imposed. The order also required government agencies to report the financial assistance they gave Mexico in the past five years, giving rise to speculation that Trump wants to redirect the aid to pay for the wall.

Currently, there are hundreds of companies looking to profit significantly from the construction of a border wall. More than 375 companies have expressed interest in participating in the project. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency said it would likely begin accepting prototypes in March 2017. Those that are approved will be asked to submit full proposals. Surprisingly, a Mexican company, cement maker Cemex SAB, has stated that it would be willing to provide supplies to the project. The plan to seal the border would take three phases, with over 1,250 miles of fences and walls, and would be completed by 2020. San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas are expected to be part of the first phase. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report also showed that the U.S. government has begun seeking environmental waivers to build in specific areas.

Secure Fence Act of 2006

President Trump is not the first president to propose a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The goal of the act was to build 700 additional miles of physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, and authorize more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting. It also gave the Department of Homeland Security permission to use technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and specifically noted that there would be at least two layers of reinforced fencing. In 2006, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the act, including then-Senator Barack Obama.

In 2008, Congress introduced the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, which called for Homeland Security to again construct more fencing. This time it asked for an additional 700 miles of two-layered, 14-foot high fencing along the southwestern border of the U.S., but the bill never made it out of committee. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, however, was amended in 2007 to give the Department of Homeland Security discretion in determining what type of fencing was appropriate, given the different terrain along the border. A one-size-fits-all approach, according to many, including the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), was not an effective manner to tackle securing the border.

Issues With Landowners

Once construction on the previous border wall began, the government ran into issues with landowners near the Rio Grande. Hundreds of landowners protested what they called a “government land grab” to install the fence. It resulted in 320 eminent domain cases being taken to court. In order to purchase property for the construction of the wall, USBP had to settle with private landowners. While some settled out of court, others are still fighting.

Some private property owners want more money, while others want a gate in the fence to be able to access their land on the other side. Eloisa Tamez, 81, was given a code to get through a gate to access a quarter of her three-acre ancestral property that was bisected by the 18-foot barricade. A prominent border wall opponent, Tamez battled her case in court for seven years, before she eventually lost to the government. She was awarded $56,000 for her loss of land and the inconvenience, but says she wasn’t looking for money–she wanted to keep her land without the barriers.

The government almost always wins in eminent domain or condemnation cases, but these cases can take a significant amount of time and resources to settle. Therefore, landowners fighting President Trump’s proposed border project may have the ability to slow the project down immensely. NPR analyzed more than 300 fence cases, and found that two-thirds of them have been settled, with most taking about 3.5 years for a resolution and usually involving under an acre of land. The median settlement awarded to landowners was $12,600.

Other Concerns and Considerations

Aside from the eminent domain, private property rights, and human rights concerns with building a border wall, there are also environmental considerations. Arguably, the full construction of a wall will interfere with the migration of animals and plant pollination. Immense amount of traffic around the wall will destroy flora and fauna, potentially leaving large amounts of garbage and debris in the area as well. These environmental concerns do not seem to be of much importance to those in favor of construction.

“Double Wall Near Tijuana” Courtesy of Jonathan McIntosh : License (CC BY 2.0)

Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, told NPR that construction of the wall could cause flooding issues. A wall will profoundly affect the connectivity of species, fragmenting habitats, and block the free movement of wildlife. So, the border wall has the potential to spread detrimental consequences not just to humans, but also to other species. Additionally, building over major physical barriers, like mountains which dot the U.S.-Mexico border, make the border wall almost impossible to build.

Moreover, it is clear that the wall will disproportionately affect people of color. Militarization of the border means that minority communities will be targeted and even displaced. Millions of people live on both sides of the border. In the four states–California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona–on the U.S. side of the border, people of Mexican origin comprise at least a quarter of the total population, and even higher concentrations exist within 100km of the border itself.

Conclusion

The executive order signed on January 25, 2017, is still in effect. Many people who voted for President Trump view the wall as his signature campaign promise and expect to see progress made on its construction as soon as possible. Companies also seem to have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for profiting off the proposed construction. However, private property owners may have the most power in stalling the wall’s completion for a significant period of time, and the efficacy of a wall in actually securing the borders is certainly up for debate. For now, President Trump has promised that construction is “going to start very soon. Way ahead of schedule. It’s way, way, way ahead of schedule.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Border Wall Actually Be Built? appeared first on Law Street.

On January 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all government hiring. The move drew criticism from those who argue the freeze would disrupt crucial government services and programs. The freeze prohibits every federal agency, excluding those related to the military, public safety, and public health, from hiring new employees.

This means that for the foreseeable future, agencies must make do with the staff on hand. Federal agencies are even barred from filling vacancies left by outgoing employees. Lawyers are among the plethora of current and prospective public employees affected by the president’s order.

A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the federal government employed about five percent of the nation’s practicing lawyers in 2014, which equates to about 39,000 jobs. However, assuming the hiring freeze remains in place, this number is likely to stagnate and drop in the coming years. The incapacitation of this sizable employer will force newly graduated lawyers to alter their job search strategy. The freeze will mostly affect graduates entering job markets in or near government job centers.

As with many of his orders, the language describing the hiring freeze is vague. It is unclear whether the Department of Justice or the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, are exempt based on their importance to public safety and public health respectively.

Therefore, some graduates aspiring to work in the federal government may still have luck. Nonetheless, though Trump may have closed the door on many graduates who hoped to serve the public by entering the federal government, he has inadvertently opened doors in other industry sectors.

In the days and weeks following election night, immigration lawyers reported being swamped by calls and emails from immigrants hoping to learn what a Trump presidency might mean for them. Overnight, Trump’s inflammatory campaign rhetoric was transformed into impending immigration policy. Only days into his term, Trump began signing executive orders that would realize the type of hardline policies he had long threatened.

On January 25, Trump signed two orders that, among other things, called for the construction of wall along the Mexican border, an uptick in deportation efforts, and funding cuts to sanctuary cities. Two days later, the president signed an order that banned the entry of all non-citizens arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries. Both of these orders resulted in large public protests throughout the country.

As private citizens mobilized in the wake of Trump’s latest order, so too did immigration lawyers who began flocking to airports around the country and offering pro bono counsel to those detained. Assuming the Trump administration continues down its current path, immigration lawyers are likely to be in high demand. New lawyers hoping to serve the public may be frozen out of the federal government. But immigration law has, and will continue to be, an area in dire need of individuals dedicated to serving the public by any means necessary.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Trump’s Hiring Freeze Affect New Lawyers? appeared first on Law Street.

Your topic of the day: voter fraud. It was a hot debate during the election, and President Donald Trump has falsely claimed “millions of people” voted illegally. Now the Supreme Court has announced it will not hear an appeal from Texas officials right now, who wanted to reinstate a controversial voter ID law. The law has been deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, but could still end up in front of the Supreme Court at a later date.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Was Serious About the Border Wall, Okays Controversial Pipelines

Today, President Donald Trump will begin taking steps toward actually building that wall along the Mexican border. This undertaking would be financed with federal money. But it’s unclear when the project will start, how long the wall would be, and where exactly the money would come from. This was the first campaign promise Trump made, back when he announced he would run for president in 2015. The wall proposal has been cheered by his fans and harshly criticized by his opponents. But the former Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Gil Kerlikowske, doesn’t see the point of a physical wall. “The border and migration issues are just unbelievably complex,” he said to CNN. “And a simple answer to a complex problem is most assuredly the wrong answer.”

Donald Trump could announce that the wall has been completed, Mexico paid for it, and it’s invisible.
20% of Americans would believe him.

— Luke Adams (@luketadams) January 25, 2017

Trump also cleared the Keystone and Dakota oil pipeline projects that had been halted by President Barack Obama. This doesn’t really come as a surprise as Trump has reportedly close ties with the gas industry, and even owned stocks in the company constructing the Dakota pipeline. The Dakota pipeline has been the focus of massive protests all fall and winter–it’s likely those protests will continue.

A few hundred people are outside the White House now protesting Trump’s executive actions on #KeystoneXL and #DakotaPipeline pic.twitter.com/TUjUmkecOr

— Kira Lerner (@kira_lerner) January 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.