By Jon Dougherty
In spite of ‘open borders’ Democrats in Congress and activist federal judges appointed by Barack Obama, a section of wall is nevertheless being erected in a busy half-mile corridor near El Paso, Texas, Â thanks to a privately-funded effort.
Kris Kobach, former secretary of state for Kansas and head of “We Build the Wall,” toldÂ Fox News‘ “Fox & Friends” program Sunday that the wall is going up on private land in a section of the border that has become a heavy smuggling corridor for drugs and migrants.
Kobach said the wall section is “the first time a private organization has built border wall on private land.”
The sector where the wall is being built has seen an 1,816 percent increase in family unit apprehensions between March 2018 and March 2019,Â Fox News‘ host Pete Hegseth reported, or about 930 apprehensions per day.
“It’s not just any piece of land,” Kobach said. “This piece of land separates El Paso and Ciudad Juarez [Mexico]. Where that wall ends, there’s been a half-mile gap between the existing wall and Mt. Cristo Rey.
“It was a ridiculously large gap where smuggling where both people and drugs would go through,” he continued. “But get this: The Army Corps of Engineers said that piece of land is too rugged to build on, you can’t build there. Well, We Build the Wall proved them wrong. The wall has been going up 24-7” over the holiday weekend.
Kobach said that the project is nearly complete already and that the wall consists of the same metal bollard design that the government is installing in places where dilapidated fencing once stood.
The big difference, Kobach said, is that the steel being used by his organization lasts three times longer — 75 years instead of 25.
On any given night, Kobach said, 100 migrants will sneak into the U.S. illegally and $100,000 in drugs will cross.
The new private construction comes on the heels of another decision by an activist federal judge last week barring the Trump administration from tapping $6 billion in Pentagon funds for wall construction after POTUS declared a national emergency along the border in February.
On Friday U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. blocked the Trump administrationâ€™s efforts to use about $6 billion in Pentagon funds that have already been approved by Congress for construction of sections of new wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
His order applies to two high-priority projects to replace 51 miles of fence in two areas on the Mexican border,Â The Associated PressÂ reports.
The AP added:
Gilliam issued the ruling after hearing arguments last week in two cases. California and 19 other states brought one lawsuit; the Sierra Club and a coalition of communities along the border brought the other. His ruling was the first of several lawsuits against Trumpâ€™s controversial decision to bypass the normal appropriations process to pay for his long-sought wall.
Gilliam, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on arguments that the president was wrongly ignoring Congressâ€™ wishes.
â€œCongressâ€™s â€˜absoluteâ€™ control over federal expenditures_even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important_is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one,â€ he wrote in his 56-page opinion.
The report is inaccurate.
Youâ€™ll note that AP had to spin this in a way that misleads readers into believing that POTUS Trump is attempting to be â€˜lawlessâ€™ again â€” â€œignoring Congressâ€™ wishes.â€
Left out of the AP report â€” either intentionally, becauseÂ political bias, or because the reporter has no interest in learning about how Congress allocates funding to the Defense Departmentâ€¦becauseÂ political biasÂ â€” is the fact that Congress has already authorized the funds that the president was going to use to build the wall (a national security project if ever there was one).
Congress may not have â€˜wishedâ€™ that he use those non-earmarked funds for a border wall, but that doesnâ€™t mean heâ€™s violating the law, the Constitution, or separation of powers by doing so because, again, the funds wereÂ properly authorizedÂ by the Legislative Branch.
The ruling is likely to be overturned if it makes it the Supreme Court.
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10