lowell
> I witnessed the painting of the Mexican part of the bridge's
steel structure
> that is right up to the monument. It was done with brushes and
buckets by men
> that walked across the bridge from Mexico and worked without
any safety
> harnesses or nets.
of course
they too must have realized
if they fell they would land in mexico
so no problem
but seriously
what if anything do you think this indicates about anything
> Catching illegal immigrants is probably not an issue under the
bridge, as the
> area is within sight of the US Border Station at the end of one
of the two
> highway bridges in Eagle Pass/Piedras Negras.
border patrol stations dont usually deter wetbacks much
most of whom cross wherever they live or reach the border
or in other words especially in populated areas & corridors
& so just where the guards are generally thickest too
commonly the wetbacks dash &or sneak opportunistically
right under the noses of the guards
not only because it is easier to disappear into a cityscape than a
desert
but also because going very far out of their way is often
prohibitive
& because the penalty for the few who do get caught is nothing
but a little delay anyway until they can retry their point
> Attached is a September 2000 photo of the railway bridge
(before the painting)
> taken from Piedras Negras, Coahuila, México. The boundary
monument is not
> visible, but it is located on the left side of the stone pier closest
to the
> water on the USA bank of the river. Since this picture, a swath
of land under
> the bridge on the USA side is kept clear of vegetation all the
way to the river.
> This clearing is done by Union Pacific Railroad, the owner of
the American
> segment of the bridge.
& also owner of 26 percent of the mexican segment
but again are you drawing any inferences from this or what
& len
> > I think I agree - for this case only.
hahahahaha
good one
> > I think however, the ambiguity in it all leaves the ground
under the
> > bridge subject to US sovereignty for all purposes other than
the
> > bridge... capturing wetbacks, for instance.
i think you yourself may be projecting the ambiguity
the purposes involved in any captures
or kidnappings
as the case may be
or in practically any other doings that may occur under a bridge
arent purposes in the same sense as the purposes of the
bridge mentioned in the treaty
i think the treaty makes it clear
for all the purposes of the bridge
the ground below must match the sovereignty above
because if the thalweg ever drifts so far as to create a noticeable
or problematic difference
then the monuments are to be changed by mutual agreement
& such action does appear to be overdue at the eagle pass
railroad bridge
but the purposes one might have for doing anything on that or
any other piece of ground are irrelevant to the determination of its
sovereignty
which in the present case is subject only to the legal purposes of
the bridge & the regime they establish
where there is no bridge there are no such special purposes &
no such special regime
but a regime based on the purposes or actions
even official actions
of individuals who just happen to be in or passing thru an area
well that would truly be a whimsical regime
> > When a purpose has
> > something to do with the bridge, then Mexicans have
sovereign rights
> > to park their construction, inspection, repair or painting trucks
> > under it without deference to the US. Would that make a
condominium?
probably only in your mind
as i dont think there was any mention of sovereign rights til now
nor any departure from mexican sovereign territory in this case
> > Assuming Mexican crews lowered themselves from their half
of the
> > bridge to a spot on the ground under it, did they ever leave
Mexico to
> > take advantage of their sovereign right?
of course they didnt leave mexico
& what right would that be
> > The border has got to be
> > somewhere, and I've yet to figure out where.
correct
> > Could it be in two
> > places at once?
how could you figure out if it could
> >
> > LN
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> > > again
> > > in the absence of any wording that clearly establishes a
> > > nonstandard regime by explicitly delineating a vertical
> > > differentiation of some kind
> > > & in view of the reiteration of the defining & standard
provision
> > > practically verbatim from 1884 to 1970
> > > namely that
> > > the monument shall denote the boundary or dividing line
for all
> > > the purposes of the bridge
> > > it seems to me that nothing of any relevance to your
question
> > > has changed at all
> > >
> > > moreover
> > > among the purposes of a bridge
> > > are
> > > to rise above the ground it rests on
> > > & to form a passageway across that ground
> > > & even to occupy the ground &or the space above it
> > > in order to maintain the special purposes & nature or
treatment
> > > of that ground itself
> > >
> > > indeed to carry this line to its logical & necessary
conclusion
> > > without the special ground & markers there can be no
bridges
> > > & without the bridges & markers
> > > there cant even be any specially treated ground
> > >
> > > so it seems to me
> > > both from what is actually said & from what is not
> > > in every regard
> > > the bridge includes or subsumes the land underneath it
> > > &
> > > in relation to our starting proposition
> > > which is that boundaries are vertically continuous
> > > unless otherwise specified
> > > if indeed they are ever otherwise specified
> > > well once again
> > > as i see it
> > > no news is no news