About two-thirds of the 2,000-mile Mexican-American border is composed of private and state-owned lands, much of which will have to be acquired — if President Donald Trump’s wall is to ever become a reality — via the use of eminent domain; the power possessed by the government to “take private property and convert it to public use.”   

The eminent domain process is a messy one. There will be hundreds of private landowners who will have to be contacted, and negotiated with — agreements and settlements will have to be made, murky lawsuits will have to be paddled through, the government will make its payouts, and, eventually, possibly, there will be a wall built along this southern border that will have made all or most of its neighbors angry and upset.

Eminent domain was actually used by former President George W. Bush in his own efforts to establish a more secure barrier along the Mexican-American border. Private property was seized by the administration, and payouts were made — wherein there are always questions of justice and fairness — so that a wall could be erected that subdivides owners’ properties, and greatly reduces the value or usefulness of all the land it affects.

Eminent domain also was used in the establishment of the Keystone pipeline, among other projects. As is nearly always the case, there were conflicts, there were delays and there were controversies. There is absolutely no reason to expect anything else once Trump’s proposed wall begins to become an actuality, and perhaps they will occur to an even greater frequency or extent considering the politically, morally, ethically, economically, environmentally charged debate that has consumed this project and this executive order.    

These complications with eminent domain are merely one more, on top of many pre-existing, contributing factors to the infeasibility of Trump’s proposed wall.

These problems are incredibly complicated. Thousands of lives will be affected, families will be split, property owners’ lands might be transported to a virtual “no man’s land” in between the Rio Grande River and the border wall. Hundreds of other private owner’s lands will simply be seized, and the owners forcibly contented with what settlement they are offered — and all for what?

The wall itself is a poorly thought-out, off-the-cuff solution to an issue that is so much more complicated, and requires an equally complex set of solutions. This is not only an be-all and end-all conception that will cause heartache and endless legislative delays and complexities, but also an equally unnecessary one.