Attractive Nuisance Laws

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the simple fact that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law for the United States. Article VI makes it plain that every federal, state, and community law must be constitutional in order to survive any court challenges.

 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

            Each state seems to have its own laws concerning the attractive nuisance doctrine. This doctrine has seen many court challenges and has been declared constitutional. The liability, of course, is determined by the circumstances of each case. The Legal Information Institute (LII) at the Cornell Law School defines this doctrine as follows. 

A doctrine in tort law under which a landowner may be liable for injuries to children who trespass on land if the injury results from a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

            In plain language, the paragraph above says that anyone who owns land can be liable for injuries for anything that they have on their land that could be enticing to trespassing children.  I learned through research that these items or conditions can vary from swimming pools to trampolines to iron turntables used by railroads to reroute trains. My daughter and her husband put a swimming pool on their property and installed a fence around the property for liability purposes. A long-time friend and her husband got rid of their trampoline for liability reasons because they did not want to fence their large amount of property. I wonder if the beautiful, clear water lake behind their home could be considered an attractive nuisance! It probably is not their liability because it is most likely to be considered state or community property. A railroad was declared liable in 1873 for injuries to a young boy while playing on their turntable.

            I knew of the attractive nuisance doctrine, but I had never connected it to the need for a barrier along our southern border until I read an article by Thomas Lifson. He connected the two ideas and declared that the United States is now an attractive nuisance to migrant children. 

It is clear that life in the United States is so attractive to people from many foreign nations that they are willing to take grave risks for themselves and their children in order to enter without waiting through the process of legal immigration….

It is clear that, like a homeowner who must fence his swimming pool to prevent children of others from falling in and drowning, the U.S. must erect a wall on our border before more children are lured into danger by the attractive nuisance of life in the United States.

            Apparently, the United States has now become an attractive nuisance to children from other nations. Two children recently died after crossing the southern U.S. border illegally. They were attracted to life in the United States, but they lost their lives in the process of obtaining their dreams. It stands to reason that the United States should be required to fence their property – i.e. the entire southern border – to protect migrant children who are trespassing on American property. The sooner the wall is built, the quicker the liability will decrease. This seems to be an excellent reason to build the wall!

Building Trump's Wall

            The reverence of Christmas Eve and the festivities of Christmas Day have wound down. Yet there is hope that the Spirit of Christmas will continue into 2019 and help to heal our divided nation. As you may know, Congress failed to pass a bill with the $5 billion funding for building the wall along the border between the United States and Mexico.

            The Senate passed a bill without any funding, and President Donald Trump declared that he would not sign it. The House ignored the Senate’s bill and passed a bill with $5.7 billion funding.  The Senate failed to take action on the House’s bill, and Trump shut the government down. In reality, only a portion of the government is shut down because all the essential functions are still being done. However, the unwillingness of the Democrats to pass a bill with funding for the wall shows the great division in the nation.

            Americans should be asking a very important question: Why are the Democrats so against building a wall along the southern border? They claim that they are FOR national security, but they continually shoot down any bills that would strengthen it. First, they claim that a wall cannot be built along the border because of the mountains, rivers, and other physical challenges. Then they claim that there is no need to build a wall and that it would be a waste of money. It is obvious that they do not want a wall because there is proof that walls can be built in such territory and that they work to keep people in or out of certain areas.

            The longest and oldest known wall in the world is the Great Wall of China. It is officially 13,170.7 miles long and winds over “rugged country and steep mountains.” It is built on beaches, in rugged mountains, and through “a desert corridor between tall mountain ranges.” The Great Wall was the northern border of China. It has also been in place for 2,300 years. The average height of the wall is over 25 feet, and the tallest height is more than 45 feet. The wall was put on the World Heritage List by UNESCO in December 1987, and parts of it are visited by nearly 70,000 people per day. No work has been done on the wall for military purposes since 1644, and sections of it have entirely disappeared. Some bricks from the walls have been used to build homes, farms, or reservoirs since the Cultural Revolution (1966-1957).

            There are three main reasons why the Great Wall was built and rebuilt over the centuries: 

(1) to defend the border of the kingdom, (2) to be a barrier to trade, and (3) for tourists. Before China was united in 221 B.C. many states warred against each other hoping to expand their territory. To protect their territories from invaders, the princes and other leaders started to build high walls in the 7^th Century B.C. The wall was extended and strengthened in the last two centuries B.C. and particularly when the Silk Road was opened to exporting silk to the West. The wall continued to be “rebuilt, modified, and extended” to “protect the Chinese Empire from northern invaders.” China had leaders who thought that “Great Wall construction cost lots of money and manpower, which was bad for his people.” The year of 1957 saw the Great Wall becoming a tourist attraction.

            Another wall that is well known isthe wall built by the nation of Israel to stop suicide bombers. The media was once full of news about suicide bombers and terrorists from Palestine killing and/or injuring Israeli civilians. In the period of time between September 2000 and mid-2005, there were hundreds of attacks by suicide bombers and terrorists, and nearly 1,000 innocent people were killed with thousands more injured. The Israeli government decided that the only way to stop the attacks was to build a security fence along the “Green Line” that ran between Israel and the West Bank. “The project had the overwhelming support of the Israeli public and was deemed legal by Israel’s Supreme Court.”

            The fence, of course, brought outrage from the Palestinians and condemnation from the nations of the world. Israel as condemned even though other nations – including the United States - already had barriers to protect their borders. In fact, “Israel had already built a fence surrounding the Gaza Strip that had worked – not a single suicide bomber has managed to cross Israel’s border with Gaza.” The fence between Israel and the West Bank was built to protect against terrorists, and it works. “The value of the fence in saving lives is evident from the data: In 2002, the year before construction started, 457 Israelis were murdered; in 2009, 8 Israelis were killed.” The experience of Israel proves that border barriers protect innocent people.

            Another famous wall is the one between North Korea and South Korea. In fact, North Korea will soon be bordered by two walls because China is currently constructing a barrier between China and North Korea. This site lists more than thirty walls, fences, or barriers that are either in place, in the process of being constructed, or proposed. This alone tells us that the idea of a barrier along a border between two countries is neither new or out of place. Sometimes they are needed for protection from terrorists and others who desire to destroy a nation. Other times they are needed to protect the sovereignty of nations.

            So we return to the question of why Democrats are so against a border along the southern border. There is proof that borders can be built in many difficult places. There is proof that they work to protect the citizens and sovereignty of nations. There is even proof that there is financial worth is constructing borders against invaders.

            The Democrats claim that barriers do not work, and they do not want to allocate any taxpayer funds to building a wall. They are so against any type of barrier that they are even trying to stop the efforts of hundreds of thousands of Americans from funding the wall. The “WeThe People Will Fund the Wall" account has raised more than $17 million. Just as conservatives have rallied to the cause, Democrats have tried to stop it.

            Representative Sheila Jackson Lee(D-Texas) introduced a bill last week  – House Resolution 7332 – that would “prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to build a wall between Mexico and the United States, and for other purposes.” The bill has four co-sponsors: Representatives Karen Bass (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), and Joaquin Castro (D-TX). It has also been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.

            Again, we must ask the question: What are the Democrat leaders afraid of? Why are they so against a fence, wall, or barrier along the southern border? Since some Democrats have contributed their money to the fund to build the wall, we know that this fear has not consumed all Democrats. The ones who have not “drunk the punch” being served by the Democrat leadership should abandon the party. If enough members of the party walk away, the leaders may regain their sanity. Meanwhile, wise Americans should be grateful that President Donald Trump is holding firm on his refusal to sign any budget bill that does not include funding for the wall.

Trump's Wall

            Donald Trump campaigned on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and he appears determined to build it. However, Congress is not cooperating very well. It seems that all Americans would want to protect the sovereignty of the United States, but Democrats and some Republicans are fighting against the wall. In order to fund the government and keep it from shutting down, Trump willingly withdrew his demand that funding for a wall be included in the 2017 spending plan, but I expect that he has another plan to fund the wall.

            Meanwhile, Hungary has shown the importance of building barriers along the border. In September 2015 thousands of migrants per day, sometimes up to ten thousands a day, were crossing Hungary to reach Austria, Germany, and Scandinavia. Laszlo Toroczkai, the mayor of Asotthalom, called it an “invasion” and “not a normal thing to break into a country.” He decided to do something about it, and he was supported by the government.

            Hungary built a fence to stop illegal immigration across their country. Their neighbors are not happy about it, but the fence protects Hungarians from illegal immigrants, which is the government’s responsibility to do. The first fence worked so well that Hungary built a second one, as reported by Jacob Bojesson, Foreign Correspondent at The Daily Signal. 

Hungary’s second border fence has just been completed in the southern town of Asotthalom. The 96-mile long, 14 ft. tall double-line of defense doesn’t look too intimidating from a distance. Go a little closer and you’ll notice several layers of razor-wire capable of delivering electric shocks, cameras, heat sensors and loud speakers ready to tell migrants they’re about to break Hungarian law if they as much as touch the fence.

            Hungary did not stop at building the fence. They added several hundred military officers and others to guard the border 24 hours per day. They set up temporary bases to house the military officers. Most police officers in the nation rotate through a program to protect the border at all times. Volunteers are being trained to deploy as “border hunters” and will be paid while on deployment. The guards are charged with keeping everyone without permission away from the fence for security reasons.

            Migrants who happen to get across the border are caught and deported without any opportunity to claim asylum. Bojesson claims that the “results were staggering. The influx went down from 6,353 one day to 870 the next. Illegal border crossings were steadily below 40 per day throughout the rest of the month.” 
            

            The United States has some experience with the effect of barriers along the border. The San Diego Border Patrol sector was once one of the busiest sectors along the border with Mexico. In 1986 this area accounted for nearly one-third of all the apprehensions along the border. A fence was built in the sector in the early 1990s, which has decreased the apprehensions there. The Daily Signal sent a reporter to the area to find out why the fence had such a dramatic effect. 

            Considering that approximately 4,000 illegal aliens cross the southern U.S. border each day, I would think that the United States would look to Hungary for an example. The leaders in Hungary decided that even one illegal immigrant was too many, and they cooperated to close the border. Wouldn’t it be nice if all the members of Congress would open their eyes enough to recognize the need for a barrier along the border and then work together to build one?