Interesting questions!
> Maybe we can discuss whether or not the
> Mexican land under the bridge occupied by the foundations are or are
> not de jure exclaves of Mexico within the USA.
The masonry piers under the Mexican segment of the bridge, being part of the
bridge structure, are clearly Mexico. I think the downward extent of Mexican
sovereignty into the earth would terminate at the bottom of the masonry. The
natural soil or rock beneath them, not being part of the bridge, would be
American.
> Maybe their connection
> to the verical shaft of Mexico filled with legs of the bridge connect
> them to the horizontal part of Mexico that is filled with the bridge
> renders the question moot.
Yes. The piers are connected to the rest of Mexico through the bridge. They
would not be enclaves, but rather three-dimensional pene-enclaves.
> Are Mexican government trucks supporting
> the scaffold on which the workers stand while scraping the underside
> of the bridge mobile exclaves which the US cannot violate while they
> are engaged in work that is "relating to the bridge itself"? If one
> of the men were caught smoking a joint on a lunch break, could the
> U.S. authorities nab him? Or, maybe if after the work shift was over
> and they sped off to Mexico from under the bridge, could they be
> ticketed for speeding? How far into the US could this roving exclave
> go out from under the bridge while on a mission of work "relating to
> the bridge itself" (such as going back to Mexico proper via Tijuana or
> to a local Home Depot 2 miles, 100 miles, 200 or 1,000 miles away to
> buy more paint for the bridge?)
(First, any Mexican trucks working on the railway bridge in question would be
private-sector, not government; but they might be government at most of the
highway bridges.)
I don't think that each truck or man would be anything like a "roving enclave."
The Mexican railway would be able to contract under Mexican law for the work,
and it could be performed under Mexican labor law. (After all, Mexican train
crews drive locomotives that don't meet US standards all the way across that
bridge every day in order to deliver trains; and US crews go across it the other
way. The same is done with buses, taxis, etc. This is all tolerated within
limits set by applicable laws; else there could be no commerce.) While doing
the work, a worker would be either: (1) upon or suspended from the bridge [in
Mexico]; or (2) upon the ground [in the USA]. Any joint-smoking, speeding, or
other activity that was not within the scope of his work on the bridge would be
under US jurisdiction if done on the ground. The Mexican trucks and workers
would be under US sovereignty while transiting through the US to and from the
bridge, although this could undoubtedly be permitted. Any potential problems or
questions anticipated before the commencement of a major project that required
access to the bridge from the ground could probably be addressed beforehand in
Minutes of the IBWC.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA