Can’t possibly be right because it’s not - he pulled it out of his ass. If you look at sourced govt document, it outlines the motivation pretty clearly.
The United States Border Patrol’s (Border Patrol) Rio Grande Valley Sector is an area of “high illegal entry.” As of early August 2023, Border Patrol had encountered over 245,000 such entrants attempting to enter the United States between ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Fiscal Year 2023.
It’s a problem area that the government’s trying to get patched up. If you read the document, they list very specific spots they’re putting barriers up in - it’s not some brain-dead wall. And it’s not for conservative brownie points. If people are illegally coming past the border, the government has an interest in stopping that no matter who’s actually in charge.
…what? I’m saying the claim that this is a performative gesture to score conservative votes is made up.
But since we’re on the center of biological diversity, I’m going to question this site’s information too.
Biden Administration Waives Laws to Rush Border Wall Construction Through Texas Wildlife Refuge
Section 2 of the document linked in my post above has the location for the barriers/walls/roads/whatever you want to call it. I noticed that a few of them mention the refuge, but none of them mention going through them - only going up to the border… and that’s it.
"useless, medieval wall " - from the site.
Explicitly not what this construction is. This site’s motivation is questionable.
Environmental advocates say structures will run through public lands, habitats of endangered plants and animal species like the ocelot, a spotted wild cat.
“A plan to build a wall through will bulldoze an impermeable barrier straight through the heart of that habitat. It will stop wildlife migrations dead in their tracks. It will destroy a huge amount of wildlife refuge land. And it’s a horrific step backwards for the borderlands,” Laiken Jordahl, a southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Wednesday afternoon.
This is no different than linking to your original source. AP isn’t claiming it’s going through the refuge. AP is stating that the environmentalists are saying it will. There’s a difference
I’m not sure what your contention is… AP is not even supposed to claim anything. They verify information with sources they consider reliable. You can just claim anyone they reference is unreliable.
And that there is the main concern I have regarding the border wall no matter what idea is trying to build it. The destruction of protected wildlife refuge and habitat with wild-lands and woodlands being clear-cut in the name of greed or something that doesn’t make much sense is what pains me as an environmental conservationist.
It doesn’t negate anything, but the press release isn’t actually saying much more than the headline. Waiving environmental protections; bad - border wall; bad.
Layers of understanding exist that didn’t make it into the PR. I appreciate the comment adding some context.
Exactly right. There’s always claims of some 5d chess about moves like this that aren’t even discussed on most mainstream media that voters are exposed to.
I mean. That can’t possibly be right.
Their voters will never hear about this.
I’m kinda surprised I heard about this.
Can’t possibly be right because it’s not - he pulled it out of his ass. If you look at sourced govt document, it outlines the motivation pretty clearly.
It’s a problem area that the government’s trying to get patched up. If you read the document, they list very specific spots they’re putting barriers up in - it’s not some brain-dead wall. And it’s not for conservative brownie points. If people are illegally coming past the border, the government has an interest in stopping that no matter who’s actually in charge.
How does any of that negate what the center of biological diversity is saying?
…what? I’m saying the claim that this is a performative gesture to score conservative votes is made up.
But since we’re on the center of biological diversity, I’m going to question this site’s information too.
Section 2 of the document linked in my post above has the location for the barriers/walls/roads/whatever you want to call it. I noticed that a few of them mention the refuge, but none of them mention going through them - only going up to the border… and that’s it.
"useless, medieval wall " - from the site.
Explicitly not what this construction is. This site’s motivation is questionable.
Multiple news outlets are now reporting that it will, in fact, be going through the refuge based on available mapping.
The government’s motivation is questionable.
https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2
No. This is the relevant section in your link -
This is no different than linking to your original source. AP isn’t claiming it’s going through the refuge. AP is stating that the environmentalists are saying it will. There’s a difference
I’m not sure what your contention is… AP is not even supposed to claim anything. They verify information with sources they consider reliable. You can just claim anyone they reference is unreliable.
And that there is the main concern I have regarding the border wall no matter what idea is trying to build it. The destruction of protected wildlife refuge and habitat with wild-lands and woodlands being clear-cut in the name of greed or something that doesn’t make much sense is what pains me as an environmental conservationist.
It doesn’t negate anything, but the press release isn’t actually saying much more than the headline. Waiving environmental protections; bad - border wall; bad.
Layers of understanding exist that didn’t make it into the PR. I appreciate the comment adding some context.
This thread is not talking about that. This thread is talking about this action’s effects on illegal immigration.
Fair point
Ah. So, same old, same old. D’s being the only ones doing anything about illegal immigration.
Edit: can the people down voting the person I replied up please explain? I didn’t read the whole document, but I read enough to agree with them.
Might’ve been because I was mean about it, lol. Bad habit of mine when I get annoyed.
Honestly. This place is way more toxic than Reddit.
I didn’t interpret your comment as being mean.
Exactly right. There’s always claims of some 5d chess about moves like this that aren’t even discussed on most mainstream media that voters are exposed to.