535
Judge orders Texas officials to remove floating buoys along Rio Grande border
(www.the-independent.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
535 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19145 readers
4637 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good. But watch them refuse to do it. They would rather kill people.
Yep, they're Good Christians who believe in the "sanctity of life".
Sanctity of the life they choose.
Murderers gonna murder.
They'll go to jail for contempt if they refuse. I'm honestly surprised a preliminary injunction would require this though.
Edit: they've already filed an appeal on that order (interlocutory appeal) today https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67630985/united-states-v-abbott/
Judge pretty much says the state isn't even offering a defense so
Who goes to jail? The governor? The State Senate? The head of Texas Border Patrol? AFAIK when it comes to agencies, there are no teeth - are there?
It's the US v Abbott after all. Gov. Faubus was justifiably afraid that Pres. Eisenhower was going to have him locked up after not complying with a court order to desegregate the schools and caved before the 101st airborne arrived.
Don't try to cross the dangerous border that warns you that it's a dangerous border and you don't have to worry about dying. Even without the buoys telling you that it's dangerous people have drowned before.
Many of these immigrants are crossing other countries where they would be safe if they stopped there. Instead they choose to continue on to the US. At that point they are economic migrants, who are trying to skip the queue.
It's the same here in Australia. Instead of stopping in a safe country in SEA, they make dangerous boat voyages because they believe they'll be better off financially. We turn those boats around or keep them offshore, where at anytime they could go somewhere other than Australia but they don't want to because they want to try and seek welfare here.
I have no sympathy for them. Let in the people who apply properly to come here. Not those who try to sneak in.
Some have other options. So your solution is to condemn all of them? No sympathy, even for those who are fleeing death? You’ll let them all die because you think some people might take advantage?
Why not have a system where you let people in, give them temporary safety, and evaluate their situation before deciding whether to admit them or return them to their country of origin?
Maybe you like that some of them die? Is that a benefit of the current system?
See, this is how I know you don't know what you're talking about because they're not safe if they "just stop there".
Quick, somebody get this guy a "source" for the US repeatedly destabilizing Latin American governments and supporting paramilitary guerrilla groups over the course of decades
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/06/994145471/what-kind-of-violence-causes-some-people-to-flee-honduras-for-the-u-s
And why don't they just stop in Mexico? If they're fleeing Honduras they've already achieved their goal.
Because the U.S. has always taken in asylum seekers. Why are Hondurans any different from Somalis or Hmong?
We can only take so many and crossing the border illegally should mean they are sent back. Do it right or go home. We have the right and the responsibility to protect our borders.
How many exactly? Give me a number and explain why.
And crossing the border and surrendering is legal. Which is what they do.
Since when? They can do that at a legal border crossing they don't need to risk their lives swimming across a river. If they're crossing at a fence or at a river they're not going to go with a legal route ever.
Which part? The one that claims we don't have infinite resources because that's impossible? Or the claim that a sovereign nation has the right to defend its borders? Both of those things seem pretty fucking obvious to me.
Big difference between infinite resources and enough room for more of these refugees, no? One is a finite number after all.
Feel privileged you aren't so desperate as to take such a risk.
They’re not stupid. Their other options are worse, or they wouldn’t come here. If drug cartels (largely funded by American consumers) came for your family, are you telling me me you wouldn’t go wherever you needed to to protect them?
Believe or not there are things worse than downing in the Rio Grande, which is why they try it anyway.
They're not designed for cruelty and murder they're barriers in the water that's it. If you have trouble swimming and you drown because you cannot get past the barrier in the water designed to keep you from getting past it, that's your goddamn fault.
The blades between the buoys and netting underneath do in fact indicate that they're designed for cruelty at the bare minimum. Also, the Rio Grande doesn't just belong to Texas. It's a federal border with another sovereign nation. Texas can't just act cruel there unilaterally.
The "blades"between the bouys are no different than barbed wire, and the nets are obvious to allow marine life to move but keep people from easily swimming under. It's designed as a barrier and so it includes basic barrier designs.
If you called it what it is you would be calling it correct. There was no trolling or bigotry. Merely explaining reality.
They were not saw blades. They're pointy disks that were intended to prevent people climbing through the low places, and nets designed to allow marine life through but not people are not "designed to entangle". It was fit for purpose and that purpose was keeping people from illegally crossing the water border. And what fundamental rights? They basically threw their own lives away trying to do something expressly forbidden.
Still illegal to cross the border, dude.
The destabilization of Mexico and Central and South America is our fault. It's our moral responsibility to help these people flee the problems we created.
Do you own your own house? Because I do. A nice two-story home on four acres of land that is mine.