Talk:Standoff at Eagle Pass/Archive 1

Archive 1

something should be added for the other states supporting Texas

5 states have confirmed support of Texas: Oklahoma, Virginia, Florida, South Dakota, and Montana 2601:703:4284:3570:A894:5A2C:D336:CB74 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Will add RossoSPC (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I am busy will do later RossoSPC (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida (already listed), Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming have all signed a document in support of Texas. Noah 2018 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Article should be given higher protection

It appears that someone just did antisemitic vandalism, by placing three echos around Alejandro Mayorkas name. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this for real

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know Wikipedia is not for reactions or forum, but speechless on what is going on at Eagle Pass. Alhanuty (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You're not the only one. NesserWiki (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There's probably something about it on Wikinews. They allow the kind of comments you're talking about over there. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of new source

I request the addition of this publication from the Republican Governors Association as an additional source to the passage "In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision, almost all state-level Republican governors with the exception of Phil Scott announced their support for the Texas government in the dispute." Froathy (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a primary source. We are better off using secondary sources. If this letter is important, I'm sure it will be covered Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly rename?

"Standoff at Eagle Pass" is pretty vague, in my opinion. Open to suggestions. qw3rty 01:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It was somewhat late when I made the article so it's understandable of the article feels a bit odd.

I ran the alternative titled through my head and "crisis" and "incident" didn't seem to fit what was happening properly.

I don't think there's been another standoff at Eagle Pass, Texas, so I don't think it could be confused with something else. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit late right now too so my apologies if I misunderstood your comment. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Eagle Pass Federal Lawsuit or some such would be better. Nobody is pointing guns at each other, the title is a bit dramatic. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd day not quite yet. The name doesn't seem quite right, but it's the name that the sources are using. It seems like more than just a federal lawsuit but it's not quite yet an armed rebellion or insurrection. It's too soon to say what this situation will become so let's keep the name for now. Bartholomite (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

An idea I had before I saw the article was already created was "2024 Texas border dispute," although I know it doesn't really fit. It's difficult to really put a label on what's happening here, though at this point the name appears to fit, even if it is dramatic. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Better source needed for Florida support

"Florida governor Ron DeSantis additionally committed to sending more resources after previously sending the Florida National Guard to reinforce the Texas government." with the source [1]https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4428905-gop-governors-abbott-border-security-immigration/ The source says "GOP Govs. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Brian Kemp of Georgia have all said they support Abbott’s actions." To me, It just sounds like verbal support and there is no mention of Florida National Guard being deployed. So either there needs to be a better source, or this sentence needs to be removed and Florida should be removed from the infobox. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The entire 47-acre park, including the golf course, is enclosed with concertina wire and patrolled by state troopers from Texas and Florida

-Texas Tribune KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Topic shouldn’t be framed as a conflict

This is being presented in the same format as a conflict. This is not a conflict. There is no standoff. There aren't two combatting sides. There was a legal dispute and the Supreme Court ruled on it. End of story.

It needs to be titled "2024 Eagle Pass Immigration Dispute" or something similar. Furthermore, it should be formatted like any other legal dispute. Not glorified like it's the first battle of Civil War II. 2601:282:1F22:9021:98E7:38E3:8215:7400 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The title of the article sounds like a Western movie, not a political issue. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

I mean it is an armed standoff, however not a conflict, I think it should be formatted on what it is like an armed standoff (eg. the Ruby Ridge Article) RossoSPC (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I used the civil conflict infobox for this article, which is also used on the page for Ruby Ridge. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That is fair RossoSPC (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I should also add that the civil conflict template is also used for the George Floyd protests. If this article was about a battle or armed engagement we would use the military conflict infobox. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a standoff to some degree. Albeit the media is definitely hyping it up. The article should still be framed akin to a war/battle article. There is a small chance this escalates into a Battle of Blair Mountain type of situation. NesserWiki (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The media here loves to do that ngl RossoSPC (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Very true. NesserWiki (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that for now the article should be left mostly as is and if nothing comes of it over the next few days then it should perhaps be reframed as the original commenter suggested. Wanda061 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that is fair. Firepengu (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. To call it a “conflict” gives the event more oxygen than it deserves. Maniczebra (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

All Governors who have given support should be included under the "Supported By" section

The Governors who have agreed to send troops should have next to their state in parentheses (Has Agreed to Send Troops) NesserWiki (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

These governors have nothing to do with a legal dispute that has been settled by the Supreme Court. There are no sides to this. At this point it is about a rogue governor deciding he's above the law. The entire affair is performative. 2601:8C0:D80:1FA0:810E:218B:678B:C2E4 (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If so, then shouldn't the whole "Supported By" section on this page irrelevant? I think it should either include all states/governors who announced their support or should be removed entirely. FluffPuff64 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the Governors, such as DeSantis (FL) and Stitt (OK), have deployed solders under their commands to Eagle Pass. This would seems to qualify them for lead figures, which should be renamed to "Commanders and leaders". Lewis150 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2024

Standoff at Eagle Pass → Eagle Pass Standoff Like another discussion said, it's hard to put a label on this right now. But this article needs to be easily accessible to the public, I say this because I had a really hard time trying to find this article. Standoff works for now and removing the "at" and shortening it down, with the keyword "Eagle Pass" makes it easier to find in my opinion. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To make things more easily accessible, I've created a redirect at that page for now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Standoff at Eagle Pass sounds more dramatic and bad ass. 2600:1700:BFA0:2B3F:85B:29E3:93C6:724C (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Making things sound dramatic isn't really Wikipedia policy. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We already have Standoff at the Khyber Pass (1834–1835) as a precedent, and even if it doesn't matter I agree that it sounds much more badass. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We do also have Bundy standoff and Wakefield standoff. What-about isn't a great way to name articles - I say we keep current for now until media starts giving it a proper name. Couruu (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential error regarding 01/24 Abbott statement

The article's second paragraph states, "On January 24, Abbott responded by stating that Texas would refuse to let federal authorities access the park, vowing to "protect the sovereignty of our state." However I can not find any statement Abbott made that features the quoted line "protect the sovereignty of our state". In the cited articles, that line is said by Texas national guard, in an unsigned statement. Further, the above line in the article claims Abbot's 1/24 statement stated that Texas would refuse to let federal authorities access the park. I can't find any evidence that that statement contained that assertion, either directly or implicitly. I read the statement itself from the Governor's website and the articles. So unless I missed something, I think this sentence should be rewritten. Would appreciate any thoughts or evidence to the contrary on this. Thank you. Firepengu (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Texas NG are answerable to Abbott, so it could be construed that he is speaking through them, but I agree that it would be better stated as something akin to:

"On January 24, Abbott responded by stating that Texas would refuse to let federal authorities access the park, while the Texas National Guard vowed to "protect the sovereignty of our state." Couruu (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A request for a map of states whose governors gave verbal support for Texas

It would help to visualize which states are or aren't supporting the actions of Texas. Historical Integrity (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Verbal support from unrelated parties is irrelevant to the dispute. 2601:8C0:D80:1FA0:810E:218B:678B:C2E4 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Some states are sending supplies or their own guardsmen Firepengu (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources are using maps, we should follow. Otherwise, adding maps gives the impression that the statements of governors reflect the entire state. This ignores the opposing factions within any one state. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war on infobox side2 parameter

@Bigfatman8766, The ed17, and WeatherWriter: and several other editors, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD could ya'all please discuss here why this content should or should not be included in that form? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the states that have provided gubernatorial support should be included. They're an important enough voice to be mentioned on the infobox. Plus the ones I added said they would provide national guard support, isn't that support? Bigfatman8766 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Performative verbal support doesn't constitute unrelated parties being included as participants in the info box. It makes this dispute into something it is not. It isn't multiple states in a stand off with the federal government. It is one governor defying the Supreme Court. 2601:8C0:D80:1FA0:810E:218B:678B:C2E4 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yea. we should wait until we have confirmation that there are other national guard troops other than Texas. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to the IP's view above. Infoboxes aren't the place to try to communicate what "support" means in this context. That's what we have article prose for. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT

Please stop responding to obvious trolling. Just revert and ignore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Use "migrants" as the term for the casualties we have so far.

I've noticed that there has been repeated minor vandalism of this article within the last 24 hours, mainly in regards to what term is used for the three who drowned in the Rio Grande around 2 weeks ago.

It'd be nice if the use of partisan language was refrained from. Instead of using terms like "refugee" or "invader", we should just use "migrant" or "illegal migrant". WorldMappings (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the preferred term is “undocumented migrant”, not “illegal migrant”. Maniczebra (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In US law, the official term is Illegal Alien.

I don't know why you are suggesting a NGO term? Fixerr23 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it’s far less prejudicial than the term you’re suggesting. Im sorry, but can you provide a reference for the term you’re promoting? Maniczebra (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The lawful term is Illegal Alien, so how can it be biased?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law) look at the US section. Fixerr23 (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The US term is, in and of itself, imbued with implicit bias because of how the US views undocumented migrants in the first place. Maniczebra (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

'Preferred term' - by whom? I don't believe the term 'illegal alien' can be said to be biased, when it is a legal categorisation. That said, I don't believe the three drowned migrants had made it to US territory, so to call them aliens might be inaccurate. Riposte97 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A country's legal system can be biased. Furthermore, referring to people by their legal status can itself be undue: for example, referring (in general speech) to a person mostly famous for unrelated reasons as a "felon" or "criminal" rather than by their occupation. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case it would be like referring to a soldier doing something related like joining a Veterans organization, which referencing their soldier status would be relevant.

So had they made it to the border illegal alien would be accurate. However what was their legal status in Mexico, as they could be classified as illegal aliens in mexico (assuming such status exists there). Fixerr23 (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Fire-Eater rhetoric

Abbot's language around the standoff resembles that of antebellum slave owners and proslavery politicians, with their love of "states' rights" and "sovereignty". This should be included because it stands out like a sore thumb. ManOfDirt (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources making that connection? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add background, timeline and reactions

The article needs a timeline and proper background to this. Reactions would also be really helpful.

Here are some sources and other wikipedia articles to source from.

Sources: [2]https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/27/us/texas-eagle-pass-us-mexico-border/index.html

[3]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/eagle-pass-national-guard-texas-b2485416.html

[4]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/eagle-pass-national-guard-texas-b2485416.html

[5]https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-faces-growing-calls-federalize-texas-national-guard-1863839

Wikipedia Articles: Operation Lone Star Bigfatman8766 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

You need to update who is supporting Texas ur missing half the country 2607:F280:3024:9860:0:0:0:843F (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

grammatical error

"In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision, other 25 Republican state governors" should probably be replaced by "In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision, 25 other Republican state governors" 47.201.30.59 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Slamforeman (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible Misinformation Section

Like many conflicts, there has been a lot of misinformation that's being intentionally spread on social media, especially by many pro-Texan accounts. This includes a video of farmers in Germany protesting in 2021 being posted by many accounts, claiming that it was Texan protestors. Similar with a supposed trucker protest that was claimed by these accounts which was actually from 2022. Ye9CYNMD (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add Abbot's Jan 26 response to DHS demands

Please add:

On Jan. 26, Governor Abbott issued a written response to the DHS letter, denying the demand for access by Border Patrol agents to Shelby Park. Reference: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-refuses-federal-agents-access-shelby-park-eagle-pass-border/ (CBS News); the source contains a link to Abbott's letter, published on the Texas Attorney General's website. Thanks. ArielGlenn (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Casualties in Infobox

It is inappropriate to include the three drowned migrants in the infobox.

They were not killed by either of the disputants, nor necessarily as a result of the dispute.

I intend to remove. Riposte97 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are you boldly removing content with citations by making an unfounded assertion that it is incorrect? Reverted, please discuss here if you don't like the source or found sources that say contradict the original source

Egefeyzi (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that the source is incorrect. I said that it is inappropriate to include them in the infobox.

I'd appreciate if you engage with my objection, or self-revert. Riposte97 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry I misinterpreted your objection. They were killed as a result of actions of one side of the dispute (TX) doing the thing the dispute is about (placing razor wire) It makes sense to me to include it in the infobox

Also User:Tybigs please see above

Egefeyzi (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. The source reports varying perspectives, but does not reach a conclusion. Razor wire does not seem to be a major factor.

Neither government (US or TX) claims that the migrants certainly would have lived had the dispute not been taking place.

You've now reverted this change by two different editors. Please reread the source - it has been updated by the publisher. Riposte97 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the status quo while the talk page discussion continues, but ya sure I'll read the update

Egefeyzi (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually yeah I do see your point. The deaths are obviously relevant but I agree now that they shouldn't be called casualties, since it's not a direct cause and effect from the standoff itself.

Asking since you seem to edit more frequently than me, and this is a genuine question, is the general rule not to refrain from editing when there's a talk page discussion going on? The reason I reverted the second time is because there's a discussion going on here -was that wrong?

Egefeyzi (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, and I didn't mean to give that impression. In general, yes, it's best to resolve disputes at the talk page first before progressing. I just realised you hadn't noticed the change in the source, hence my comment. Riposte97 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Egefeyzi (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No they people who drowned was not caused by any party except the ones that drowned. Not TX or the Feds. Do more research next time and don’t trust fake news. Tybigs (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We rely on reliable sources, whether editors deem them "fake news" or not. The source we are citing frames the casualties in a way that there possibly is blame to put on Texas. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (edited LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC))

Minor Vandalism

I noticed when reading the article earlier that a user had changed the words "migrants" to "invaders". By the time I got logged in (I had to create a new account because I forgot my password) someone else had already fixed it but I feel that with a topic like this something should be done to prevent further vandalism of the article. I worry this will only get worse as more people learn of the situation. Wanda061 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean I agree "invaders" seems like a bit much but "migrants" seem to imply some kind of legal passage when that's obviously not the case. Perhaps there's something in-between. 24.230.86.178 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

they are migrating. We ultimately have no idea their documentation status (we can make guesses by how they're trying to get in but we can't know 100%)

Migrants is the term used for people who migrate. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:38DC:DB59:FE30:E6A5 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I was not arguing against the use of the term "migrant" but rather against the use of the word "invader". Just to clarify what I meant, I may have been unclear at first. Wanda061 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Can’t we say traveler then 74.90.55.157 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose in the same way we could use any synonym. Wanda061 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"traveller" has its implications. A traveller could be a tourist, a hitchhiker, or an itinerant person. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We are aware they are commuting unauthorized access into the US, which would violate multiple laws. Fixerr23 (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants would be a good compromise then. NesserWiki (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I oppose using “refugee”, “invader” or “migrant” because they violate NPOV. News source that says illegal immigrants: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13001581/Texas-National-Guard-puts-razor-wire-Shelby-Park-Eagle-Pass-SCOTUS-ruling-Border-Patrol-cut-barrier-southern-border.html. 2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:2515:1C99:7B26:BEDA (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Migrant, with no descriptor, is neutral. The Daily Mail is a tabloid. 2600:1700:3811:C5C0:390B:EF6:43E6:3F4 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this take. Seems like the best way to avoid a political landmine, though seeing as the article is now protected it seems to be out of our hands. Wanda061 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Illegal carries certain assumptions about their (specifically the three people who perished) status that we could not determine, and has not been established by any legal authority in the U.S. or otherwise. They perished on the Mexican side of the river. It is not objective to say they were "illegal" migrants. All we do know is that there were migrants. Firepengu (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Were they kayaking in the Rio Grande? Or illegally entering? Fixerr23 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To quote Egefeyzi below: "You can't assume that the migrants who drowned trying to cross the river weren't going to seek asylum in the US, so you don't know if what they were doing was legal. If they were to not file an asylum application, then yes they would be illegal immigrants to the US, but if they were going to report to the authorities and file an asylum application, what they were doing is legal under international law and is just one of the ways to seek asylum in the US."

Further, they had not made it to the U.S., so had not yet violated U.S. Law.

More information: https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum

Firepengu (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

so nobody is an illegal migrant by that logic. You're replacing the category with asylum seeker. Fixerr23 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If they enter and remain in the US without a visa/citizenship/etc, and don't report to the required authorities to file an asylum claim as soon as possible, then they would be illegal immigrants.

Egefeyzi (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Illegal Migrants* and states*

currently multiple states support texas including Florida and i do not understand why clearly Illegal aliens are marked as migrants i live in Colombia this is no "racist" bias especially as some of these illegal aliens are my people i know they are illegal so why act like they are legal? Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

you are so transparently biased and not Columbian, it hurts. 72.75.251.42 (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand do you think I have to not speak English? that is racist and I am Colombian it's also Colombia not Columbia as Columbia is a U.S district along with that I don't care for American politics enough to be "Biased" I just care that the migrants and Page are sourced correctly Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't assume that the migrants who drowned trying to cross the river weren't going to seek asylum in the US, so you don't know if what they were doing was legal. If they were to not file an asylum application, then yes they would be illegal immigrants to the US, but if they were going to report to the authorities and file an asylum application, what they were doing is legal under international law and is just one of the ways to seek asylum in the US.

"Migrant" is a useful neutral word to maintain WP:NPOV and doesn't make any assumptions on their intentions

More information: https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum

Egefeyzi (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This still won't answer my state question? [6] Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify your question about the states? What are you asking about/what do you think should be changed?

Egefeyzi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The states as over 25 states have pleged support to texas Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just by scrolling through your talk page, it's clear that you're a troll at the very least. You clearly are not here for making contributions that are actually worth something. Ye9CYNMD (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not trolling I am just asking why the states aren't updated? Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Belarussian Article is horribly sourced.

Claims that the US is close to devolving into civil war, or unsubstantiated claims that Texas is deploying tanks and IFVs to fight the border patrol is propaganda. There are countless other poorly sources claims see WP:V. Personally, it looks like a amalgamation of sensationalist Russian/Belarussian propaganda on a supposed start of a US collapse. Sourcing fails almost every credibility check, writing is bent to skew what certain sources are saying (see the claims on tanks moving to the border). I honestly feel like I would expect more from Belarussians and Russians, but perhaps not. I just want to bring this to everyone's attention. MarkusDorazio (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Different Wikipedias are edited independently, so this talk page isn't particularly relevant -- but you can remove false stuff from that article. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a tag on this article saying it could be improved from Belarusian language wiki. That tag has now been removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2024

Change:

... commending Governor Abbott's and Attorney General Paxton's work in safeguarding the border against the invasion facilitated by Biden's failure to adhere to federal statutory law.

To:

... commending Governor Abbott's and Attorney General Paxton's work in securing the border against "[the] invasion, encouraged by Biden’s refusal to follow federal statutory law [...]."

Rationale: the article as written reads as though the author is agreeing with the letter rather than reporting its contents. The letter as quoted in the cited CNN page uses neither the words "safeguard" (instead uses: "secure") nor "facilitated" ("encouraged") nor "failure" ("refusal") nor "adhere to" ("follow"). Though these replacement words are similar, they carry slightly different connotations that somewhat modify the underlying tone of the original letter. Additionally, the lack of direct quotes makes it appear as though the author is reporting these terms as accepted fact (that the letter just so happens to coincide with), rather than as the contents of the letter. 128.244.11.15 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Create a page called "Mexico–United States border crisis of 2023-24" and merge this current page into that page. 174.130.221.145 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done That would need be done through a move request and not an edit request. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies. I have never made an edit request before. I just think that a current event such as this needs more information and discussion, and renaming this page would cause more people to read it. 174.130.221.145 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"This article can be expanded by translating from Belarusian" - really?

...was inserted a few edits ago; although I don't claim to speak the language, I somewhat doubt that. Given one of the primary sources in that article is a site that said "USA on brink of civil war", I doubt its veracity a tad. Couruu (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

What Explodingtnt30 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You should problably remove that Explodingtnt30 (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed by Paris1127. Glad we agree, and thanks! Couruu (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved and per SNOW. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Standoff at Eagle Pass → Mexico–United States border crisis of 2023–24 – Create a page called "Mexico–United States border crisis of 2023-24" and merge this current page into that page. 174.130.221.145 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is one specific aspect of a broader crisis - and notable in itself. StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We have articles on the Mexico–United States border crisis and Operation Lone Star already, which this article is an individual portion of. Generalissima (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This particular confrontation is WP:NOTABLE in itself, independent of the broader disagreements. Garnet Moss (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose current name is clear WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and consider SNOW. Current title is concise, succinct, and the common name. Couruu (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose and WP:SNOW close. Lukt64 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update "Supported by" section

25 states have signed a statement saying that they stand with Texas. Only two of those states - Florida and Oklahoma - are placed in the "Supported by" section. All 25 states should be placed in that section. 174.130.221.145 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Florida and Oklahoma appear to be the sole states sending the National Guard to assist Texas, hence their inclusion. Other states only vocally support Texas in a joint statement, which is not worthy of inclusion. They could be included if they do the same as FL & OK. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 11:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t make sense to list FL and OK as supporters with 25 signatories [source]

https://www.rga.org/republican-governors-ban-together-issue-joint-statement-supporting-texas-constitutional-right-self-defense/

Signatories include: Governor Kay Ivey (AL), Governor Mike Dunleavy (AK), Governor Sarah Sanders (AR), Governor Ron DeSantis (FL), Governor Brian Kemp (GA), Governor Brad Little (ID), Governor Eric Holcomb (IN), Governor Kim Reynolds (IA), Governor Jeff Landry (LA), Governor Tate Reeves (MS), Governor Mike Parson (MO), Governor Greg Gianforte (MT), Governor Jim Pillen (NE), Governor Joe Lombardo (NV), Governor Chris Sununu (NH), Governor Doug Burgum (ND), Governor Mike DeWine (OH), Governor Kevin Stitt (OK), Governor Henry McMaster (SC), Governor Kristi Noem (SD), Governor Bill Lee (TN), Governor Spencer Cox (UT), Governor Glenn Youngkin (VA), Governor Jim Justice (WV), and Governor Mark Gordon (WY). 136.32.93.95 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Florida and Oklahoma appear to be the sole states sending the National Guard to assist Texas, hence their inclusion. Other states only vocally support Texas in a joint statement, which is not worthy of inclusion. They could be included if they do the same as FL & OK. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 11:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024 (2)

Where it says they issued a second deadline on the 26th, there is no mention of when that deadline is. 34.104.0.82 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Clarified. Jan.26 was when the deadline passed, not when they issued another deadline. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect date given, please update:

The article says "On January 26, the Department of Homeland Security issued a second deadline for Texas to agree to fully reopen disputed parts of the Shelby Park area", but this is inaccurate. The deadline was indeed Jan 26th but the issuing of that second deadline was on January 23rd in a letter from DHS General Counsel. Please see [7] (referenced in the article) and the DHS letter itself, embedded in the article and showing the date of Jan 23rd. In the Texas Attorney General's reply dated Jan 26th (see [8] linking to his reply at [9]), he explicitly states "I have received your second demand letter dated January 23, 2024". There are to my knowledge no later demand letters. ArielGlenn (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArielGlenn: Fixed. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

DeSantis sends 1000 troops to southern border

Yesterday, Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced that he is sending 1,000 members of both the Florida National Guard and the Florida State Guard to the southern border to assist Texas. [10] Should this news be added to the page? 174.130.221.145 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

decapitalise the "R" in the "States' Rights" link in the "See also" section Alisperic (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone needs to a seperate page about Senate Bill 1403's Interstate Border Compact

https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/2023-08-31/billions-more-for-border-security-highlight-texas-focus-on-drug-interdiction-immigration

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB01403F.htm

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-sweeping-package-of-border-security-legislation#:~:text=The%20compact%20will%20allow%20participating,of%20existing%20federal%20border%20policy.

Basically Abbott recently signed a bill into law which authorizes the creation of an interstate compact for the purposes of border enforcement, intelligence, armed personnel and economic resources. I think this warrants its own page Corpo44 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This needs a separate page about the ongoing internal conflict between the US and Texas

GreatLeader1945 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

that is a fact 172.56.51.188 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested that on January 31st, but my proposal was rejected.

Special:PermanentLink/1201477912#Requested move 31 January 2024 98.20.148.59 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

can someone add missouri to the support list

https://krcgtv.com/news/local/parson-missouri-will-send-national-guard-troops-to-texas-southern-border 2601:87:8300:27F0:BDCC:48F4:F138:15A2 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a article stating that there is more than 25 states on texas side 172.56.51.188 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that information should be added to the page. I just can't understand why nobody here will do so. This is an historical event, and it should be documented accurately. 98.20.148.59 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated for February

This article contains no updates for February 2024--I added the banner at the top. Also I support keeping Extended Confirmation Protection for now, but if there continues to be no change in the legal or physical situation, I would support reducing protection to semi-protected because the event will be in retrospect. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Missouri should be added to the list of states that support Texas

Yesterday, Missouri governor Mike Parson announced that he is sending National Guardsmen to the southern border.[11] This information should be added to the page. 98.20.148.59 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done With due deference to the fact that Wikipedia is not the news, this does seem significant enough to warrant inclusion (especially as the other states which have committed troops are already present). Drummerdg (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

add tennessee

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tennessee-national-guard-deploying-southern-border-biden-admin-fails-act-gop-gov-says 2601:87:8300:27F0:D540:2413:9B17:13E (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A federal court has just said the Texas immigration law can go into effect

Add that to the infobox. And to the end of the article. Com Pinkerton Leter (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I went to the Supreme Court's website, and Justice Alito granted his own administrative stay of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals administrative stay. I'll add one sentence, but I won't add any outcomes because this is a current event and can change rapidly. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Declare the standoff over (Maybe)

What really has happened since the deadline ran out? I think Biden sanctioned Texas...and then what? Nothing, the Texas border guard has just been doing what it's doing since Abbot gave them the order. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think this article has been updated (except the Date updates) at all during February. Unless Biden does do something else, I think it should be thought of as over, barring future developments that may occur, in that case, don't consider it such. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

And if there have been developments in February, that should be represented in the article. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Texas is appealing, but a district court just granted an injunction against the law (SB4) Texas is using to try to take over immigration jurisdiction. https://x.com/chrisgeidner/status/1763283008713625920?s=20 2600:1700:3811:C5C0:FC69:54C6:ED47:ED9E (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have fizzled out—I'd propose merging it into Operation Lone Star. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it should be labeled as over, and also, the end date for it should be pushed back to an earlier one. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the standoff is over, but litigation over the US-Texas-Mexico border is ongoing, and this article is part of Operation Lone Star. I support keeping the article, but I agree the standoff is likely over. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

the standoff is not over. i would also like to add the existing states who have signed bills and sent their national guards in support of Texas. Thomas2008tw (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

Date is wrong Ilovehistory2011927 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)