• spider@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, they’re Good Christians who believe in the “sanctity of life”.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

      Defendants shall, by September 15, 2023, reposition, at Defendants’ expense, and in coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, all buoys, anchors, and other related materials composing the floating barrier placed by Texas in the Rio Grande in the vicinity of Eagle Pass, Texas to the bank of the Rio Grande on the Texas side of the river

      • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Tb0n3
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • ZodiacSF1969
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • atomicorange@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

          • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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”.

      • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Tb0n3
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Tb0n3
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • Tb0n3
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you called it what it is you would be calling it correct. There was no trolling or bigotry. Merely explaining reality.

            • Tb0n3
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

      • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Tb0n3
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you own your own house? Because I do. A nice two-story home on four acres of land that is mine.