Posted on 07/11/2023 5:45:25 AM PDT by MrRelevant
(The Hill) – A Texas kayaking company has sued Gov. Greg Abbott (R) over his plan to install floating barriers in the middle of the Rio Grande River that would prevent people from being able to swim across it.
Jessie Fuentes, owner of Epi’s Canoe & Kayak Team, filed a suit in Austin, Texas on Friday to stop the state from placing the buoys which he claimed would prevent him from giving tours on the river and cause his company “imminent and irreparable harm.”
The buoy construction near Eagle Pass, Texas, has already forced Fuentes to cancel a number of activities and even prevented his company’s access to the river, he claimed.
........................
Abbott responded on Twitter, pledging to fight the suit.
“We will see you in court. And don’t think the Travis Co. Court will be the end of it. This is going to the Supreme Court. Texas has a constitutional right to secure our border,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at everythinglubbock.com ...
Sorry folks, but if the Rio Grande is considered a Navigable waterway (and I’m pretty sure it is) such structures are not only illegal, but unconstitutional.
Land mines would definitely be effective for discouraging uninvited visitors.
The first belt of mines might be CS gas dispensers. CS works wonders on sweaty skin, not to mention eyes, nose, throat, providing a memorable experience for the recipient.
The second belt could have more life-changing properties...
How about how it would hurt his business for kayakers to encounter murderous Cartel thugs putting human trafficked people and kids across the Rio, and them shooting the kayakers for witnessing it. This is beyond stupid for this whiner’ little crap business vs. National needs.
I guess we will find out.
We will, and I fully expect that their installation will be ruled illegal and unconstitutional.
No state can interfere with navigable waters, period.
The barriers themselves cut the river in half laterally. Plenty of room to “navigate”. Folks can still use the waterway, they just cant cross back and forth into Mexico and vice versa. The shame.
Yah, he is using a public asset for personal profit and whinges when the public changes it to protect the public.
That is Austin.
Sorry, but you don’t understand the legal definition of navigable.
A state cannot do what is being proposed here, it’s not only illegal it’s unconstitutional.
You can’t impede the use of the river, preventing anyone from crossing the center of a navigable river like they are proposing here does indeed violate the law and the constitution.
This is a navigable river, no state has the right to tell it, or any other US citizen it is is denied access to half of it.
This will be struck down by the courts, and rightly so.
If this were constitutional, then your state could decide to block off all but a sliver of a river, that isn’t even enough to float a boat and you as a citizen would have no right to say otherwise.
The use of navigable rivers is the right of the people, no state or individual can impede their use.
The courts will strike this down.
Not sure how anyone can remotely claim to be a conservative and think that a state has the right to impede in any way the use of navigable waterways.
“You can’t impede the use of the river, preventing anyone from crossing the center of a navigable river like they are proposing here does indeed violate the law and the constitution.
This is a navigable river, no state has the right to tell it, or any other US citizen it is is denied access to half of it.”
The US/Mexico border is the center (deepest channel) of the river per the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I think that makes a difference here.
**Can alligators survive in the Rio Grande? Just asking.**
Or pythons? Or piranhas? Or get the guy with the drone alligator head that looks real?
And I am sure the free navigable use of the river by both countries is also guaranteed as part of that treaty. IE a Mexican boat who crosses the center line is not considered invading the US or vice versa.
I don’t see any way Texas isn’t in full violation of the constitution with this stupidity.
**The barriers themselves cut the river in half laterally. Plenty of room to “navigate”. Folks can still use the waterway, they just cant cross back and forth into Mexico and vice versa. The shame.**
You make too much sense. Yep, if a border between two nations is in the middle of a river, that should be observed and guarded ... one way or another.
Navigable waters as it applies here:
“(3) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal influence that:
(i) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage...”
Rio Grande is a border- the boundary is in the river. The balls are on the border. A US citizen has free access to the waterway on the US side. Its not impeding its usage its preventing it unfettered access from Mexico, it is a border after all. Like I said I guess we will see. Guess someone will have to make the case the Rio Grande is a “significant” economic thoroughfare to stop them.
Cant tell if youre just a strict constitutionalist, a watersports aficionado or an illegal immigrant advocate.
The RIO GRANDE is a River, it’s a navigable river, and it’s part of the United States. Your attempt to claim its not internal because it is part of a border will not pass legal or constitutional muster.
The courts will not agree with your assessment.
These barriers are unconstitutional, the state does not have any right to interfere with a navigable river, period.
Oh, bulls***-I want to see a list of his recent and upcoming bookings for these river adventures-the only way he is making any real money is by marketing the dangerous situations on the river as added thrills/attractions-the mojados, the coyotes smuggling them and illegal drugs across, etc-if so, he has thrill seeking fools for customers-I’m pretty sure his liability insurance carrier won’t be happy to learn he is taking customers into dangerous situations that may involve armed criminals...
All the trash the mojados leave on/near the riverbank is not adding to the natural beauty of the area or contributing to the health of the environment there, either...
Of course, he might be using that business as a front to do a little smuggling on his own for profit-either way, the river is ON THE BORDER and he has access to half the river-the Texas side-his kayaks just can’t go over to the Mexico side across the barrier-too bad-and good for gov Abbot calling this out-we’re all tired of this bitching from a fed that won’t secure the border like the constitution says they are supposed to-we will do it ourselves, and send those mojados they love so much to blue cities-the further North where it gets really cold, the better...
Thank you for what is a very clear explanation to anyone who lives in this state and knows anything about the border at all-my family has lived/ranched near the border-mostly in W/SW Texas for more than couple of centuries-we are Hispanic, we don’t like mojados-and like most Texans, we know what rules apply to a navigable waterway that is also an international border that is in our back yard...
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS cause immediate harm.
The gov should just flip them off.
“And I am sure the free navigable use of the river by both countries is also guaranteed as part of that treaty. IE a Mexican boat who crosses the center line is not considered invading the US or vice versa”
A bit of research shows you are correct. From the Treaty
“ARTICLE VII
The river Gila, and the part of the Rio Bravo del Norte lying below the southern boundary of New Mexico, being, agreeably to the fifth article, divided in the middle between the two republics, the navigation of the Gila and of the Bravo below said boundary shall be free and common to the vessels and citizens of both countries; and neither shall, without the consent of the other, construct any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part, the exercise of this right; not even for the purpose of favoring new methods of navigation. Nor shall any tax or contribution, under any denomination or title, be levied upon vessels or persons navigating the same or upon merchandise or effects transported thereon, except in the case of landing upon one of their shores. If, for the purpose of making the said rivers navigable, or for maintaining them in such state, it should be necessary or advantageous to establish any tax or contribution, this shall not be done without the consent of both Governments.”
Rio Bravo is of course the Rio Grande. Some lawsuits have been filed by individuals against the State but I don’t know what they are based on. Looks like to me the US or Mexico could file suit requiring Texas to remove the buoys, not sure about individuals.
And individual should be able to.. this is a navigable river, no state can impede their use.. these barriers are a violation of the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.