News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
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.
Why arrest Texans who enter Mexico to kill people? Just shoot the Texans before they can cause any damage
From the article:
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
Sounds like if the Sovereign Nation of Mexico is as upset about them as you are, they should go remove them.
But
A natural land border augmented with a fence isn’t an international incident
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.
That would literally be an international incident, no?
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"?
Is the collapsing fence that quite possibly goes into the Canadian border illegal? Is it an "international incident?"
There’s a news report about 80% of Vermont’s trash winding up in Canada, is that not an international incident?
I’m just trying to understand your own words, and you’re getting worked up. What do you think the words “international incident” mean?
The Cuban Missile Crisis, A U2 being shot down in Soviet Air Space, trash being blown into Canada, are these things equivalent to you?
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.
But he owes you an explanation?
Ok 🤣
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?
You said it wasn’t a big deal because it wasn’t an international incident.
Honestly what the fuck are you trying to say?
No I said it wasn't a big deal at all calling it an "international incident" changes nothing because at the end of the day it's just a fence.
This is just another reason why I viciously hate people in the United States
This boarder is proof that Biden is a war criminal for allowing this to happen