INS confirms border incident with Mexico
By Bill McAllister
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief

Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., accused the Mexican army Tuesday of staging a "military incursion" Friday night into southern Arizona that ended with Mexican soldiers firing shots at a U.S. Border Patrol vehicle.
Lori Haley, an Immigration and Naturalization spokeswoman, confirmed that an incident occurred in a remote area near Ajo, Ariz.

A U.S. 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, she said. The agent was leaving the area "in an effort to avoid a confrontation" with the Mexicans, she said.

"Because of the seriousness of the incident" Haley said, U.S. authorities launched a formal investigation and are asking Mexican authorities to do the same.

The Mexican government previously has rejected Tancredo's charges that Mexican police and military units frequently cross the border. Tancredo, who leads a group of lawmakers opposed to liberalizing immigration laws, has said U.S. officials believe the incursions are related to drug trafficking.

The Republican from Littleton said he fears gunplay between U.S. and Mexican authorities unless officials stop the incursions. "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," he said.

The INS confirmed the incident, but Tancredo's version differed somewhat. He said 10 soldiers were involved and the shot damaged more than the Border Patrol's rear window. He also said the Mexicans came 10 miles into the U.S before they were spotted.

Tancredo said U.S. agents believe the shots were fired because Mexican authorities were pursuing drug dealers into the U.S.

"They are saying they had interdicted a huge shipment of drugs," he said. "Therefore everyone was antsy."

But "regardless of the circumstances, they had happy trigger fingers," he said.

The U.S. vehicle was "clearly marked" and should have been recognizable, he said.

The agent told him, " "As far as I am concerned, that (incursion) should be an act of war,' " Tancredo said.

On May 3, Tancredo wrote Mexican President Vicente Fox demanding that he halt "incursions" by Mexican law enforcement officers into the U.S.

Fox didn't respond.

Wjhat a great excuse to call out a coupel of divisions and fortify the border with mines guns and barbed wire.

Originally posted by RedLine99
The agent told him, " "As far as I am concerned, that (incursion) should be an act of war,' " Tancredo said.
Sounds like this Rep. has his own agenda.:rolleyes:

The incursion is an "international incident" not a 10-man invasion by Mexican troops. That wouldn't even constitute an act of war.

Yeah...I'm sure there's a bit more too it. Not to mention the INS had a different version if you happened to catch that.

Red-

In principle I agree, but if the Mexican government is tight lipped about it...it basically is an act of war. If we were to fly a stay group of fighters over any country without permission, don't think it wouldn't be viewed as such...

The issue is QUITE serious, but you're right, that rep. sure seems to have an agenda he's pushingg.

He, Tancredo, claims his agenda is to close the border. I don't have a problem with that.

Yeah, whats wrong with stopping the flood of illegals coming here and actually protecting our borders?

Originally posted by Powerboss
Yeah, whats wrong with stopping the flood of illegals coming here and actually protecting our borders?
Nothing is wrong with stopping illegals. Just don't bull**** about it. Don't march a campaign of anti-immigration under the flag of "military incursion" much less "an act of war".

Originally posted by Manu
but if the Mexican government is tight lipped about it...

they aren't tightlipped. The mexican government is too busy. Its like a single parent raising 5 kids, and working 70 hours a week. One of the kids gets in the fight, and the parent inst able to do or say much about it.:topic: :D

Originally posted by Redfield

Nothing is wrong with stopping illegals. Just don't bull**** about it. Don't march a campaign of anti-immigration under the flag of "military incursion" much less "an act of war".

I think the two are tied together. It is what we have been warned about, the southwest being taken over by hispanics. When they can cross our border under arms with impunity, as they have been doing, we are in serious trouble.

there's no information on what the US side is doing. it just says they're driving away to avoid a confrontation.
again, more than meets the eye.

Jason, what are you getting at?

Originally posted by Cosmo


I think the two are tied together. It is what we have been warned about, the southwest being taken over by hispanics.

Southwest? The south in general. There are at least 100 mexican restaraunts in the area, 30% of the signs in town are bilingual, more soccer fields than baseball fields. Somedays, I hear more spanish than english. They came here in the 10's of thousands to fill jobs in the poultry industry (Tyson) something like a 350% increase in ten years. In general, they live quiet comfortable lives although they stick together in small communities and tend to isolate themselves socially, and politically from the rest of the world.

Everyone is to blame: The administration, the companies that lure them in illegally or otherwise, and the citizens that consume the products they help produce. Combine that with better educated American citizens shifting from unskilled labor to IT fields, services, and it comes as no surprise that they are coming here in droves. Putting up millitarized border with Mexico would solve your immigration concerns, but most likely create an infinite number of other ones.

Originally posted by Manu
Jason, what are you getting at?


I think he's getting at the fact that the evil white man is responsible for all bad things that have ever happened on the planet earth. It must be our fault, somehow. We obviously provoked it.



86dude, well stated.

Originally posted by Cosmo
I think the two are tied together. It is what we have been warned about, the southwest being taken over by hispanics. When they can cross our border under arms with impunity, as they have been doing, we are in serious trouble.
Once again, the "America for Americans" camp is failing to differentiate hispanics and simply grouping illegals and hispanic-Americans in the same group. Please remember, Cosmo, that the southwest was part of Mexico to begin with so don't be surprised if there were a whole lot of hispanics there to begin with.

86- I don't see how your opinion of anti-Mexican, anti-Spanish speaking paranoia is relevant to this particular thread.:confused:

PB- Your sarcastic remark is so way off.

Redfield...please keep in mind Mr Wrong is the Grand Wizard of sarcastic hate speech and I was simply returning the favor to him with a little sarcasm, its something he just loves churning out at an unequalled rate.

Manu:

Originally posted by RedLine99
A U.S. 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, she said. The agent was leaving the area "in an effort to avoid a confrontation" with the Mexicans, she said.
the article contains no information as to what the INS was DOING in the area, what, if any, confrontation occured, and why they were leaving. it was instead "an agent saw some mexican soldiers, they left and had shots fired at them."
there's more to this story than is being revealed. not to say anyone is in the right or wrong, simply that i refuse to pass judgement or take sides until i know what BOTH sides were "doing" before and after the gunshots were fired.

Yes, theres no cause for alarm if Mexican troops are on US soil firing at INS agents. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Powerboss
Yes, theres no cause for alarm if Mexican troops are on US soil firing at INS agents. :rolleyes:

the question, however, is "WHY?"

are a few mexican troops going to risk all out war between two countries over target practice? doubtful.

THAT'S why i believe there's more to the story. we may never find out what it is, but there's something else there.

Who cares why, they're on our soil shooting at us.

La Reconquista is no secret and this certainly isnt the first time this has happened.
There are numerous reports of this happening many other times, finally one has received a little attention from the press.

Mr. Wrong.... and I believe in THIS case, you are. Please notice highlighted areas.... it appears you skimmed the first time.

Originally posted by RedLine99
INS confirms border incident with Mexico
By Bill McAllister
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief

Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., accused the Mexican army Tuesday of staging a "military incursion" Friday night into southern Arizona that ended with Mexican soldiers firing shots at a U.S. Border Patrol vehicle.
Lori Haley, an Immigration and Naturalization spokeswoman, confirmed that an incident occurred in a remote area near Ajo, Ariz.

A U.S. 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, she said. The agent was leaving the area "in an effort to avoid a confrontation" with the Mexicans, she said.

"Because of the seriousness of the incident" Haley said, U.S. authorities launched a formal investigation and are asking Mexican authorities to do the same.

The Mexican government previously has rejected Tancredo's charges that Mexican police and military units frequently cross the border. Tancredo, who leads a group of lawmakers opposed to liberalizing immigration laws, has said U.S. officials believe the incursions are related to drug trafficking.

The Republican from Littleton said he fears gunplay between U.S. and Mexican authorities unless officials stop the incursions. "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," he said.

The INS confirmed the incident, but Tancredo's version differed somewhat. He said 10 soldiers were involved and the shot damaged more than the Border Patrol's rear window. He also said the Mexicans came 10 miles into the U.S before they were spotted.

Tancredo said U.S. agents believe the shots were fired because Mexican authorities were pursuing drug dealers into the U.S.

"They are saying they had interdicted a huge shipment of drugs," he said. "Therefore everyone was antsy."

But "regardless of the circumstances, they had happy trigger fingers," he said.

The U.S. vehicle was "clearly marked" and should have been recognizable, he said.

The agent told him, " "As far as I am concerned, that (incursion) should be an act of war,' " Tancredo said.

On May 3, Tancredo wrote Mexican President Vicente Fox demanding that he halt "incursions" by Mexican law enforcement officers into the U.S.

Fox didn't respond.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't give a rat's patootie WHY they crossed the border, OR fired at the Border Patrol.... If you cross the border, and you are IN the military, ON duty, and you ATTACK someone, whether you're ONE man, or a division, it's an act of war.

I am well aware of American History (it was still taught in school when I was there) and how we acquired the southwest. I am not lumping all hispanics together, Iam simply poining out, that the hiskapnic immigration, turned into a migration, and is fast becoming an invasion. No one has ever offered why this is or might be a good thing, but there are many reasons why this is a bad thing.

RECONQUISTA IS BAD FOR AMERICA

AZTLAN IS BAD FOR AMERICA

MEChA IS UNAMERICAN

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
Mr. Wrong.... and I believe in THIS case, you are. Please notice highlighted areas.... it appears you skimmed the first time.



Now, I don't know about you, but I don't give a rat's patootie WHY they crossed the border, OR fired at the Border Patrol.... If you cross the border, and you are IN the military, ON duty, and you ATTACK someone, whether you're ONE man, or a division, it's an act of war.

i didn't say who was in the right or in the wrong. obviously there was something going on.
HOWEVER, my problem lies in the fact that NO ONE is reporting WHY all these shots were fired or that INS was fleeing from the scene.
obviously we have a need to protect ourselves and our country, but blindly threatening to declare war without knowing or udnerstanding all of the factors involved will lead us into a much worse scenario than ever possible - it is about THINKING, and being AWARE. just going "They were on our country, we need to start war!" just makes you a mindless pawn, a tool for bush and the entire military machine to get where THEY want without having to report to the american people.
that is why _I_ want to know more before _I_ take a side. i refuse to be duped.

The Mexicans should not have been in the US for any reason, without first getting permission. It would be an act of war, but no one, even us mindless followers of Bush would start a war over it. There are proper channnels to register a complaint, hope they are followed. But truthfully, do you think the RMCP would ever pull that crap?

Originally posted by Cosmo
I am not lumping all hispanics together...
Just for the sake of proving you wrong...
By Cosmo earlier
It is what we have been warned about, the southwest being taken over by hispanics.

No one has ever offered why this is or might be a good thing, but there are many reasons why this is a bad thing.

RECONQUISTA IS BAD FOR AMERICA

AZTLAN IS BAD FOR AMERICA

MEChA IS UNAMERICAN
All opinions and advances in AZTLAN and MEChA are permitted under free speech, yet you would have us believe that it's all "bad". How's this?...

CENSORSHIP AND DISMISSAL OF AN ETHNIC GROUP'S RIGHT TO SELF PROMOTION IS BAD FOR AMERICA

Are you enjoying spewing this rhetoric over and over? You post it as though immigration and illegal immigrants are the boogie-man.
:topic:

Big picture: There was, and have been, several instances where incursions on US soil have taken place. But, posting US military troops on a border and placing land mines out there are not the answer.:werd:

I don't agree with your assessment. I can't see how an hispanic group that wants to take US territory and claim it for the hispanics is a good thing for the US. Didn't we fight a civil war to prevent this type of thing?


Why wouldn't oraganizations that promote disunity be a bad thing for the US?

Originally posted by Redfield

Nothing is wrong with stopping illegals. Just don't bull**** about it. Don't march a campaign of anti-immigration under the flag of "military incursion" much less "an act of war".

These incursions have happened a number of times. Now the Mexican army is firing on agents of the U.S. government, on U.S. soil.....and this is NOT an act of war? At what point does it become so? When the Mexican Army marches into San Fransisco?

These incursions have happened a number of times.


117 times in the last 5 years if the source is correct.

Originally posted by mrWr0ng
i didn't say who was in the right or in the wrong. obviously there was something going on.
HOWEVER, my problem lies in the fact that NO ONE is reporting WHY all these shots were fired or that INS was fleeing from the scene. I can hazard a guess... INS, 9mm pistol, 12 gauge riot gun. Mexican soldiers, M-16s, possibly M-60s or LAWs, grenades, etc... I'd di di mau, too, most ricky-tick. outnumbered, outgunned, discretion is the better part of valor.

obviously we have a need to protect ourselves and our country, but blindly threatening to declare war without knowing or udnerstanding all of the factors involved will lead us into a much worse scenario than ever possible - it is about THINKING, and being AWARE. just going "They were on our country, we need to start war!" just makes you a mindless pawn, a tool for bush and the entire military machine to get where THEY want without having to report to the american people.
that is why _I_ want to know more before _I_ take a side. i refuse to be duped. I'm sorry, but it is that simple. If you are my neighbor, and I don't trust you, and we agree NOT to go on each other's property without prior agreement, and I see you in my backyard at 2 a.m., you're shot. No questions asked, no warning... you're a carcass. No difference here. The soldiers were "walking around our backyard at 2 a.m." Time to, as my machinist would say: "Busacapindatass". There is no excuse. ESPECIALLY if they are suspected of drug trade in our country, which would be an act of war ANYWAY. Where is the dupe there? Crossing the border of a sovereign nation, by the military, under arms, without permission, is invasion. Pacifists kill me. Just because I feel that our people, and our lands should be protected, I must be a blind war-mongering fool. Not so.

What I WOULD like to see, though, is for Mexico to use some of the money from the drugs, to pay off their debt to us.

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
I can hazard a guess... INS, 9mm pistol, 12 gauge riot gun. Mexican soldiers, M-16s, possibly M-60s or LAWs, grenades, etc... I'd di di mau, too, most ricky-tick. outnumbered, outgunned, discretion is the better part of valor.
this is, of course, assuming that that was the style of incursion. i'm not saying it wasn't, but it could well be that they went in to see what was going on, things got heated and the INS fled, or it could be something else - i don't know.

I'm sorry, but it is that simple. If you are my neighbor, and I don't trust you, and we agree NOT to go on each other's property without prior agreement, and I see you in my backyard at 2 a.m., you're shot. No questions asked, no warning... you're a carcass. No difference here. The soldiers were "walking around our backyard at 2 a.m." Time to, as my machinist would say: "Busacapindatass". There is no excuse. ESPECIALLY if they are suspected of drug trade in our country, which would be an act of war ANYWAY. Where is the dupe there? Crossing the border of a sovereign nation, by the military, under arms, without permission, is invasion. Pacifists kill me. Just because I feel that our people, and our lands should be protected, I must be a blind war-mongering fool. Not so.
it's not so much about pacifism as it is about having all the knowledge before going in. for example, world war I begins because a serb shoots an albanian, and everyone rushes in to throw their gloves in the ring - but WHAT if it was an albanian shooting another albanian, pretending to be a serb, and using a couple of country's initial dislike for each other to push his own goals? what if a fellow palestinian assassinates yasser arafat, pretendng to be a jew, and inciting all-out war between the two nations? these are questions you have to ask before you march off into war, because, unlike having your neighbor wander into your neighbor and shooting him, going to war with mexico affects EVERYBODY in the united states, not just you and your neighbors. EVERYBODY has to pay that price, people who agree, people who don't agree, people who are too old to notice, people who are too young to understand, peopel who aren't born yet, and people who have no idea that some mexican troops ever stepped foot on US soil. for all those people, and everyone else, _I_ want to know EXACTLY what happened before i scream "go to war!"
it would be like, if your neighbor is walking around your backyard, but his wife is located in a snipers nest of unknown location and has a gun laser-sighted on your wife, you're gonna think twice before you blow your neighbor way, REGARDLESS of whether you're right or wrong.

CENSORSHIP AND DISMISSAL OF AN ETHNIC GROUP'S RIGHT TO SELF PROMOTION IS BAD FOR AMERICA

No, but when that groups promotion crosses the line to sedition, then it is bad for America.

Doesn't Reconquista mean reconquer?

this is, of course, assuming that that was the style of incursion. i'm not saying it wasn't, but it could well be that they went in to see what was going on, things got heated and the INS fled, or it could be something else - i don't know.

According to the article, the INS agent saw a military Hummer, decided to run for it, and the Mexican military opened fire.

it's not so much about pacifism as it is about having all the knowledge before going in....

IMO, I think the circumstances here ar alot more clear than say, who was behind the 9/11 attack at first.

Originally posted by mrWr0ng

this is, of course, assuming that that was the style of incursion. i'm not saying it wasn't, but it could well be that they went in to see what was going on, things got heated and the INS fled, or it could be something else - i don't know.


I don't know that anyone is advocating going to war, they merely stated it is an act of war, which it is. I don't buy that the Mexicans just wanted to see what was going on, there are proper channels to gain information. If they came to see what was going on, they did so illegally, and UNDER ARMS. Since it has happpened before, they should have known better. We need ot protect our boarders, use our night air support capability and remove with extreme prejudice.

Originally posted by mrWr0ng

this is, of course, assuming that that was the style of incursion. i'm not saying it wasn't, but it could well be that they went in to see what was going on, things got heated and the INS fled, or it could be something else - i don't know.

There is no doubt whatsoever about the 'style' of incursion. It happened. The Mexican military crossed our border under arms, and fired on an agent of the U.S. government. If you dislike going to war with so many undefined variables, fine. We'll call it something other than 'war', like a live fire training exercise.....Everyone's happy, the bad guys are blown to bits, Mexico learns a valuable lesson, the border crossings cease, liberty triumphs.

I can't think of a legitimate excuse for waht the Mexicans did, can anyone come up with a scenario that would justify it?

But there was this HUGE Jackalope! We didn't want it to get away, so we chased it...

Originally posted by Cosmo
I can't think of a legitimate excuse for waht the Mexicans did, can anyone come up with a scenario that would justify it?

Suspicion tends toward incursions in support of illegal drug/human trafficking, on the part of the Mexican military, and law enforcement. But I don't really care why they are crossing the border. Since they are, we can rightfully act to repulse these incursions using whatever means we decide upon, at the time and place of our choosing. If the Mexicans don't like this, they are invited to cease these illegal border crossings. Pity our government has'nt the stones to take any action in this regard.

i like how everyone has completely neglected my points, backed up the fact the article has NO information whatsoever, and still insists on putting MY life and every other countrymen's life in danger over what could be nothing.
need to patrol our borders? of course. should they have been there? not at all. but, like i said, we DON'T know what's going on. this could have easily been that ANOTHER INS agent set up a drug deal, invited them over, and all opened fire on the other INS agents to keep them away while the deal went through. suddenly we wind up going to war because some US agents and mexican agents make some money off of drugs, and thousands of people who have nothing to do with that 'incursion' are dead. no thanks.
we have a right to protect our property and keep unwanted outsiders out. that's fine to limit it to that, but to go picking an entire WAR with a country over what a couple of troops are doing which hasn't even been EXPLAINED yet, is NOT good idea and i'm NOT ok with people dying for no good reason.

Originally posted by mrWr0ng
i like how everyone has completely neglected my points, backed up the fact the article has NO information whatsoever, and still insists on putting MY life and every other countrymen's life in danger over what could be nothing.

One hundred seventeen illegal incursions by the armed forces of another country equate to nothing? Firing on agents of our government is nothing? They are'nt crossing the border with the intention of planting flowers, they are up to no good.

It's either the Mexican government, or more likely rogue elements of their military, and law enforcement organizations. Either way, we have the right to repel them. If Mexico chooses to consider this an 'act of war', they are going to have a damn hard time explaining why our actions against their military, on our side of the border is not justified.


need to patrol our borders? of course. should they have been there? not at all. but, like i said, we DON'T know what's going on. this could have easily been that ANOTHER INS agent set up a drug deal, invited them over, and all opened fire on the other INS agents to keep them away while the deal went through.

Again, it does not matter. It could be Bill Clinton buying himself a couple kilos of snot-carpeting, and it does not change the fact that we have a foreign military power on the wrong side of the border. A couple of hellfire missiles on top of the next incursion would go a long way in stopping future problems of this nature from occuring.



suddenly we wind up going to war because some US agents and mexican agents make some money off of drugs, and thousands of people who have nothing to do with that 'incursion' are dead. no thanks.
we have a right to protect our property and keep unwanted outsiders out. that's fine to limit it to that, but to go picking an entire WAR with a country over what a couple of troops are doing which hasn't even been EXPLAINED yet, is NOT good idea and i'm NOT ok with people dying for no good reason.

Where did these thousands of dead come from? You think Mexico is going to declare a war against us if we happen to shoot up an illegal incursion on the part of their Army?

At what point exactly do these incursions become justification for action on our part?

MR. Wrong, you totally ignored the question, we don't know why they came, but can you name a scenario where it would be justified? Second, why do you keep talking war? There is no need to start a war, even though they committed an act of war. A missile dropped on the hummer will probably solve the problem without any unneccessary deaths.