Nearly 80% of the controversial floating barrier Texas state officials assembled in the middle of the Rio Grande to deter migrant crossings is technically on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a federal government survey released on Tuesday.
The revelation was made public in a federal court filing by the Biden administration in its lawsuit against the barrier, which Texas set up in July as part of an initiative directed by Gov. Greg Abbott to repel migrants and repudiate President Biden's border policies.
The river barrier, assembled near the Texas border town of Eagle Pass, has come under national and international scrutiny, including from the Mexican government, which has strongly voiced its objections to the buoys. Advocates, Democratic lawmakers and a Texas state medic have also expressed concerns about the structures diverting migrants to deeper parts of the river where they are more likely to drown.
Earlier this month Mexican officials recovered two bodies from the Rio Grande, including one that was found floating along the barrier, but the circumstances of the deaths are still under investigation. Mexican officials condemned the barrier in announcing the discovery of the bodies. But Steve McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, said preliminary information indicated that the first person found dead had "drowned upstream from the marine barrier and floated into the buoys."
Abbott and other Texas officials have insisted the buoys are necessary to stop migrants from entering the U.S. illegally, and the state has refuted claims it violated federal law and international treaties when it set up the floating barriers without permission from the Biden administration or Mexico. (Article continues)
and the state has refuted claims it violated federal law and international treaties when it set up the floating barriers without permission from the Biden administration or Mexico. (Article continues)
That's the clincher. States are 100% not allowed to treat internationally or make policies regarding other countries.
Building a fence has nothing to do with that. If Texas had setup a federal border crossing, that would be illegal. If Texas had that fence constructed in such a way that a federal border crossing were blocked off, that would be illegal. A natural land border augmented with a fence isn’t an international incident and you don’t need permission from the federal government to do that.
You sure as hell do when you put 80% of it outside your borders, outside US borders no less
This kind of thing could spark a war in different circumstances - imagine the Mexican army goes to dismantle the buoys in their borders, and one of several possible groups from Texas confronts them and it leads to a skirmish
Mexico would be entirely within their rights - it’s on their property and it’s suspected to be leading to deaths
The subject of this post is that “nearly 80%” of the border fence is in Mexico’s Sovereign border, so I don’t see the issue with them removing the trespassing part of the fence.
In the sense that we are all international citizens and that any action by anyone near any border is an international “incident”, sure I guess.
But if you want to be honest and acknowledge that calling something an “international incident” is a pretty loaded term, then I would say absolutely not.
Im not sure I understand. You don’t think forcing another nation to clean up a mess we made is enough of an international incident to be called an international incident?
A friend of mine has land up in vermont that borders canada. Directly behind his property line is Canada. If I take a beer can and throw it into Canada, is that an “international incident”?
You’re arguing for states having free reign to fuck with international entities by doing whatever they want - up to, but not including, the Cuban missile crisis?
Absolutely not. I’m saying that trash on an international border isn’t an international incident unless you are trying to make mountains out of mole hills. Neither is building a fence there.
So if that’s not what you’re arguing for, where is the line when something becomes an international incident?
It seems to me like you aren’t sure or at least aren’t capable enough to communicate your position clearly, but you have a visceral need to keep arguing because your heels are so dug in already.
I’m not trying to come up with a general legal definition of “international incident.” I am merely disagreeing with calling this specific thing an “international incident,” at least unless the person using the term explains why they chose that term, and why that term matters in this case. But for me, international incident has much more weight then a fence that was built in the neutral area between two sovereign but friendly open-border nations.
If you still want to go down the international incident branch, I’d consider the agricultural practices of US farmers in California drawing too much water for our downstream neighbors much more appropriate.
It’s an international incident because it requires international intervention to solve.
If you look up the definitions of “international” and “incident” in any dictionary it should be pretty straight-forward to understand why anyone would use that term to describe the situation at hand. But somehow you’ve decided it’s not that - but you can’t say why specifically, nor can you define what qualifies as an international incident.
Ok. Trivially it’s an international incident as this is occurring in the border region between The US State, Texas and The free and soverign state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. So what?
If the barrier is still floating, there aren’t any gang members or ne’er-do-wells even attempting to cross it. If there were, the silly thing would be on the bottom of the river with bullet holes in it.
Preventing migrant workers has a maybe effect on the jobs that use them, namely farming construction and landscaping. Iirc it was Alabama who banned migrant workers and then had to bus in migrants because they couldn’t keep white folks on the job.
And make America pay for it! That’d make me laugh every time I think about it for now and forever after Donald Trump tried to get Mexico to pay for his dumb fucking wall.
Small correction: he told people Mexico would pay for it. Because how could he possibly make another country pay for anything? Lol. Only thing stupider was that people believed that shit.
Haha I think I missed that! Thanks for this. You’re right that he did beg the Mexican president, but it sounds like he didn’t care at all if he actually did it. He just wanted him to say he would pay for it lol
They should sell it back to Texas at a huge markup. Then when it floats back over to their waters, sell it back again, and again, and again. Endless money stream.
Every state’s geography has different challenges. Texas is blessed with natural resources and rich farmland. It is a rich state. Spending that money on murder buoys instead of immigration services is a crime against humanity.
I had to move to low-income housing because no job I’m able to get pays enough for a ‘real’ apartment. I can move to my hometown, but It’s the same thing there. I barely make enough to get by. Were it not for my wife also working, we’d both be homeless.
Trust me. I’d love to move somewhere else, where a post-high school education wouldn’t make me more broke than I am, where good jobs grow on trees, and where housing is reasonably priced. But I can’t. So I Vite blue and get shit on for it here. But I do it anyway, because the asshole fascists that run this state sure as hell haven’t made my life any easier.
Let’s give it back to Mexico, the Republicans were screaming that we should let Russia have Ukraine because it used to be part of Russia, and as it turns out Texas used to be part of Mexico. Problem solved.
Sounds like Mexico can just take down most of this thing.
Edit: As a US citizen, I support Mexico’s immigration services to detain any Texas construction workers that illegally cross the border to service this thing.
I also would support the governor of this region of Mexico to put these construction workers on a bus and drop them deep in the heart of Mexico somewhere.
They should just be drowned. That’s the purpose for this barrier, so I think it’d be fair to drown anyone working to construct it. (I don’t condone drowning the workers, but the workers should stand up against their employers due to drowning risk. If they don’t listen, maybe they should have an “accident” and “drown” instead and the workers take control.)
Probably the only reason Mexico hasn’t already pulled it out is because they don’t want to waste money that they know will never be reimbursed to them.
Maybe the US will take it down and bill Texas themselves.
I think that TEXAS has to deal with illegal immigration across the TEXAS boarder into TEXAS. I said nothing about anywhere else and the amount of immigrants they have to deal with.
The Border Patrol and Customs (in the Department of Homeland Security) is actually responsible for securing borders. States do not get to decide how their borders are enforced.
We all have to deal with illegal immigration, most of which doesn't even happen on the southern border. We manage to do it without building death traps or tricking people into getting on busses and sending them to states we don't like.
I know Texas and Abbot think they're special but they're wrong.
Too bad for Texas that the constitution outlines that only the federal government has the right to deal with other countries. Both the Treaty Clause and Logan Act cover this base. Texas is wrong.
Texas has much bigger problems they should be dealing with. Having a reliable grid should be a much bigger priority than the border, but Texas would rather kill people (at the border, or just in their own homes during a snowstorm) than fix their actual problems.
If only you could use your eyes. There were never any saws only scallop edged plates designed to keep people from being able to grab between the buoys and slide through. The nets can also be understood to be barriers In place to stop people from diving under the bouys. Without seeing a picture of the nets, I cannot make any claims to their danger because they could be a fine mesh or they could be a rope net. One would be stubstantially more dangerous than the other.
cato.org/…/immigration-crime-what-research-says (The Cato institute is a libertarian institute. Libertarian should mean socially liberal, including more friendly with immigrants and more towards open borders, but they’re usually conservative.)
I’m not going to spend all day finding you more. It’s easy to research. I doubt it matters how many sources I provide, but you can find whichever ones you like. There’s plenty of data on it.
Right, it would be bad if they put fuckin buzzsaws in the non crosswalk parts of roads to deter jaywalking. It would be monstrous. You however, see that and go, "those jaywalkers get what they DESERVE" because there is something broken in you that you've filled up with contrarianism and petulant nationalism.
Like I said, I doubt it matters what evidence I provide. You’ll find a way to justify your beliefs instead of adjusting them as you get new evidence. It’s the typical human response. We like to act like humans are rational, but the vast majority of people the majority of the time are driven by emotion. We’d rather ignore evidence if it forces us to reconsider our views.
Beliefs do not make a person. It will not hurt to change them. You’ll still be yourself. It doesn’t mean anything bad that you changed your beliefs, really it only means something good. It means they you can consider new information and adjust to it, instead of ignoring it which would be bad.
We have plenty of those domestically already. People are people, and y’all qaeda down there isn’t exactly the shining example of civilization you think it is.
Lol no, El Salvador. It seems these days “migrants” are just passing through Mexico to get to the US. Why don’t they just stay in Mexico since they’re already there, speak the language, and share many values?
I’m not fan of the police, but the videos and stories you see are not all police. There’s certainly a systemic problem with police but that doesn’t mean they’re more dangerous than violent criminal gangs.
You seem to have missed the point. The gun laws already prohibit them from owning guns but they do it anyway and commit crimes. No additional gun laws will suddenly make criminals obey the law.
But somehow gun laws work in every other civilised country... Odd.
Well if you are sure it's not the gun laws then instead fix the other laws which are putting people in poverty and creating the gangs.
So your solution to people breaking the law is to create more laws that they won’t obey? The United States is fairly unique with their bill of rights. Codifying the right to bear arms, which in the view of the founders would allow the citizens to rise up against the government. This is well documented in their own writings. We currently have far too many restrictions on what citizens are allowed to own.
Oh sorry, my bad. It actually sounds like you want to legalize crime.
The vast majority of illegal immigration is done by people overstaying visas. Take you’re racist uninformed and sickening list for injury and death and shove it up your ass
Ah yes, a person’s value as a human being is reduced to nothing the second they cross an imaginary line decided by folks that have long since died. Makes perfect sense. /s
I share your sentiment however despite the “looks” the actual line does not matter much. It’s about what you have to do to gain rights. Is traveling across some line and being desperate enough to grant this person rights? (Like right to work/live in some community/country)? Or are some additional hoops needed? If they’re needed why should anybody allow other people rights just for traveling across the line? Isn’t it unfair to these who spent years of work trying to go through proper procedure? Maybe it’s okay if somebody is desperate? But then what is the measure of “desperate” - it’s a pretty unclear term.
Honestly it came out a bit harsh but the point was that they’re doing very risky things knowing there are risks to their lives but they do it anyway. If a guy is dancing on a cliff and falls off you don’t blame the cliff.
Imagine swimming in a river in your own country and then you get caught up in a net and die while still in your country due to Texas illegally setting up their own border wall that isn’t even in Texas anymore. Texas should should hire this guy to go to the river and whenever kids drown trying to just enjoy themselves he is there but always wait 5 minutes to make sure the Mexicans drowned since he obviously hates them and then unties them, bring them up to shore, and then yell this in their face. I think he would gladly take the job all the while moving back and fourth illegally from the Mexico and Texas border just to yell at dead Mexicans
I can’t imagine what situation you grew up in to have so much hate in your heart. What you and a shit to of racists don’t understand is that if we had all the immigrants in America disappear, the labor force, and crops for example would shit the bed so fast. The immigrants all do the jobs you fuckers won’t do and you don’t actually care enough to learn on how much of the country they hold on their back. It’s always simple though, instead of actual being about “America” and filling the gaps you would just complain someone else needs to do these high labor intensive jobs
Go ahead and tell me how many were just swimming in the Rio Grande when they just so happened to get caught in the border defense when they weren’t actually trying to cross the border. I can guarantee it’s zero.
First off you’re so dumb dude. How about instead of intentionally killing others in an absolutely beautiful river we just enjoy it? Ever thought that idk, maybe, some of them genuinely just wanted a swim?
The more important part is that since you are so ‘MERICA🦅⛪🙏’ then why are you okay with these deaths while they are completely illegal and dong follow the constitution? Referenced From this comment
I mean i figure since youre okay with that ill just go ahead and completely ignore laws to do whatever the hell i want to do. When did the constitution just become another ‘woke’ book to you that should be ignored?
You keep ignoring over half of my comments. Do you really think Texas of all places would put a buoy with a net but not create the net in such a way that it would tangle someone up? Are there any warnings about there being nets? How would you feel if Mexico set something that long up in the river but 80% of it was across the border?
It has been dangerous long before the barrier. The bouys are now an even more obvious obstruction visible from shore and should discourage people even further from risking their lives.
Thanks for the link. Maybe I’m just dumb but if I saw buoys in that situation I would simply think “border line” instead of “danger”. Putting a net there only makes it that more dangerous if the river really is that bad… A buoy would have completely sufficed. I also didn’t see anything about a warning of a net under the buoy. It honestly just seems like a completely trap to me
That's a very simplistic and apathetic response to a human being dying ...
I bet you support the death penalty for people that steal a loaf of bread to feed their children as well.
The reality is that it's a very complex issue and while Texas has the right to secure it's borders a humans right to live is a little more important me thinks.
At the size of a state government deaths are statistics. And funny you should mention stealing. In another thread I was arguing that stealing is immoral and should face punishment, even food. Just like going hungry has programs to help, so does immigration have processes to go through to do it legally.
Don’t steal and don’t cross sovereign borders without permission. There are consequences to actions. Don’t start crying because someone suffered the consequences.
Ah yes, why don’t they just use those vague programs you alluded to?
I’m sure you can tell all of us what those programs are and how easy they are to be eligible/apply through. Right? I mean certainly you know what these programs are and wouldn’t just be assuming they’re in place and functional. After all, a blatant assumption like that would make you an utter jackass if it turned out those programs weren’t actually available for everyone or were needlessly restrictive/difficult.
Suffered the consequences of what, exactly? The consequences of being born into a world that doesn’t provide for them? The consequences of unequal access to opportunity?
Guess then we should get to shoving some consequences your way for being a dick. Your speech is harmful, and you don’t deserve clean food or water or a warm place to sleep.
Get our of here with your garbage. Your life is not more valuable than ANYONE elses.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was arguing against. I’ve said nothing about inequality or difficulty of life anywhere. Merely that crossing borders illegally is illegal and wrong.
Add comment