'Attractive nuisance' legal doctrine is why we must build the border wall

Many progressives blamed the Trump administration for the death of a 7-year-old girl after crossing the border and wandering around the rugged territory on the U.S. side.  So intense was the criticism that a White House spokesman was forced to deny it (always a bad look, even for the innocent), and the DHS produced a timeline demonstrating that it had acted responsibly.  Mexico's former president, Vicente Fox, even blamed President Trump.

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.


Hat tip: Breitbart.

There is doctrine in law that addresses situations like this.  The Legal Dictionary explains:

attractive nuisance doctrine

n. a legal doctrine which makes a person negligent for leaving a piece of equipment or other condition on property whichwould be both attractive and dangerous to curious children.  These have included tractors, unguarded swimming pools, open pits, and abandoned refrigerators.  Liability could be placed on the people owning or controlling the premises even when the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the property.  Basically the doctrine was intended to make people careful about what dangerous conditions they left untended.  Some jurisdictions (including California) have abolished the attractive nuisance doctrine and replaced it with specific conditions (e.g. open pit and refrigerators) and would make property owners liable onlyby applying rules of foreseeable danger which make negligence harder to prove.

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.

Many progressives blamed the Trump administration for the death of a 7-year-old girl after crossing the border and wandering around the rugged territory on the U.S. side.  So intense was the criticism that a White House spokesman was forced to deny it (always a bad look, even for the innocent), and the DHS produced a timeline demonstrating that it had acted responsibly.  Mexico's former president, Vicente Fox, even blamed President Trump.

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.


Hat tip: Breitbart.

There is doctrine in law that addresses situations like this.  The Legal Dictionary explains:

attractive nuisance doctrine

n. a legal doctrine which makes a person negligent for leaving a piece of equipment or other condition on property whichwould be both attractive and dangerous to curious children.  These have included tractors, unguarded swimming pools, open pits, and abandoned refrigerators.  Liability could be placed on the people owning or controlling the premises even when the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the property.  Basically the doctrine was intended to make people careful about what dangerous conditions they left untended.  Some jurisdictions (including California) have abolished the attractive nuisance doctrine and replaced it with specific conditions (e.g. open pit and refrigerators) and would make property owners liable onlyby applying rules of foreseeable danger which make negligence harder to prove.

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.