Mexican mercenaries expand base into U.S.

The Washington Times ^ | 1 AUGUST 2005 | Jerry Seper

[Admin Moderator]

Regarding question submitted elsewhere, the other post was pulled as a duplicate of this one.

[international american]

"However, it will be several years before increase trained personnel will be seen on the Border Patrol."

We don't have several years.

[XHogPilot]

bump

[sgtbono2002]

I think you are right Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. we may need it.

[Czar]

"GOING HAVE ALREADY to walked away"

Damned near every one of my conservative friends have already said goodbye to the GOP Big Tent along with its collection of RINOs, liberals and moderates.

Perhaps the GOP Big Tent can pander to enough hispanics to make up that 30% difference. I've never seen the conservative base this pissed off. Never.

[Rebelbase]

"I have to wonder, at what point will our government consider this an invasion?"

These are the topics posted at the top of the Forum page here at FR:

SCOTUS | Eminent Domain | Oil-for-Food | Filibuster | Bolton | London Attacked | CIA Leak (Rove/Plame) | Saddam Trial

Illegal immigration isn't listed there because it's not an issue with GOP Neocons here or at the White House.

[dennisw]

Uruguay and Chile are like Argentina. Few Indians and Mestizos. They are more egalitarian and more much European than the rest of Latin America. Those three nations are called the La Plata region

[rdb3]

you are against our military defending our country by protecting the borders...But somehow I suspect you are gleeful about our border patrol agents AND our military defending Iraq's borders...

You have a lot of nerve. I haven't suggested anything remotely close to that. But I'll let it go.

[rdb3]

The fact remains that in addition to manpower...which I agree doesn't need to be infantry troops on the ground...there are intelligence and surveillance assets needed...which act as force multipliers.

You graze my poing about why I'm against soldiers being on the border. But let me explain it because no one seems to get it.

With federal troops, who is the Commander in Chief? That's would be the President.

Now, let's say that Hitlary! wins the next election, and is our CiC. What would stop her from removing the troops from the border(s) with the snap of her fingers? Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Also, I'm against playing politics with soldiers. I thought we were disgusted enough with that while Clinton was the president.

In the post-9/11 era, the BP should be a permanent fixture on our boundaries. In fact, the BP should also include the Coast Guard. If one makes the argument that the BP should become a department under the auspices of the military, I'd be more than willing to listen. In fact, that may not be a bad idea.

Hold up. That's it! The Border Patrol should be removed from the control of the laughable INS, and amalgamated with the Coast Guard! That's it! Where would I be wrong with this suggestion?

I can see the change. The Coast Guard should then be called the Coast and Border Guard. Our borders include the coasts, right? I think that would be a perfect way to go about it. Major detention facilities would need to be made, but that's small potatoes.

Again, what am I missing here?

[Klickitat]

BTTT

[Dead Dog]

These people are a problem, and there are many problems berried in the desert.

[rdb3]

...and there are many problems berried in the desert.

I just watched Casino. Said the same thing.

[Dead Dog]

Yah, I stole it from them. Except for the typo, berried = buried.

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID..."With federal troops, who is the Commander in Chief? That's would be the President."

I get your point, but theres no solution to your voiced concerns with your approach...heres why.

The responsibility for Border Security ENFORCEMENT rests with the Executive Branch...and the buck stops with the President.

Now I know that some people on this forum get all upset and defensive when people point that out...but its Constitutionally mandated, and theres no getting around it.

Now couple that with the Hillary factor...if she gets in...we are probably generally fu'ed...no matter what. I don't care how you try to manage it. Whether she controls Border Security or Military makes little difference if she is determined NOT to enforce Border Security. Hell, people think thats what we have NOW with Bush.

So how do we put a system in place which does the job but gives us protection in the event that Hillary gets in...common sense...which provides some degree of protection...but not all.

For example...don't expand and extend the Patriot Act to give yet more powers to the FBI...thats dumb. You're asking for problems down the road.

Your proposal of putting Border Control under the military in some fashion doesn't save you from Hillary. You are also going against your initial premise to get the military out of the loop, for the reason I quoted you above!

What I was proposing was not merely infantry boots on the ground, it was that special military teams who are trained, and controlled by the military are made available as resources to HSA to secure the border. Its a matrix organization..which does present some issues ...nothings perfect. The military groups pass intelligence over to the Border Agents... (or Coast Guard too) to be acted on. If something heavy starts to go down...they would be tasked to also pass info over to those 'other' military guys too..who I hope are given Carte Blanche to deal with things in their own 'special' personal way.

I think this is the only way to keep state of the art equipment and assets that we are using in other theaters secure. I don't want that stuff going out of military intelligence control. I'm assuming that we are serious in the first place...and are making this stuff available at the border to get the job done.

HSA being a distinct government agency creates some problems...such as bureaucracy...but it does provide a degree of buffering from the president's policies.

Congress has a responsibility to oversee the spending of monies too...which means they control the HSA to an extent. Maybe they need to get more active and kick some butt..which I believe they are starting to do (at least some in Congress are).

I don't see using military assets on the border as putting the military out to be political pawns. The Border issue is a Constitution issue. It has become politicized...but thats because the pols let it develop into one.

If the President were to take a stand...and sell the idea to the public as an adjunct to National Security...which it really is...the people would back him to the hilt.

Having done so now...it would also make it more difficult for Hillary to pull the plug later. JMHO.

[Das Outsider]

I was thinking about South American countries with their drug trade.

[Das Outsider]

The purpose of these incursions is not totally understood, but U.S. officials have speculated that they are designed to help facilitate the flow of illegal drugs into America , either by creating a diversion or by providing cover for the traffickers.

We know of at least one well-known drug lord who did receive safe passage via Mexican military escort. Probably not an isolated incident.

[backtothestreets]

Just a thought, but could any of this take place without some mighty supportive interference by some very influential US citizens in our government?

The more I read these sorts of articles detailing the criminal element operating across our border with Mexico, the more I am convinced organized crime owns many of our politicians, government officials, and the courts.

This smacks of corruption in our government, and no one is investigating for such government corruption.

[Das Outsider]

Didn't Osamma BL consider drugs to be another weapon to be used against Europe and America?

As a way to build wealth to grow jihad, sure. What you're talking about sounds more like what the Soviets were up to decades earlier. Al-Qaida has taken a few plays and strategies from the old Communist book; I just haven't heard a statement from OBL to that effect, re: drugs.

[FreedomCalls]

Most important is the fact that the Pentagon chose to include this story as the number 7 top headline in today's "Early Bird". It shows that the Pentagon is thinking about this as a military problem since the Early Bird is distributed to senior officials in the military.

Link: http://ebird.afis.mil/cgi-bin/ebird/displaydata.pl?Requested=/ebfiles/e20050801aaindex.html (.mil address required)

[Das Outsider]

I think you are right Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. we may need it.

I talked to a friend of mine over the weekend who doesn't follow the southern border situation and all of its ramifications. We naturally got the subject of crime and especially the Latino/Latin American gangs. ; 18th Street, MS-13, terrorists, the whole works. After a few facts and figures, he was both confused and alarmed. He asked me, "Well then what can I do to protect myself and my family from these guys?!" I couldn't come up with an answer other than this:

Exercise your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Buy a rifle or two. Learn to shoot. Keep an eye out for gang activity in the neighborhood and surrounding areas. It's all you can do.

That's what being "vigilant" means.