PDA

View Full Version : Mexican Military Incursions Into USA



Pauldo
February 7th, 2006, 12:14 AM
Mexican Military Incursions Into U.S. (by William F. Jasper)
by William F. Jasper
February 5, 2006

On January 15, the Daily Bulletin of Ontario, California, reported that the Border Patrol has recorded 216 incursions by Mexican military and police into the United States since 1996, including incidents of armed confrontation, where U.S. citizens and law enforcement came under fire from the uniformed Mexicans.

When the Daily Bulletin’s report received national attention, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff dismissed mounting congressional concerns, stating, “I think the stories are overblown.” According to Chertoff, most of the incidents were innocuous events involving Mexican forces that had unintentionally strayed across our ill-defined border. Then, on January 24, another “overblown” event occurred, when Texas state and county law enforcement officials came face-to-face with men in Mexican military uniforms, armed with heavy machine guns on Humvees, escorting drug smugglers across the Rio Grande.

Hudspeth County Sheriff deputies and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers chasing a convoy of drug smugglers in SUVs on the U.S. side of the border were forced to back off after realizing they were seriously outgunned. Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff’s Department said that Mexican army personnel had several mounted machine guns on the ground more than 200 yards inside the U.S. border. One of the three Mexican SUVs was left behind in the U.S., while a second became mired in the Rio Grande while trying to cross back into Mexico. The military Humvee then appeared and attempted to pull the vehicle out. When that failed, the men unloaded the drugs from the SUV and then torched the stuck vehicle.

Yielding to the overwhelming firepower and an ongoing U.S. policy that instructs them to avoid U.S.-Mexican border confrontations “no matter what,” the state and county law enforcement officers could only watch as the bad guys got away.

On January 27, members of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security sent letters to top Mexican and U.S. officials requesting information regarding recent media reports of incursions into the United States by individuals appearing to be members of the Mexican military.

Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) and Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), Michael McCaul (R-Texas), and Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), sent a letter to Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Carlos de Icaza requesting answers for the recent alleged Mexican military incursions into the United States. The members also sent letters to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting that they investigate this issue and report back to Congress.

“This is yet another example of the clear security problems we face along our southwest border,” King said. “These episodes further illustrate the need for comprehensive border security reform. We must ensure the security of our homeland, and that means gaining full operational control of our borders.”

DR_GONZO
February 7th, 2006, 02:54 PM
This would be a very strong case for military patrol of our borders. Maybe the Guard or Reserves. Either arrest or destroy those trying to cross our borders illegally.

biker
February 7th, 2006, 10:13 PM
If we cannot secure our own borders, we're not a nation. One of the elemental aspects of a nation is to define and defend its borders. When it is powerless to do so, it is not a nation.

This is not a law-enforcement issue, so "arresting" is not the solution.

Those who wish to sap our will to defend ourselves from attack would have us treat these violations of our borders or attacks on us by stateless terrorists as nothing more than fodder for another couple of episodes of "Law & Order".

No more disturbing than a case of dandruff.

biker
February 7th, 2006, 10:17 PM
I do not, do not understand how the Republicans can be so tone deaf on this. Security and borders would seem to be a natural for their base.

Yet they keep avoiding dealing with the issue.

The Democrats won't deal with it, as they can't say "no" to anybody about anything (except, "can I keep my own dough?")

If the Republicans start pouring concrete in September along the Mexican border, even neandrethals like me will say it's pandering to the issue.

This problem calls for bold action.

Construct a wall just like the Israelis have. And increase the number of people able to legally come in from Mexico to 500,000 a year. Heck, charge them the fee that they'd pay the coyotes to smuggle them and it might pay for the wall.

biker
February 7th, 2006, 10:20 PM
O'Reilly had Bill Maher on as a guest yesterday and they talked about this.

Maher said that if they cut off the flow of illegal immigrants, everyday life in Hollywood would come to a standstill.

No joking, no punch line to follow it up. O'Reilly didn't follow up on it either.

I've heard that the worst thing that happened to those "blacklisted" in the 1950s was that many Hollywood screenwriters and directors had to clean their own pools for a couple of years.


Oh, the humanity.

Pauldo
February 8th, 2006, 12:14 AM
This whole scenario regarding borders has been planned in detail by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. The CFR wants a borderless North America similar to European Union.

NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO have already been instituted as a prerequiste for this plan to work. Next step will be a single currency modeled after the Euro. Both parties in the USA support this plan as many members of the CFR are also in the federal government.

biker
February 8th, 2006, 07:06 AM
I personally believe more in the UK model wrt the EU for USA.

AOK?

LHardy
February 8th, 2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Pauldo
The CFR wants a borderless North America similar to European Union.

NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO have already been instituted as a prerequiste for this plan to work. Next step will be a single currency modeled after the Euro. Both parties in the USA support this plan as many members of the CFR are also in the federal government.

I have heard ofg such a plan before. Do you have any site we could refer to for info?
The plan for a single currency has been floated for some time with the power of the WTO ever increasing. This is also a UN utopian idea. One single currency would empower all countries to the same standard of living.

Back to topic:

Given Pauldos' statement and current events we should just annex Mexico and Canada and be done with all this nonsence.
They want in. Let them in as a new state under our laws. Then we can enforce our laws upon them and squash any rebellion without fear of UN sanctions. Sound like a plan?

LHardy
February 8th, 2006, 07:26 AM
Darn double post! :(

biker
February 8th, 2006, 08:45 AM
Levi:

Are you having trouble with popups interfering with your posts?

biker
February 8th, 2006, 08:50 AM
"Given Pauldos' statement and current events we should just annex Mexico and Canada and be done with all this nonsence.
They want in. Let them in as a new state under our laws."

I don't think Canada is in any hurry to sign up with us. Being anti-US is one of the few things that can be counted on to foster any sense of unity in Canada.

Remember when there was some talk of the Maritimes becoming our 51st state the last time Quebec held a secession referendum? I took a ride up there at that time.

New Brunswick has a kind of Bayeux tapestry commemorating the first European settlement of the province. When the British Navy evacuated all the Loyalists from NYC at the end of the Revolutionary War, they dumped them all off at St. John's NB. Those folks do N-O-T want to be Americans.

speaker
February 8th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by LHardy
I have heard ofg such a plan before. Do you have any site we could refer to for info?
The plan for a single currency has been floated for some time with the power of the WTO ever increasing. This is also a UN utopian idea. One single currency would empower all countries to the same standard of living.

Back to topic:

Given Pauldos' statement and current events we should just annex Mexico and Canada and be done with all this nonsence.
They want in. Let them in as a new state under our laws. Then we can enforce our laws upon them and squash any rebellion without fear of UN sanctions. Sound like a plan?

I take Hardy's post as a flip off the top of his head. It's the same as Mouse's post which says "nuke'em"(Iran). At best, the subject is tiresome and frustrating.
But I'm sure that at the end of the free trade agreement, there's a thought for global currency and borderless countries. Just so many years away, maybe centuries. That's far from our present worries.
Send the National Guard, or whatever is available, and if we have to build "forts", do it. Canada does not want to be a part of the USA, not by a long shot(no pun).
We have the most innovative thinking, the most money, the most brilliance, and we can't defeat the terrorists or handle the illegal aliens, who never think outside the box?
We just have to understand that our logic is not their logic.

Pauldo
February 8th, 2006, 10:43 AM
For information on the CFR, go to the following:

http://www.cfr.org

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3098.shtml

biker
February 8th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Is that the speech where she announced she was giving back WalMart's campaign donations? After she criticized them for poor health benefits? After someone pointed out she was a paid member of the Board of Directors for six years? And did nothing about health care?

Probably too busy making a killing in commodity futures at the time.

Pauldo
February 8th, 2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by biker
Is that the speech where she announced she was giving back WalMart's campaign donations? After she criticized them for poor health benefits? After someone pointed out she was a paid member of the Board of Directors for six years? And did nothing about health care?

Probably too busy making a killing in commodity futures at the time.

The above picture of Hillary Clinton was taken as she was asking the CFR for their approval regarding her election campaign. She was making a case that her campaign would adhere to the policies as expounded by the CFR.