this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
383 points (100.0% liked)

World News

1036 readers
37 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A joint U.S.-Mexico topographical survey found that 787 feet of the 995-feet-long buoy line set up by Texas are in Mexico.

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] venusenvy47@lemm.ee 119 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] comedy@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should. Send Abbott a bill for polluting their waterway too, while they're at it.

[–] venusenvy47@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] parrot-party@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Removing it has to be cheaper than installing it. Bleed Abbott if he wants to play this game.

[–] zackwithak@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Depends how much cheaper I guess. Texas is about 70% richer than Mexico (by GDP)

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 be drowned instead and the workers take control.)

[–] wheresmypillow@lemmy.one 64 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] poprocks 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] argv_minus_one 3 points 1 year ago

This game has so many infinite money glitches.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought that the treaty from the Spanish-American War made the Rio Grande neutral territory. Any land that appears in the middle of the river doesn't belong to either country.

Unless there have been other treaties that I didn't learn about in my history classes, the buoys technically are infringement on neutral territory.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

America following a treaty that doesn't benefit itself...

[–] rgb3x3 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

US: "Everything on this side of the line is ours, those are the rules."

Mexico: "But you can't keep moving the line into my side, that's not fair!"

US "Yeah huh, mom said that's how it works."

Mexico: "No she didn't! You're lying!"

[–] Echo71Niner@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

That's funny, both countries sometimes do feel like two kids arguing.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

México would actually end with : chinga tu madre!

[–] cre0@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Heyyyyy… TU MADRE!!

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 11 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


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 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.

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.

The survey could add a new legal dimension to the Biden administration lawsuit, which argues that Texas violated a longstanding law governing navigable U.S. waterways when it set up the buoys without federal permission.

Unlawful crossings along the southern border fell to the lowest level in two years in June, a drop the Biden administration attributed to a set of asylum restrictions and programs that allow migrants to enter the U.S. legally.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] livus@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Neato@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SterlingVapor@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like if the Sovereign Nation of Mexico is as upset about them as you are, they should go remove them.

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But

A natural land border augmented with a fence isn’t an international incident

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would literally be an international incident, no?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's a reason the government started calling unidentified flying objects "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena".

Would that definitely be an occurrence between two countries? Yes.

Would that be an "international incident"? Maybe.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?"

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Cuban Missile Crisis, A U2 being shot down in Soviet Air Space, trash being blown into Canada, are these things equivalent to you?

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 🤣

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You said it wasn’t a big deal because it wasn’t an international incident.

Honestly what the fuck are you trying to say?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] crenshawthesynthman@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

I was pro border wall until this

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

50% of the river even that photo shows it's nonsense