INS Confirms 'Act of War' Committed at U.S. Mexican Border

Report By J.J. Johnson
Published 05. 22. 02 at 12:27 Sierra TimeLatest Border Incursion

Ajo, Arizona - The Immigration and Naturalization confirms A U.S. Border patrol Agent was fired upon Friday five miles inside the U.S. Border, increasing the calls for citizens to take direct action to halt what a U.S. Border Patrol agent called "an act of war." This is one of 21 border incursions that have taken place over the last year.

According to a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, the Tohono O'odham Police Department encountered a Mexican military incursion on Friday, May 17, 2002 at approximately 8:30 PM along the Santa Cruz trail inside the Papago Farms border patrol area, just south of Forest Road 21.

The unnamed agent spotted three Mexican soldiers in a Mexican Humvee on U.S. soil and was attempting to leave the area when the rear window of his vehicle was apparently shattered by gunfire. "The agent was leaving the area in an effort to avoid a confrontation" with the Mexicans, according to Lori Haley, and INS spokeswoman.

"I cannot in good conscience stand by and watch another incursion along our border take place," said U.S. Rep Tancredo (R-CO). "Unless we open our eyes and recognize that what's happening along the U.S. Mexico border is real, one of our guys is going to get killed.

The U.S. Border Patrol Agent, who wishes to remain anonymous, informed Rep. Tancredo during a phone conversation that approximately five miles north of the U.S./Mexico border, one the "GS-11" agents out of the Ajo border patrol station noticed a military helicopter flying overhead, heading south towards Mexico. Shortly thereafter, he came upon a humvee, which not only began to approach him, but to fire upon his vehicle. According to the agent's testimony, the vehicles rear window and back driver's side windows were destroyed. Fortunately, the agent was able to flee the incursion unharmed and concluded the conversation by stating, "As far as I am concerned, that [incursion] should be an act of war."

With the increase in hostilities now confirmed by the U.S. government, Sierra Times has learned that private citizens are making preparations to deal directly with such incursions in the future. Stay tuned.

This article may not be reproduced without expressed permision from Sierra Times.com or the author.

Mexican President Vicente Fox warned the Bush administration May 9 that he could not maintain the close relationship he has had with the United States unless there is progress on resolving immigration issues."

Are these the exact words of Fox or the papers? I'd sort of like to know where this "taco bender" gets off "warning" our president about anything. I guess it's just as well that I am not sitting in the oval office, I can't take a threat or ignore one.

I found the following from a 19 May report, not a precise match, but a pretty close paraphrase of Fox's statements.

Incidentally, they tagged the Taco bender's statements as * Montezuma's request*, and apparant play on either the term Montezuma's revenge, or *reconquest*, or both:

Montezuma's request

Mexican President Vicente Fox is asking President Bush: What have you done for me lately? At a recent dinner hosted by the Council of Americas in New York, Mr. Fox said "there can be no privileged U.S.-Mexico relationship without actual progress on substantial issues in our bilateral relationship." But Mr. Fox should be careful, lest he get that quid pro quo he is wishing for.

Specifically, Mr. Fox has immigration issues in his sights. Mr. Fox has been asking Mr. Bush to support measures to grant a blanket amnesty to the millions of Mexicans living illegally in the United States, more U.S. visas to Mexicans seeking residence in America and the reinstatement of the type of guest-worker program that was active four years ago. And Mr. Bush has obliged, to some degree, Mr. Fox's requests in an effort to court Hispanic voters. On March 12, a week before Mr. Bush's trip to a U.N. conference in Mexico, a bill backed strongly by the president passed in the House to allow about 200,000 Mexicans living illegally in the United States an amnesty. The Senate has yet to vote on the legislation.

The bill, unfortunately, sends all the wrong signals. Rewarding illegal aliens with an amnesty will simply encourage more immigrants to break U.S. laws, thereby contributing to general disorder and diminished security, not to mention a larger pool of undocumented workers that can be more easily exploited by employers. Presumably, Mr. Bush's support for the amnesty was motivated by visions of non-hanging chads. But just in case that wasn't tantalizing enough, Mr. Fox last week tried to sweeten the trade-off.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that, according to Mexican officials, Mr. Bush's as-of-yet unfruitful efforts to push forward Mr. Fox's coveted immigration measures are "likely to hurt Mr. Fox's efforts to push through an ambitious agenda that includes greater access for foreign investors to the nation's energy and telecommunications sectors." Mr. Bush should curtly respond that the White House doesn't expect Mexico to take any measures in these areas on its account. After all, Mexico should liberalize its economy because it will benefit itself in doing so — not because it is doing the bidding of the gringos. Mr. Fox would hardly benefit politically from pushing forward foreign ownership if he were doing so to curry favor with America.

Mr. Fox maintains that he needs Mr. Bush to throw him some kind of concession ahead of Mexico's congressional elections next year. Although his own concessions may presently seem like a cagey negotiating tactic, Mr. Fox ought to remember, the Mexicans are watching, too.

And what of the report of Fox riding with 8000 local mexicans to survey the border near AZ.

Further - it has been 117 Incursions of the border by Mexican troops or police over the last 5 years documented by the Border Patrol, so says Repr. Tancredo:

News; Domestic FACTOR Follow-Up Bill O'Reilly
05/21/2002 Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor
O'REILLY: In "THE FACTOR Follow-Up" segment tonight, we have been reporting on the terrible Mexican border situation for quite some time, where illegal immigrants and drugs continue to stream across on a daily basis.
We also told you that the Mexican army has illegally crossed into the USA on a number of occasions, and we have documented them.
Now Congressman Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado, is trying to do something about that. He joins us from Washington.
Was the last time the Mexican army, as far as you know, congressman, came into the USA illegally?
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R-CO), IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Friday night at about 8:30. Although the details are somewhat sketchy at this point, here's what we know, at about 8:30 Friday night, just south of Ajo, Arizona, not, in about five miles into the United States, on our side of the border, a Mexican vehicle, a Humvee with Mexican military inside opened fire on an American, on a border patrol agent. A bullet...
O'REILLY: Really?
TANCREDO: Yes. A bullet passed through his window, smash -- shattered the rear window and passed through his front window. It also shot out his tire.
O'REILLY: Really?
TANCREDO: That is what we know. And I just heard about this about 45 minutes ago...
O'REILLY: How come it wasn't on -- how come it wasn't -- the press didn't cover it? I don't know anything.
TANCREDO: Great, great, great question. This, this is something that is, of course, very frustrating for all of us who are concerned about this. Bill, in the, in the last five years, we have had 117 documented incursions into the United States . Night -- by either Mexican military or by Mexican federal police.
Our border patrol people say that at least 90 percent of these are intentional, that is to say, they're not lost, they didn't just wander across the border.
A hundred and seventeen times. Where have, where have we been? Where's the media attention? Where's our own government's attention to this thing?
O'REILLY: I don't know, I mean, I had no idea that in Ajo, Arizona, that happened, and we're going to check it out tomorrow, believe me, we're going to get down there and call and try to find out.
TANCREDO: Yes.
O'REILLY: Now you wrote a letter -- because we have done this story before.
TANCREDO: Yes.
O'REILLY: In Texas and El Paso, they had a big shootout there. And you wrote a letter to Vincente Fox, the president of Mexico. And what happened there?
TANCREDO: Well, I got a letter back from the ambassador from Mexico telling me that he didn't like the tone of my letter.
O'REILLY: He didn't like the tone. What was your tone?
TANCREDO: He said -- well, I demanded to know, number one, what the Mexican government was doing about these incursions, what they were doing to stop them. He wrote back and said, well, most of these are just --they've all been dealt with. They're nothing very significant. Now, of course, that's the line I get even from our own State Department, because everybody's petrified of actually bringing this issue out, because of these touchy relationships. No, here's the real reason, Bill. Here's the reason why it isn't coming out. It's because if it does come out, then you see, there's only one thing you can do about this. And that is to secure the border.
O'REILLY: That's right.
TANCREDO: And that's what they what they don't want to...
O'REILLY: They don't want to do it.
TANCREDO: ...do.
O'REILLY: That's absolutely right. Absolutely right, congressman. Now, I believe...
TANCREDO: So frustrating, buddy. It's so frustrating.
O'REILLY: ...from our research, that these army incursions are protecting the Mexican drug dealers.
TANCREDO: So do I.
O'REILLY: That's why they're coming in.
TANCREDO: You can -- there isn't a person that you can talk to down on the border, any patrol agent, any member of the forest service enforcement side of the border who doesn't agree with you on that and me on that. The only people who you'll get an argument from are inside this Beltway, who don't want to acknowledge that. But I guarantee you that that's what they're doing here. At least a great percentage of these incursions have to deal with the Mexican military and/or federal police protecting or creating a diversion, so that drug shipments can get through.
O'REILLY: That's amazing that last Friday night, that a Humvee fired on a border patrol.
TANCREDO: That is correct.
O'REILLY: And the whole country doesn't know about it.
TANCREDO: Yes, can you imagine?
O'REILLY: Can you imagine if we did that to Mexico, that our guys went in there and started shooting at the federales what an incident that would be? Now congressman, are you getting any traction when you talk to your peers on the Hill about this? Does anybody care about this but you?
TANCREDO: Yes, some. Not enough, probably. Everybody is so uptight about this whole immigration issue. No one wants to confront it, because, of course, there -- well, no one on the Democrat side wants to confront it because there are votes involved. Massive numbers of immigrants coming in, mean massive votes. Nobody wants to confront it on my side because we're talking about labor. You know, a lot of people on my side want cheap labor into the United States. And they don't care if they're here legally or not. And you know, between these two powerful interests, I get a hard time trying to get this issue advanced.
O'REILLY: Well, not on this program.
TANCREDO: The only people I have on my side are the American people.
O'REILLY: Yes, that's right.
TANCREDO: The American people are with us.
O'REILLY: And congressman, every time you have something, you let us know because we'll publicize it. We're going to check out that Ajo incident and maybe we'll have more on that tomorrow.
TANCREDO: Please do.
O'REILLY: We appreciate your good work, congressman. Thanks very much.
TANCREDO: Yours too, Bill.
O'REILLY: Next up, Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife will talk about American kids, her new book, and her husband. And then more controversy over Abercrombie & Fitch. Now they're marketing thongs for little girls. Those reports upcoming.

He could have kept his distance and called in backup with superior firepower to the Mexican Humvee.

That's what he did. He turned around to gain ground between him and a rifle that can shoot accurately to 500 meters and reported the incident.

In this case, back up is only 30 to 45 minutes away, and by the time they arrive the Mexican Humvee is back in Mexico and gone.

Which raises the question - if this is happening on a somewhat regular basis - why wasn't our guy a part of a reinforced patrol in the first place.

This happens 20 to 30 times a year. The US Government does not take it seriously, because they do not wish to piss off Mexico. The INS and BP do take it seriously, but are not authorized the manpower or equipment to properly patrol the border. If you want reinforced patrols, then convince Congress to put the military on the border.

Because the INS and Border Patrol are not taking border violations seriously!

Please provide one shred of evidence that the Border Patrol or any INS law enforcement office does not take their job seriously.

And you don't know that the 'Mexicans' were bring in drugs... they have been known to smuggle people....some of whom may have names that are not Hispanic and think a repeat of 9/11 might be a good thing!

I sure do. There has never been any report or evidence of Mexican Military personnel, Mexican Police or other Mexican Government workers smuggling people. These people smuggle drugs, its more profitable. They have at time used illegal aliens to smuggle the drugs, but they are not smuggling people.

I know the nationality of every alien that is arrested on the Mexican Border. Do you? Can you find out?

As of yet, there is no evidence of any terrorist sneaking into the US through the Mexican border. Could it happen? Yes it could. All but two of the terrorist from 9/11 came in through an airport on a valid visa. No one knows how the other two got here. It could have been the Canadian border for all we know. It's much more wide open than the Mexican border

Until you get some experience working this area of the border, in an INS law enforcement position, like myself, try not to comment on things you know nothing about.

I've spent two years working the Arizona border and know many of the BP agents in Ajo. You have no idea what is happening down there. I do. You read a few articles and you suddenly become an expert in the field. I don't think so.

Ok, keep the agent, but send in the Marines anyway. :-)

Okay. I make no claim of expertise in the Marine way of doing things, though I've been priviliged to have been around them a few times while they were at it- and likely had my bacon saved by them in the process- but does the following previous Marine S.O.P and Rules of Engagement sound about right for this situation as well?

In a 'circular letter',
"Subject: Miscellaneous Instructions,
dated 13 December 1921,
from The Major General Commandant:

1. In cases where trains carrying Marines guarding mails cross the Canadian Boundry enroute to another point in the United States, the Marines, upon crossing the boundry, shall place their arms in a registered mail-sack and turn over the sack to Canadian Post Office Officials (who accompany the train) until such time as the train re-crosses into the United States. Under no circumstances shall Marines exercise a military function in Canadian teritory.

2. Shotguns preferably will be carried with filled magazine and empty chamber, in order to avoid accidents.

3. Pistols may be carried loaded, cocked and locked. The holster should be fastened to the leg and the flap tucked or tied back, so as not to interfere with drawing. The Marine (if not carrying other arms) should carry his hand on the pistol butt.

4. Arrangements should be made for each mail-coach to carry a supply of ordinary railroad flares, which should be ignited and thrown out of the car if an attack is made on it. Also, in case of attack on a car, interior lights should be put out. On trains lighted with electricity the guard should be prepared to turn out all lights.

5. The Marines should be continually reminded that they will use their firearms to wound or kill only when necesarry to prevent robbery or theft of the mails. The use of firearms except for this purpose must be avoded.

6. Where it is decided to convene a summary court-martial and a shortage of officers exists, a request may be made on the local Recruiting Officer for one or more officers to report for this temporary duty. When they report, the Commanding Officer may order them as members of the Court-Martial. In such cases, the officer or officers requested should be junior to the officer ordering the court.

7. Cases have arisen where men have been transferred to barracks without punishment for the offense which caused their transfer. Except in cases serious enough to warrant trial by General Court-Martial, men should be tried, before transfer, by a Deck Court or Summary Court-Martial, as it will be impracticable to bring them to trial after transfer. Men committing offenses warranting a general court-martial should be held at their station until a decision in the premises has been received from Headquarters.

8. The official title of the Detachments is --U.S. Marine Corps Detached Guard Company ( Place ). For instance, "U.S. MARINE CORPS DETACHED GUARD COMPANY, WASHINGTON, D.C.". Hereafter no other title will be used.

9. Commanding Officers must take steps to provide a suitable Christmas and New Years for their commands. No doubt much can be done for their entertainment by enlisting the good offices of local welfare organizations.

10. Precious orders regarding transfer, for discharge of men from U.S. Marine Corps Detached Guard Companies to nearest Recruiting Office or Barracks, are rescinded. Hereafter Commanding Officers of U.S. Marine Corps Detached Guard Companies will discharge their men in the same manner as any other Commanding Officer.

(signed) LOGAN FELAND
by direction"

***** ***** *****

The following is from a letter to The Major General Commandant, Headquarters U.S, Marine Corps, from the Office of the Postamaster General, dated February 15, 1922, which states in part...

"My dear General:

It gives me extreme pleasure at this time to submit to you this letter of commendation of the marines who have been performing, during the past three months, the duty of protecting United States mail in railway terminals, post offices, railroad junctions and federal reserve centers. The protection of the mails has been splendidly effective through the loyalty, cooperation, bravery and fearless manner in which the marines have handled the situation in general.

For the twelve months ending with April 9, 1921, there have been thirty-six major mail robberies, with a loss of $6,300,000 stolen from the mail. In April 9 an order went out to the postal service to arm all outside postal employees and through the cooperation of the War Department, guns and ammunition were placed at the disposal of the Post Office department....from April 9, 1921 to October 9, 1921, there had been a total stolen of something like $300,000. In this effort postal employees were injured and killed and some robbers were slain, but the followed a series of robberies and depradations at points at which the Post Office Department had not as yet been able to eqip fully and with which it was unable to cope.

Therefore on November 8, 1921, the Postamaster General submitted a request to the Secretary of the Navy for the use of marines to take over this arduous and difficult duty. This request was immediately complied with and a force of ,,,,were dispatched by the U.S. Marine Corps instantly, in the characteristic of Marine Corps efficiency. These marines were detailed to ride on mail trucks, and on trains...at outlying points...post offices and stations where special protection was vita. They have performed their arduous and difficult duty in a most excellent manner and they have my most earnest praise and appreciation for their invaluable service to the public... Therefore, I desire to express my personal appreciation to the officers of the Marine Corps connected with this work of guarding United States mail, as well as to the Marine Corps and the Navy Department, for the responsive, expeditious and effective manner of carrying out these duries.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Acting Postmaster General"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.