What disturbs me is that you are here seeming to be agnostic about how the land is taken: you treat someone’s approval or disapproval as a simple philosophical dispute.

Not really; I was just giving an example.

My actual view is that I agree that eminent domain powers are necessary for a functioning government. That doesn’t mean that I always agree with how they are being used.

I see our rights as ways of gaining transparency and power in these big systems. You are framing this from a party line perspective and a lot of people are doing that.

No. All I was doing was explaining how most people interpret this particular example. If you take a more generic example, like the Kelo decision, the opinions tend to fall along economic preferences rather than political ones.

as a citizen, I can’t know why the government doesn’t follow the law when they turn up on my doorstep and take my stuff or arrest me.

I really mean that: in the worst case scenario, you the person get arrested and the state takes all your stuff and it really doesn’t matter if the person helming the project has an R or a D after their name: you are personally being deprived of your rights.

Well, the most egregious violations of civil rights in this area, IMO, are not in eminent domain, but in search-and-seizure. But it really fries me when eminent domain is used for commercial purposes (Kelo) or when the governmental agency lowballs the money given to the owner.

You seem to have stated the opposite of that: that we should look at our leaders, decide if we agree with their goals, and then tolerate whatever methods they decide are necessary to achieve them

Again, no. It’s just that this PARTICULAR example is highly partisan, with the extremists on both sides spouting nonsense. No wall at all? Crazy. A 2500 mile wall? Crazier.

Do you really support the state as it begins work on private property without even informing the owners?

Never have. The state must follow the process and take no action prior to owning the property.