661
Nearly 80% of Texas' floating border barrier is technically in Mexico, survey finds
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
661 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32286 readers
682 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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?
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.
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.
They are, they're just doing it through the courts
I don't really care that much about this specific thing, or any one specific thing, what I care about is we have government officials straight up breaking the hard, explicitly defined limits put on their powers, and people are acting like that's not a big deal