Border – Law Street

UK Border Costs are Predicted to Surge After Brexit

Gabe Fernandez — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 21:09:18 +0000

"Brexit" Courtesy of Rich Girard : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Prolonged border delays, expanded truck parking, and increased customs staffing could cost the U.K. 1 billion pounds per year after it leaves the European Union, according to a report by Oxera, an economic consultancy.

Andrew Meaney–head of transport at Oxera–wrote this analysis to see what effects Brexit will have on British ports. Using World Trade Organization statistics for trading across borders, Meaney estimated the related costs based on the assumption that Britain would try to create a new customs system that will be as close as possible to the current system. The most likely result would be a “low regulation, high enforcement” policy, he concluded.

“Enforcement is either undertaken at the ports, or on a random checks basis,” the report states. “However, the number of staff involved increases substantially, and many consignments are subject to lengthy checks.”

Meaney described the 10-figure annual cost as “extremely conservative” because it does not take into account the economic costs of uncertainty involved, extra staff, traffic congestion, and land on which to conduct the checks, which led him to conclude, “The full cost is likely to be much higher.”

Even if the billion-pound increase is something that diehard Brexit supporters want, news of the projected increase could not come at a more inconvenient time for the U.K., as the island nation scrambles to figure out how to replace funding from the European Union.

One example of this came up last week when the Local Government Association (LGA) called on Britain’s Treasury to help replace funds that would be used in smaller towns and regions near the coast–known as regeneration funds. Local authorities estimate that nearly 8.4 billion pounds were allocated through the European structural and investment funds between 2014-2020, which means that once Brexit happens, that total would fall on the British government.

“Since the referendum, one of the biggest concerns for councils has been the future of vital E.U. regeneration funding,” said Kevin Bentley, an executive member of the LGA. “Councils have used E.U. funds to help new businesses start up, create thousands of new jobs, roll out broadband, and build new roads and bridges.”

The Treasury’s commitment to these funds would likely mean an increase in domestic taxes for British citizens to maintain existing funding levels. This becomes a bit problematic when wealthier parts of the country–such as London, where a majority voted Remain–will be paying to support the regions inhabited by the people who voted Leave, and much of the tax-paying immigrant base might leave because of Brexit. In fact, Remain voters would be paying double for the government’s decisions–a National Audit Office report in 2016 found that British investments in infrastructure were not doing too well.

Ever since Britain elected to exit the European Union in June 2016, Brexit supporters have seen many troubling revelations about the withdrawal they voted for. From Prime Minister Theresa May confirming that the 350 million pounds a week promised to the NHS after the Brexit vote was a lie, to the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, ruling earlier this month that the government’s hope of securing “frictionless” trade once outside the E.U. was not possible, Brexit proponents have had little to hang their hats on. A projected spike in border spending only adds to the problem.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Border Costs are Predicted to Surge After Brexit appeared first on Law Street.

Will Trump’s Border Wall Actually Be Built?

Nicole Zub — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:00:56 +0000

"Border Fence. Imperial Sand Dunes, California. 2009" Courtesy of ERIC WHITE : License (CC BY 2.0)

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.

RantCrush Top 5: January 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:29:49 +0000

Image courtesy of Disney / ABC Television Group; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The hands on the Doomsday clock are now closer to midnight than they have been since 1953, when Russia and the U.S. were testing hydrogen bombs during the Cold War. If you don’t know what we’re talking about, read our piece on it. Happy Friday–check out today’s rants and raves!

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:

U.S. Border Patrol Chief Forced to Resign

Just one day after President Donald Trump’s announcement that the border wall is happening (at least, so he says) Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan was forced out of his job, according to a U.S. official who spoke to the AP. Morgan told senior Border Patrol agents over a video link that he had been asked to leave. He didn’t fight the decision.

Morgan is a former FBI agent. He was named to the post in June and took office in October, as the first “outsider” to lead the agency since it was created in 1924. He has reportedly clashed with the Border Patrol union, which supported Donald Trump, especially after Trump said in December that he would like to see a major immigration policy overhaul.

#BREAKING: Chief of the Border Patrol leaves agency that’s in charge of securing America’s borders with Mexico and Canada pic.twitter.com/ixFCMZ1lXa

— 10News WTSP (@10NewsWTSP) January 26, 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 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Obama, Perry, and the Crisis at the Texas Border

Allison Dawson — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:30:44 +0000

Hey y’all!

President Obama will be coming to Texas today. Yippee! Thankfully he doesn’t plan to come to Houston so I don’t have to worry about the traffic jam disasters he tends to create. We Houstonians have to deal with horrible traffic day in and day out so having that additional stress just makes us less friendly.

Let’s get to the more important stuff: President Obama, Governor Rick Perry, and immigration. So much has come out about these three in the last couple of days that it is making me mad.

But first I want to address the petty topic that Governor Perry has declined shaking President Obama’s hand when he hits the mean Texas tarmac. When I first read this headline I thought, “Oh great, something else for Democrats to grab on to and slander Texas and Republicans with,” but once I read the blurb that went along with that headline it actually makes sense. I love Governor Perry and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I do agree with him on not wanting to simply shake Obama’s hand and take a few pictures. Despite our differences you should always show respect to our Commander in Chief (until Texas secedes from the Union — though we all know that isn’t legal or likely). But if our good ol’ President is going to come to Texas he should probably squeeze in a little time to talk to the Governor and see what’s going on at the border instead of hitting up Democratic party circuit. Squeeze in reality for a few hours sir, you might look like you care about what’s happening down here.

Moving on to something a bit closer to home and a little more important: a Houston Independent School District (HISD) middle school is being considered as housing for immigrant children. I am the product of a HISD education — a craptastic one at that — and my intelligence and creativity come from hard work and influences outside of the HISD realm, but I still feel it is necessary to share that tiny bit of information. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, seventh largest in the United States, and it has 282 schools. Yes nearly three hundred schools, but how many of those are actually in use?

HISD was so kind as to give Homeland Security officials a nice little tour of an abandoned middle school in the Houston area. Why would Homeland Security want to come visit an abandoned school, you ask? Well it’s because this building is being considered for housing for undocumented children who have crossed the Texas-Mexico border in recent months. Most of these kids crossed the border illegally and alone, which has now turned into another issue that the U.S. is being forced to handle. Typically Border Patrol is required to transfer all unaccompanied children over to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours, but because so many children — 52,000 since October 2013 — have crossed the border it is taking more time and resources to house all of these illegal children. Surprisingly by law, all illegal alien children who are not from Mexico cannot be immediately deported without an additional investigation to ensure that these children are not victims of sex trafficking.

It was news to me to find out that Terrell Middle School, the site of the tour, had been closed since 2001 and is now simply a storage unit for the district. So instead of taking the hard-earned tax dollars of Houston locals and putting them into keeping Terrell as a school, people like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the higher ups within HISD feel it is okay to turn it into a housing facility for children. I have never been a fan of Congresswoman Lee and certainly have very little respect for anyone at HISD, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous. Allowing an abandoned school to go unused is infuriating, but then to turn it into federal housing is even worse. Yes, these children need a place to stay but it is not the responsibility of a school district to house children and the federal government should probably get its act together and do what needs to be done. Terrell could be reopened had HISD used a little bit of a $1.9 BILLION bond to update it instead of just letting it sit there while they tear down and rebuild schools that really don’t need to be renovated or rebuilt altogether.

What else could the abandoned middle school be used for instead of just housing for immigrant children and storage for HISD? Well, the school could be torn down and the property sold to a private investor to create more housing or a shopping center for the area. Or even use the land as a sports arena. At the end of my neighborhood is a parcel of HISD property that is all baseball fields rented out to a local little league association for $1 a year. HISD doesn’t even care to profit from what it already owns. The building could be turned into a public library, police station, or even a community center. Allowing the 14.5 acres to be used in a way that is beneficial to the city of Houston is much more ideal than allowing it to be turned into storage or federal housing for undocumented children.

Everyone knows that getting anything done by the government is like watching paint dry. Slow and painful. And can I ask why President Obama declared back in June that we have an “urgent humanitarian situation” at our border? This is not something new; this has been going on for decades. Sometimes I wonder where the President has been all of these years. I’ve seen the statistics: there have been a larger number of border crossings in the last year but there is a reason for that. I partially blame how bad it is getting south of the border, but I also blame how relaxed we have become about our borders without even realizing it.

I may come across a bit heartless, but I don’t believe in a handout and I don’t believe that just because you cross the border into the United States that you are automatically allowed to live here, even if you are a child. There are laws and regulations that need to be upheld. The first step to becoming an American is to respect the United States.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Debi Fitzsimmons via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama, Perry, and the Crisis at the Texas Border appeared first on Law Street.