Posted on 10/13/2002 3:12:34 AM PDT by FryingPan101
Borderland Sunday, October 13, 2002
A Border Patrol agent from Fort Hancock was shot in the leg about 4:20 p.m. Saturday by someone on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande while agents were pursuing smugglers 27 miles southeast of the Ysleta Port of Entry, Border Patrol officials said.
The female agent, whose name was not released, was expected to be released Saturday night from Thomason Hospital, El Paso Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said.
The shooting took place after smugglers in a pickup "carrying at least 500 pounds of marijuana" were spotted, he said.
A pursuit began "and the smugglers drove their vehicle into the water and fled into Mexico on foot."
Even though the smugglers reached the safety of Mexico, Mosier said, "apparently a number of assailants were waiting on the Mexico side, and a sustained barrage of gunfire occurred."
The agent was struck by a bullet that penetrated the vehicle, he said. Agents returned fire.
This was thought to be the first shooting of an El Paso sector Border Patrol agent in about 13 years.
On Sept. 12, two El Paso FBI agents were severely beaten by train bandits during a sting operation in the Sunland Park-Anapra area.
Even worse! I was watching a show broadcast from Juarez the other day and they had a panel discussion about the problems massive migration is causing Juarez. That city is overwhelmed by people moving in from the southern states and Guatemala and Honduras. They aren't equiped to handle hundreds of thousands of indigent people, and it had never really occurred to me until I heard them talking but Juarez had it's own culture decades ago that is being destroyed by so many coming in from other places who don't fit in. They too don't like the refugee camp appearance their city now has and they mentioned the huge increase in crime and how many of the migrants are criminals.
What was nice about watching that show ---they have all the exact same concerns as people in parts of the US and there was no racism accusations (I guess since it's all their own race). Even the priest on the panel brought up the issue of social injustice in Mexico and Central America as being the main push behind the level of migration that is now going on. Most people prefer to stay in their own hometowns and would if they could.
BTW, I caught part of your FR Banana Republican radio show or whatever it is called a few days ago. You sounded really creepy and unprofessional in my opinion, especially when AAABEST was talking about his work with the Sawgrass Rebellion in FL.
Headed? I think we are already IN serious trouble and most just don't realize it yet.
Weak. Grow some nuts.
I'll remember this next time you send me a Freepmail about being rude.
When did I ever send you a Freepmail without you first initiating it?
I never said that we should solve all its problems, as a matter of fact, I'm talking about solving OUR problems.
Call it my "ants" theory.
If I have ants in my kitchen, I could fumigate to get rid of them.
Of course, I'd have to fumigate periodically because if I don't eliminate food on the floor, they'd just come back.
They come for jobs, give them jobs there, they come for welfare, take the benefits away. It benefits the US consumer.
"There is a need for them to take a close look at their social injustices and question why prosperity ends at the Rio Grande when Mexico is a country very wealthy in natural resources and labor."
Are these things we looked at, and demanded, before doing business with China?
Mexico's problems are nowhere near the magnitude of Red China's.
"I know of an illegal who left because in his town the wealthy family that owned the only business often didn't pay the employees at all..."
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news around here.
ENRON.
I also had an outfit that stuck the company I represent for half a million dollars in unpaid bills, and most of a month's wages for over three hundred employees of their's.
No one is getting any money.
The US is in no way obligated to do social engineering in Mexico, or any other country for that matter, before doing business with them, and unlike China or Cuba, Mexico has never stated that the destruction of the US is one of theor goals.
I don't like the fact that everything he has done or said will not secure the borders. He is turning us into the new security screener agency. We spend more time harassing legitimate travelers then we do looking for criminals. And when we do find criminals, he has made it harder to remove them and increased the amount of paperwork 2 fold.
Bush and Company are doing their best to keep the door open and keep us from finding the bad guys. It's all smoke and mirrors, so people like yourselves, are satisfied that he is doing something, when in fact nothing is being done.
Reagan gave them amnesty, Bush I did nothing, and Clinton did nothing. This administration has allocated more funding than the previous two.
What took decades to develop, ain't going to be fixed in three.
BTW, declaring war is a function of the Congress. Has your boy brought up a declaration of war against Mexico up on the floor?
I mean, he's the one braying about "the invasion".
Face it, he's telling you what you want to hear to keep himself in office.
What are the cultural and historical reasons?
1) When has the US, in wartime or in peace, ever used the US Army to enforce civil law?
2) When has this notion of freedom that drives our form of self-government, included militarizing the borders, during wartime or in peace?
Documented? Not even Tancredo claims that:
""They are reporting that they see people coming through with guns. The concern is that there are people coming through with arms, M-16s, protecting drug carriers," said Mr. Tancredo, who has proposed using National Guard troops at border areas."
"The concern" is hardly the same as documented, and I don't see Tancredo mincing words when it comes to his main, get-out-the-vote pet issue.
Or we can even take the word of those working the border:
""These situations can be very difficult," said Keith Weeks, a patrol agent and vice president of Local 1613 of the National Border Patrol Council in California. "We are outgunned in these instances. They have automatic rifles, and we have handguns." He said that military assistance for drug running in Mexico is "a definite possibility.""A definite possibility" doesn't say documented to me.
If Mexican authorities are chasing a smuggler in the dark, over unmarked terrain, they may inadvertently cross over into US territory.
Each and every one of these incursions, that happen both ways BTW, are discussed at lenght between the two governments, and dealt with at a local level.
I suggest better communications between US and Mexican Border patrols are needed, rather than gunships to start an idiotic and not needed border war.
Are there crooks in the Army? Probably on both sides, but they should not dictate policy, nor be the cause of a border war.
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.