View Full Version : Armed Mexican personnel surround and disarm US soldiers on US SOIL
https://www.theblaze.com/news/mexican-soldiers-detain-us-soldiers
Didnt see it posted.
This is ****ing bullshit. Why didnt our guys light these little **** sticks up.
Someone needs to let Mexico we wont stand for this.
Time to militarize the border.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/mexican-troops-american-soldiers-border/index.html
"An inquiry by (Customs and Border Patrol) and (the Department of Defense) revealed that the Mexican military members believed that the US Army soldiers were south of the border," Northern Command said while adding that the US troops were north of the border.
And this is why THERE NEEDS TO BE A WALL so everyone knows which side of what everyone is on.
As for why the US soldiers didn't get into it, they were in an unmarked vehicle with only sidearms facing Mexican military with long arms and the US soldiers deescalated things. Also it seems the Mexican military was there doing pretty much the same thing the US military is there to do.
But this is a perfect example of how things can easily go wrong because THERE IS NO WALL. There was a security fence but it was on the US side of the border and everyone was north of the Rio Grande. If our guys had disarmed their guys south of the border, it would be a shit show.
Past and most recent National Guard activity on the border provided for unloaded weapons or no weapons for US Troops. Before the National Guard was pulled from the border here in New Mexico, one of the Army support units in the field was a Reserve Quartermaster Company which does field tailoring and builds field showers. That was the 263rd Quartermaster Company based in El Paso. They did not bring their M4 Carbines.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/mexican-troops-american-soldiers-border/index.html
And this is why THERE NEEDS TO BE A WALL so everyone knows which side of what everyone is on.
As for why the US soldiers didn't get into it, they were in an unmarked vehicle with only sidearms facing Mexican military with long arms and the US soldiers deescalated things. Also it seems the Mexican military was there doing pretty much the same thing the US military is there to do.
But this is a perfect example of how things can easily go wrong because THERE IS NO WALL. There was a security fence but it was on the US side of the border and everyone was north of the Rio Grande. If our guys had disarmed their guys south of the border, it would be a shit show.
The entire Texas border has a river, there is no excuse for Mexican soldiers to cross it, ever.
Mexican government’s show of force, double dog dare style. Those soldier knew they were in El Norteño and are testing US response.
Doc Safari
04-23-19, 09:05
Time to invade Mexico and create a 400-mile "No-Man's Land" between the US border and the nearest Mexican settlement or village. And yes, I mean bulldoze Palomas, Juarez, Tijuana, and everything else in the way.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/mexican-soldiers-detain-us-soldiers
Didnt see it posted.
This is ****ing bullshit. Why didnt our guys light these little **** sticks up.
Someone needs to let Mexico we wont stand for this.
Time to militarize the border.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Dude. Have you ever been in an uncomfortable confrontation where you’re outnumbered 3:1? At least one guy had an M9 but I haven’t seen mention of anything else, whereas multiple reports have said all of the Mexicans had some type of assault rifle. Those are shit odds. Plus, we’re not in open conflict. There’s no reason to believe they would’ve committed any type of hostile act. While frustrating, those guys did the best thing they could’ve in their situation. That’s not even considering the fact that they’re probably not combat arms, maybe not even active duty.
Had you been there, you more than likely would’ve done the same thing, or you would’ve caused an international incident AND be dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There’s no reason to believe they would’ve committed any hostile act.
or you would’ve caused an international incident AND be dead.
They did commit a hostile act.
A foreign military detains ours guys on our soil, and you are worried about a international incident.
This makes us look extremely weak, especially if there is no retaliation.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Had you been there, you more than likely would’ve done the same thing, or you would’ve caused an international incident AND be dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
absolutely correct.
They did commit a hostile act.
A foreign military detains ours guys on our soil, and you are worried about a international incident.
This makes us look extremely weak, especially if there is no retaliation.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Have you ever been in the military?
ETA - there is such a thing as two groups of Soldiers trying to figure out what the hell is going on without getting killed by each other. Again, I’m not crazy about the fact that our guys were disarmed, but two small groups of guys ultimately ended up talking. That’s not a hostile act from a foreign country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
04-23-19, 09:38
Have you ever been in the military?
ETA - there is such a thing as two groups of Soldiers trying to figure out what the hell is going on without getting killed by each other. Again, I’m not crazy about the fact that they were disarmed, but a few guys ultimately ended up talking. That’s not a hostile act from a foreign country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It sounds like sheer incompetence. Living in the Southwest I'm surprised the Mexicans would even know how to fire their weapons. And I'm dissing Mexicans for their lack of training and skill, not their race.
Not the first time this has happened. For some reason it's always the Mexicans that are lost.....
SomeOtherGuy
04-23-19, 09:51
What Steyr and Wake said. But it wouldn't hurt to have some A-10s loitering and Apaches on standby to deal with issues like this. Maybe some AC-130s making occasional appearances just to send a message.
And build the f'ing wall.
Dude. Have you ever been in an uncomfortable confrontation where you’re outnumbered 3:1? At least one guy had an M9 but I haven’t seen mention of anything else, whereas multiple reports have said all of the Mexicans had some type of assault rifle. Those are shit odds. Plus, we’re not in open conflict. There’s no reason to believe they would’ve committed any type of hostile act. While frustrating, those guys did the best thing they could’ve in their situation. That’s not even considering the fact that they’re probably not combat arms, maybe not even active duty.
Had you been there, you more than likely would’ve done the same thing, or you would’ve caused an international incident AND be dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have. Have you?
And they were active duty from a combat arms unit, Artillery out of JBLM if I am not mistaken.
Everybody gotta die sometime, Wake.
I hear the people you kill in anger become your slaves in hell.
They were active duty from 1st Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington
The military is a dangerous job. Even if you are a supply guy you are in danger at work. If this is something that a person is not able to do don't join or get out. It is not a free ride for a GI Bill.
I have. Have you?
And they were active duty from a combat arms unit, Artillery out of JBLM if I am not mistaken.
Only in training and observing others in training when I was an OC, that’s all it took to drive the point home that it’s a tricky situation that can be quickly escalated for no good reason. That’s why I’m curious as to what in his life experience has told him that they definitely should’ve made that a fight.
They were active duty from 1st Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington
The military is a dangerous job. Even if you are a supply guy you are in danger at work. If this is something that a person is not able to do don't join or get out. It is not a free ride for a GI Bill.
100% agree. That doesn’t change the fact that in the long run, they probably made the right decision. I don’t think any of us know how willingly they gave up the M9, or if it was even loaded and the guy knew how to use it. The job they’re doing is not a part of their normal mission and ultimately it deals with humans from different countries interacting, which a lot of junior people in the military are not good at.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Guys, I get it. Being a Soldier is a job you should know you may die for. But we are not at war with Mexico. If you get rolled up lightly armed, on duty, by Mexican troops, properly armed, the State department will post bail shortly. And you don’t have to die. And there’s no need to start a war. Shit like this is why peacetime government detention and non-state actors focused SERE courses exist.
Most people that think they are ready to die for something, aren’t. Its just a misunderstanding.
Guys, I get it. Being a Soldier is a job you should know you may die for. But we are not at war with Mexico. If you get rolled up lightly armed, on duty, by Mexican troops, properly armed, the State department will post bail shortly. And you don’t have to die. And there’s no need to start a war. Shit like this is why peacetime government detention and non-state actors focused SERE courses exist.
Most people that think they are ready to die for something, aren’t. Its just a misunderstanding.
I will break this down very simply.
Those soldiers are lucky as F@#K. Based on the reports and the description they were at best Mexican Army working for a Cartel. They could have rented up with tires around them and set on fire. Bad things happen to the CBP all of the time. Dealing with a foreign gov is easy..... they usually play by the rules and don't do crazy crap.
On the other hand when you are dealing with non-state actors everything goes out the window. That is what is going on there.
For anyone that HAS actually worked these areas the variables and actions must be relooked at as the rules of the game are completely different. Never take anything for granted. Don't think that the State Department will get you out because you may simply end up with a bullet in the back of your head in the middle of nowhere before it ever comes to that.
The real issue here is sending out a 2 man patrol without long guns. This is Big Army and they need to be rolling with the same rules they did in other parts of the world. 2 Vech minimum. The command needs to step up and not set the soldiers up for failure.
Does anyone remember the soldiers that got rolled up in Kosovo back in the 1990s? They get messed up and werr very lucky to get released.
I will break this down very simply.
Those soldiers are lucky as F@#K. Based on the reports and the description they were at best Mexican Army working for a Cartel. They could have rented up with tires around them and set on fire. Bad things happen to the CBP all of the time. Dealing with a foreign gov is easy..... they usually play by the rules and don't do crazy crap.
On the other hand when you are dealing with non-state actors everything goes out the window. That is what is going on there.
For anyone that HAS actually worked these areas the variables and actions must be relooked at as the rules of the game are completely different. Never take anything for granted. Don't think that the State Department will get you out because you may simply end up with a bullet in the back of your head in the middle of nowhere before it ever comes to that.
The real issue here is sending out a 2 man patrol without long guns. This is Big Army and they need to be rolling with the same rules they did in other parts of the world. 2 Vech minimum. The command needs to step up and not set the soldiers up for failure.
Does anyone remember the soldiers that got rolled up in Kosovo back in the 1990s? They get messed up and werr very lucky to get released.
Obviously a possibility, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that they were non/state actors. What makes you so sure?
I agree with the problem being with the Army’s handling as a whole, and part of the reason I say the Soldiers probably did the best thing they could have.
I will break this down very simply.
Those soldiers are lucky as F@#K. Based on the reports and the description they were at best Mexican Army working for a Cartel. They could have rented up with tires around them and set on fire. Bad things happen to the CBP all of the time. Dealing with a foreign gov is easy..... they usually play by the rules and don't do crazy crap.
On the other hand when you are dealing with non-state actors everything goes out the window. That is what is going on there.
For anyone that HAS actually worked these areas the variables and actions must be relooked at as the rules of the game are completely different. Never take anything for granted. Don't think that the State Department will get you out because you may simply end up with a bullet in the back of your head in the middle of nowhere before it ever comes to that.
The real issue here is sending out a 2 man patrol without long guns. This is Big Army and they need to be rolling with the same rules they did in other parts of the world. 2 Vech minimum. The command needs to step up and not set the soldiers up for failure.
Does anyone remember the soldiers that got rolled up in Kosovo back in the 1990s? They get messed up and werr very lucky to get released.
Yea, I don't really understand why anyone would "deploy" to the border essentially unarmed. I hunt near the border quite often and I never step out of the cabin without a rifle and a sidearm.....Snakes, feral hogs, illegals, Cartel, run of the mill shitbags.....
Obviously a possibility, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that they were non/state actors. What makes you so sure?
I agree with the problem being with the Army’s handling as a whole, and part of the reason I say the Soldiers probably did the best thing they could have.
The reports I read said that the Mexicans were in an unmarked civilian pickup truck.......... they have all types of vehicles and they have markings. I would say that is very suspect
Doc Safari
04-23-19, 10:59
It's hard to think about this incident without recalling a very famous movie moment:
https://youtu.be/VqomZQMZQCQ
It's hard to think about this incident without recalling a very famous movie moment:
https://youtu.be/VqomZQMZQCQ
Poor Mexico. So far from God and so close to the United States.....and always a basket case.....
Doc Safari
04-23-19, 11:06
Poor Mexico. So far from God and so close to the United States.....and always a basket case.....
If the American continent has an anus, Mexico is it.
If the American continent has an anus, Mexico is it.
I don't vacation there.
Averageman
04-23-19, 11:16
Those soldiers are lucky as F@#K. Based on the reports and the description they were at best Mexican Army working for a Cartel. They could have rented up with tires around them and set on fire. Bad things happen to the CBP all of the time. Dealing with a foreign gov is easy..... they usually play by the rules and don't do crazy crap.
The real issue here is sending out a 2 man patrol without long guns. This is Big Army and they need to be rolling with the same rules they did in other parts of the world. 2 Vech minimum. The command needs to step up and not set the soldiers up for failure.
Does anyone remember the soldiers that got rolled up in Kosovo back in the 1990s? They get messed up and werr very lucky to get released.
The highlighted above quote is real and needs to be the new SOP.
I believe they should be running on the old school Cold War German Border rules.
2 vehicles at least three Soldiers per vehicle. I've run with two Soldiers, but it isn't smart to do so. We had back-up 5K's away, usually Tanks or APC's standing by.
Soldiers need a nice mix of carbines or sub guns and pistols. The Patrol leader has ammo and can order the others to lock and load their ammo. Smoke and redundant commo assets.
How do you cross the border with today's technology? It's just not going to happen, if you come in contact with a unmarked Mexican vehicle don't get out of your vehicle, reverse and keep your distance as you load your weapons, immediately call it in.
Big Army narrowly avoided a tragedy.
Also it seems the Mexican military was there doing pretty much the same thing the US military is there to do.
working for the cartels ? cause that is what most of the military does down there
The entire Texas border has a river, there is no excuse for Mexican soldiers to cross it, ever.
YUP no excuse
Mexican government’s show of force, double dog dare style. Those soldier knew they were in El Norteño and are testing US response.
agree for sure about the testing seeing what they can get away with mocking later in world stage they wont do squat they do not even have proper weapons so much for THE WAR on drugs not bringing guns
no mans zone needs to be made and if you go in you might hear the buzz of a mini gun so yeah this !
What Steyr and Wake said. But it wouldn't hurt to have some A-10s loitering and Apaches on standby to deal with issues like this. Maybe some AC-130s making occasional appearances just to send a message.
And build the f'ing wall.
As usual Big Army has it's head up it's a**, and somebody will get killed before we fix this mess.
RioGrandeGreen
04-23-19, 15:19
The international border is in the middle of the Rio Grande. The river is usually dry right now, maybe just a trickle of water. There is a working relationship with Mexican Police "usually". Sometimes BP and Mex PD meet on of the riverbank to ask each other for help searching for subjects in the rivers vicinity. Does shit get out of hand once in a while, yes.
Mexican Military is a whole different animal. They DGAF! They roll gun trucks with belt fed weapons and battle rifles, HK G3's. They work for the cartels providing security, patrol and intel operations. They are pretty good at decoying LE to an area then allowing drugs/people to get by in another area. Usually when there is Mex mil presence, shit is happening somewhere.
What happened to those soldiers is f%@ked up. Complacency, lack off situational awareness probably. There is a good read on Lightfighter forum on what happened.
LE is usually outgunned on the border, you sometimes have to pick your gunfights.
As usual Big Army has it's head up it's a**, and somebody will get killed before we fix this mess.
Would it be incorrect to say Big Army really doesn't want the job of acting as a symbolic force at the border?
I'm all for the military securing our southern border, if you look here and other places, I've said it before. But, at the same time it needs to be more than just at the edict and whim of the current POTUS. There needs to be funding and planning for a coherent, permanent strategy.
If you think of it in terms of training opportunities it has a lot going for it, if managed and funded properly.
Folks in the area, how much of your land are you willing to have the gov take by imminent domain? ETA: I ask that question because according to USA Today:
USA TODAY NETWORK obtained digital property maps from all 13 Texas counties with border frontage, and analyzed every parcel within 500 feet of that mid-river line.
If the wall and construction for it were to overlap that swath, it would require seizure of some portion of almost 5,000 chunks of land, nearly all of it privately owned.
Is such a seizure feasible? Consider the progress made after the Secure Fence Act, when U.S. officials filed more than 320 federal court actions to condemn private properties.
Some cases were settled for as little as $100 for an easement. Others resulted in federal payments as high as $5 million for 6 acres. But, nine years after the first cases were filed with a federal court in Brownsville, 85 remain in litigation.
How far back should we go - ten miles? How much that cost?
FWIW, this USA Today series seems pretty infomative, you can navigate it from here: https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/flight-over-entire-us-mexico-border-fence/605855001/
Would it be incorrect to say Big Army really doesn't want the job of acting as a symbolic force at the border?
I'm all for the military securing our southern border, if you look here and other places, I've said it before. But, at the same time it needs to be more than just at the edict and whim of the current POTUS. There needs to be funding and planning for a coherent, permanent strategy.
If you think of it in terms of training opportunities it has a lot going for it, if managed and funded properly.
Folks in the area, how much of your land are you willing to have the gov take by imminent domain?
To me, if the military won't protect our borders, then it needs to be disbanded as an institution. I can promise you that when Jefferson et al were writing the Constitution they NEVER believed the military would be used for "peace keeping" in places like Kosovo etc....They exist to defend this country. Period. They are under the authority of the civilian government, they don't really get a vote in the mission honestly. Lastly, unlike the crap in Kelo etc....eminent domain for "forts, magazines" etc....is actually specified in the US Constitution. Whether someone likes it or not, that's a legitimate use of the condemnation authority of the government. It should be a fair but swift process.
Video released of armed men escorting illegals across the border.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/heavily-armed-men-escort-migrants-across-us-border-surveillance-video-shows
Video released of armed men escorting illegals across the border.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/heavily-armed-men-escort-migrants-across-us-border-surveillance-video-shows
All the more reason for our Armed Men to stop them. It's why we have them.....but, just another day on the border.
To me, if the military won't protect our borders, then it needs to be disbanded as an institution. I can promise you that when Jefferson et al were writing the Constitution they NEVER believed the military would be used for "peace keeping" in places like Kosovo etc....They exist to defend this country. Period. They are under the authority of the civilian government, they don't really get a vote in the mission honestly. Lastly, unlike the crap in Kelo etc....eminent domain for "forts, magazines" etc....is actually specified in the US Constitution. Whether someone likes it or not, that's a legitimate use of the condemnation authority of the government. It should be a fair but swift process.
I don't think it is won't. I think it is more a matter of Congressional action to make it a permanent mission and funding it.
Troops were ordered to the border by the President, there are obviously troops there.
Like most of what President Trump initiates it was done on the fly, with little or no forethought as to how the action is going to be sustained or funded.
Lastly, unlike the crap in Kelo etc....eminent domain for "forts, magazines" etc....is actually specified in the US Constitution. Whether someone likes it or not, that's a legitimate use of the condemnation authority of the government. It should be a fair but swift process.
So, how much of you stuff is likely to get ED'ed?
I don't think it is won't. I think it is more a matter of Congressional action to make it a permanent mission and funding it.
Troops were ordered to the border by the President, there are obviously troops there.
Like most of what President Trump initiates it was done on the fly, with little or no forethought as to how the action is going to be sustained or funded.
Fair enough on the will/won't issue but as to Trump- What choice did he have? Congress has PROVEN they will DO NOTHING. For decades. Should the President (any President) as commander in chief simply sit back and ignore an obvious threat to this country? Let tens of thousands of people flood over our borders, and their success in doing so leading to still MORE people coming? Because they would...... He used what he had available, right, wrong, he DID SOMETHING and if nothing else at least raised the issue to a point of discussion that needs to be had.
I will break this down very simply.
Those soldiers are lucky as F@#K. Based on the reports and the description they were at best Mexican Army working for a Cartel. They could have rented up with tires around them and set on fire. Bad things happen to the CBP all of the time. Dealing with a foreign gov is easy..... they usually play by the rules and don't do crazy crap.
On the other hand when you are dealing with non-state actors everything goes out the window. That is what is going on there.
For anyone that HAS actually worked these areas the variables and actions must be relooked at as the rules of the game are completely different. Never take anything for granted. Don't think that the State Department will get you out because you may simply end up with a bullet in the back of your head in the middle of nowhere before it ever comes to that.
The real issue here is sending out a 2 man patrol without long guns. This is Big Army and they need to be rolling with the same rules they did in other parts of the world. 2 Vech minimum. The command needs to step up and not set the soldiers up for failure.
Does anyone remember the soldiers that got rolled up in Kosovo back in the 1990s? They get messed up and werr very lucky to get released.
Yep.
Those g-damn Mexicans were NORTH of the Rio Grande. Don't tell me they were "lost". Bullshit. Had I been in the same situation (one of TWO guys armed with only an M9 and faced with assault weapons) I'd have probably done the same thing. And hoped to God (as docsherm alludes to) that I didn't end up with a bullet to the back of the head in the middle of the desert.
The idea is to up the ante so to speak: no more two-man "patrols", instead several guys armed to the teeth with an Apache on call. I DO NOT GIVE A F**K if it "threatens" a war with Mexico. What the hell are they gonna do about it? They could/would be smoked in VERY short order. F**k them. Given the situation down on our southern border it should be made explicitly clear we aren't playing games, up to and including the sham Mexican "army" and their shady dealings.
The international border is in the middle of the Rio Grande. The river is usually dry right now, maybe just a trickle of water. There is a working relationship with Mexican Police "usually". Sometimes BP and Mex PD meet on of the riverbank to ask each other for help searching for subjects in the rivers vicinity. Does shit get out of hand once in a while, yes.
Mexican Military is a whole different animal. They DGAF! They roll gun trucks with belt fed weapons and battle rifles, HK G3's. They work for the cartels providing security, patrol and intel operations. They are pretty good at decoying LE to an area then allowing drugs/people to get by in another area. Usually when there is Mex mil presence, shit is happening somewhere.
What happened to those soldiers is f%@ked up. Complacency, lack off situational awareness probably. There is a good read on Lightfighter forum on what happened.
LE is usually outgunned on the border, you sometimes have to pick your gunfights.
That is why I am 110% for killing them wholesale in situations like we are discussing. We EASILY have the ability to make them wish they'd never even thought of coming near the border. In these situations they are a hostile, armed force crossing our border. Deal with them like we did the Iraqi Republican Guards.....I have ZERO issues with that.
Next time take out the offending unit and even pop over the border and take out any backups in Mexican territory. Make it nasty enough and they'd only test it once. Screw the "international community" and any wailing or gnashing of teeth that would inevitably ensue. The only thing that would matter is that the Mexican "army" would be unwilling (and just as importantly UNABLE) to do jack shit about it.
That is why I am 110% for killing them wholesale in situations like we are discussing. We EASILY have the ability to make them wish they'd never even thought of coming near the border. In these situations they are a hostile, armed force crossing our border. Deal with them like we did the Iraqi Republican Guards.....I have ZERO issues with that.
Next time take out the offending unit and even pop over the border and take out any backups in Mexican territory. Make it nasty enough and they'd only test it once. Screw the "international community" and any wailing or gnashing of teeth that would inevitably ensue. The only thing that would matter is that the Mexican "army" would be unwilling (and just as importantly UNABLE) to do jack shit about it.Hell Yeah.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Diamondback
04-23-19, 23:23
JMHO, ANY man who comes across the US border with rifle in hand other than on official business with a US government escort or prior authorization, except the odd mistaken hunter, should be sent home missing part of his head.
vicious_cb
04-24-19, 03:28
Obviously a possibility, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that they were non/state actors. What makes you so sure?
I agree with the problem being with the Army’s handling as a whole, and part of the reason I say the Soldiers probably did the best thing they could have.
Thats not a possibility, its a fact. The US-mexican border is 100% controlled by the cartels. It should be treated more like a DMZ rather than a demarcation.
Thats not a possibility, its a fact. The US-mexican border is 100% controlled by the cartels. It should be treated more like a DMZ rather than a demarcation.
It’s a fact that’s every single group of Mexican soldiers on the border is employed by the cartels?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a fact that’s every single group of Mexican soldiers on the border is employed by the cartels?
Lemme axe you something: how many armed incursions by Canadian troops have you heard about? Especially ones that end up with the pointing of weapons? Or that have happened numerous times over the last decade +? The problem isn't a border, the problem is THAT border and who lies on the other side of it.
I’m ready to play Wildlands for real because the game left me frustrated and feeling teased.
I wish it was the 1800s when you could get away with stuff up to and including crucifixions and concubines
Lemme axe you something: how many armed incursions by Canadian troops have you heard about? Especially ones that end up with the pointing of weapons? Or that have happened numerous times over the last decade +? The problem isn't a border, the problem is THAT border and who lies on the other side of it.
For what it’s worth I don’t trust Canadians and their gay pornstar President. Keep it north of the border, Leafs. Don’t start nothing won’t be nothing...
For what it’s worth I don’t trust Canadians and their gay pornstar President. Keep it north of the border, Leafs. Don’t start nothing won’t be nothing...
They are fixin' to get a butt kicking from the Philippines.
SilverBullet432
04-24-19, 06:18
That is why I am 110% for killing them wholesale in situations like we are discussing. We EASILY have the ability to make them wish they'd never even thought of coming near the border. In these situations they are a hostile, armed force crossing our border. Deal with them like we did the Iraqi Republican Guards.....I have ZERO issues with that.
Next time take out the offending unit and even pop over the border and take out any backups in Mexican territory. Make it nasty enough and they'd only test it once. Screw the "international community" and any wailing or gnashing of teeth that would inevitably ensue. The only thing that would matter is that the Mexican "army" would be unwilling (and just as importantly UNABLE) to do jack shit about it.
Do you want another war? Because this is how you start another war...
At the end of the day, the confusion was settled and everyone went home....
I’ve read several comments from guys who are ready to pull some stupid gung-ho move off.. This isn’t a movie...
I did read in a separate article that while our guys were to the south of the security fence, they were pretty much past the edge of the water, but still on U.S land.
No, not everyone is corrupt over there. Many of those guys have seen family and fellow soldiers killed by the Cartels, they are in a REAL war, one with massive corruption on both sides. But as long as the gringos want the dope, the market will be there.
For what it’s worth I don’t trust Canadians and their gay pornstar President. Keep it north of the border, Leafs. Don’t start nothing won’t be nothing...
Yeah, especially considering how they sent us scurrying south the last 2 times we tried to invade north ...
As to Mexico, does anyone really think if we do a retaliatory border strike, the Mexican Army will be cowed? I mean, cartel on one side, American military on the other. Sure, we may smite them, but the cartel will rape their women, skin their children alive, burn the village, then execute everyone within a mile. At least the Americans will likely leave the civilians alone ...
I think our guys, in that circumstance, did fine. Border river or not, I seriously doubt it's the ONLY body of water out there. Who's to say it doesn't look like every other half-dry creekbed?
I will never forget or forgive the war of 1812.
Everytime I smell maple syrup it reminds me of them Canucks route stepping through the rice paddies of DC.
You just don’t turn it off.
I will never forget or forgive the war of 1812.
Everytime I smell maple syrup it reminds me of them Canucks route stepping through the rice paddies of DC.
You just don’t turn it off.
I’m all for invading Britain and taking all the Redcoats’ booze.
Whiskey_Bravo
04-24-19, 07:04
Do you want another war? Because this is how you start another war
With Mexico? I don't think that would be much of a war, or at least not much more than the one we are already in with them.
What exactly do you guys think the Mexican "army" was doing that close to the border? Spending time and resources chasing illegals or trying to stop drugs from coming over? Trying to stop all those desperate Texan's from crossing into Mexico?
Chances are they were there working for the cartels.
With Mexico? I don't think that would be much of a war,
I feel like I’ve heard that before...
Whiskey_Bravo
04-24-19, 07:10
I feel like I’ve heard that before...
Deep......
Do you want another war? Because this is how you start another war...
At the end of the day, the confusion was settled and everyone went home....
I’ve read several comments from guys who are ready to pull some stupid gung-ho move off.. This isn’t a movie...
I did read in a separate article that while our guys were to the south of the security fence, they were pretty much past the edge of the water, but still on U.S land.
No, not everyone is corrupt over there. Many of those guys have seen family and fellow soldiers killed by the Cartels, they are in a REAL war, one with massive corruption on both sides. But as long as the gringos want the dope, the market will be there.
Should we be afraid that Mexicans are going to declare war on us and invade? ............ just think about that for a second........
I feel like I’ve heard that before...
Oh no, they ste going to declear wat on the US and say F You, we don't want any of the Billions of dollars of aid you send us..........
Close the boarder and stop sending money, and a free fire DMZ....... please tell me the down side? Really? I will wait to hear that as u did not hear anyone say to invade and set up a democracy elected government....... shit doesn't work there and never has.
Deep......
A war with Mexico has every indication of a long running and bloody insurgency. And of course, like we always do when we knock over third world $h!tholes, you are underestimating home field advantage.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to visit the Yucatan someday, while I’m still (barely) of fighting age.
Whiskey_Bravo
04-24-19, 07:28
If we were not retarded there wouldn't be an insurgency. Invade, push all the way to Mexico City. Use the time to take out as many known cartel members as possible. Pull back to the border and let it be known we will do it again if needed. Also, designate the cartels terrorist orgs and fly regular cartel bombing runs.
The insurgency would be within this country, with millions of enemy reserve units suddenly feeling pan-Mexican unity. While our military would be heading south, crushing everything on the way to Mexico City, Americans would not be safe in their homes as the guerrilla units slaughter entire neighborhoods in peaceful suburbia.
The insurgency would be within this country, with millions of enemy reserve units suddenly feeling pan-Mexican unity. While our military would be heading south, crushing everything on the way to Mexico City, Americans would not be safe in their homes as the guerrilla units slaughter entire neighborhoods in peaceful suburbia.
I am simply going throw the BS flag on that one......... never going to happen. They run from INS...... what do you think they will do when actual MASS Deportations occur?
What part of the South West are you in? Because the actual result would be very ugly here. As soon as they showed up in suburbia and did something it would turn into a slaughter of people of Mexican descent. The authorities would be overwhelmed and people would be ruthless.
I never met a Julio up for a stand up fight. Either an invasion on a house full of women and children or getting someone drunk and then mutilating them.
That's why they are whining about old ass guys with AR15s doing their own patrols.
Stick to mowing lawns or running snow. If we weren't so nerfed in our Mil and LE; the Mexicans would be scared shitless to try flexing.
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 08:40
Wake up. We are already losing the war with Mexico.
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 11:04
THIS JUST IN: Trump to send ARMED troops to the border.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/24/donald-trump-challenges-mexico-for-disarming-national-guard-on-american-soil/
President Donald Trump reacted to the news Wednesday that Mexican soldiers had detained and disarmed two members of the United States National Guard on American soil.
“Better not happen again!” Trump wrote on Twitter. We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border.”
Trump suggested that Mexico was detaining American troops as a “diversionary tactic” for drug smugglers acting on the border.
“Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning!” he wrote.
Trump also raised the alarm of an enormous caravan of migrants traveling up through Mexico.
“It has been reduced in size by Mexico but is still coming,” he wrote. “Mexico must apprehend the remainder or we will be forced to close that section of the Border & call up the Military. The Coyotes & Cartels have weapons!”
It's about DAMN TIME.
Outlander Systems
04-24-19, 11:24
Video at link:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/heavily-armed-men-escort-migrants-across-us-border-surveillance-video-shows
New government video obtained by Fox News shows heavily armed men at the U.S.-Mexico border escorting a migrant mother and son into the United States. Border Patrol officials told Fox News this is an unusual event and express concern that it will become a more regular occurrence – possibly leading to violence.
I need to find the paper I did in 2010 while at Leavenworth about the Mexican army on our border. They are 100% corrupt and complicite, and have fired on our border patrol to facilitate border crossings. "Former" Mexican SF had conducted raids as far as Dallas on rival gangs.
.....is this a pathway to crucifixions?
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 11:31
.....is this a pathway to crucifixions?
I rather picture impalements. See: Vlad the Impaler
I rather picture impalements. See: Vlad the Impaler
Lame and bluepilled.
Crucifixions only
Averageman
04-24-19, 11:52
There are plenty of Strykers with M2 mounts in Ft Bliss and Ft Hood. I see no reason why they aren't on the border at this point.
If the Mexican Army wants to come across in order to bring dope or illegals in or out of uniform and armed, I don't see why we aren't calling that a hostile act and using our military and our weapons to force them back.
The time to play nice is over.
There are plenty of Strykers with M2 mounts in Ft Bliss and Ft Hood. I see no reason why they aren't on the border at this point.
If the Mexican Army wants to come across in order to bring dope or illegals in or out of uniform and armed, I don't see why we aren't calling that a hostile act and using our military and our weapons to force them back.
The time to play nice is over.
The time to play ended many years ago. There needs to be some serious changes on the border....... and fast.
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 11:59
Here's what I see happening.
Trump is the "A" personality type who will keep matching the opposition move for move. He will put troops and anything else on the border that he thinks he needs to.
This will cause the cartels/smugglers/coyotes, whatever you want to call them, to start using extortion and violence (they do already) to force landowners and ranchers right on the border to allow use of their land to get into the US. Governor of New Mexico has already publicly dismissed the concerns of these people over the migrants overrunning their lands. So, Trump has the military on the BLM portions of the land, and I'm not sure the legality of having troops on private property, but you can bet a lot of landowners will end up wanting it, and if they can't have it they will prepare to take armed action themselves. Of course some will simply comply if they are too old, sick, or isolated to fight the cartels.
It's going to get UGLY. This is just starting.
There are going to be South Africa-style massacres of white ranchers along the border. Those so inclined will retaliate and may end up not differentiating between migrants and anyone brown. The cities along the southern border will become enclaves of death, torture, and disappearances.
I suspect if it gets bad enough, Trump (if he's still in office by then), will do something drastic like closing the border or declaring martial law in the border states.
I do not seriously believe this is going to be anything but a nasty ongoing conflict. The southwest may become like Northern Ireland, or the Middle East, or any place you want to name where you need to be careful where you go, who you associate with, and what public place you visit.
Look at the history of the southern border. Does anyone remember Pancho Villa? He was armed and did bad things in the US. We then sent troops to the boarder. Then LT George S. PATTON Jr. went into Mexico and got him. I do not remember a war with Mexico in the 20th Century.........
Here's what I see happening.
Trump is the "A" personality type who will keep matching the opposition move for move. He will put troops and anything else on the border that he thinks he needs to.
This will cause the cartels/smugglers/coyotes, whatever you want to call them, to start using extortion and violence (they do already) to force landowners and ranchers right on the border to allow use of their land to get into the US. Governor of New Mexico has already publicly dismissed the concerns of these people over the migrants overrunning their lands. So, Trump has the military on the BLM portions of the land, and I'm not sure the legality of having troops on private property, but you can bet a lot of landowners will end up wanting it, and if they can't have it they will prepare to take armed action themselves. Of course some will simply comply if they are too old, sick, or isolated to fight the cartels.
It's going to get UGLY. This is just starting.
There are going to be South Africa-style massacres of white ranchers along the border. Those so inclined will retaliate and may end up not differentiating between migrants and anyone brown. The cities along the southern border will become enclaves of death, torture, and disappearances.
I suspect if it gets bad enough, Trump (if he's still in office by then), will do something drastic like closing the border or declaring martial law in the border states.
I do not seriously believe this is going to be anything but a nasty ongoing conflict. The southwest may become like Northern Ireland, or the Middle East, or any place you want to name where you need to be careful where you go, who you associate with, and what public place you visit.
Not going to happen. The people there are not going to rise up and start attacking white people. They are going to go to their jobs and try to earn a living. The cartels are the only ones that will do anything. And as soon as a few JDAMs come their way they will not be so groggy to jump across the border.
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 12:15
Look at the history of the southern border. Does anyone remember Pancho Villa? He was armed and did bad things in the US. We then sent troops to the boarder. Then LT George S. PATTON Jr. went into Mexico and got him. I do not remember a war with Mexico in the 20th Century.........
I live near the area where Pancho Villa made incursions into the US. It wasn't so much a "war" as chasing bandits. But this is not that time, either. Pancho Villa is the Frito Bandito compared to modern sicarios and cartel troops.
It won't be a war between people in army uniforms and the drug cartels. It will be the cartels following the path of least resistance targeting American civilians for the use of their land and their cooperation under threat of violence.
I think the political pressure to neuter any military action on the border will mean that the citizens will have to handle this themselves. Literally no one cares about how the Americans along the border will suffer. It's the PC pro-migrant crowd versus the Deep State Don't Make Waves Crowd, and the rest of us are between a rock and a hard place.
I will be loading magazines this weekend.....
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 12:17
Not going to happen. The people there are not going to rise up and start attacking white people. They are going to go to their jobs and try to earn a living. The cartels are the only ones that will do anything. And as soon as a few JDAMs come their way they will not be so groggy to jump across the border.
I see potentially this part of the US becoming as violent as Juarez, Mexico. It may take a few years, but it will escalate, and it will happen. You don't live here. You don't know how bad it's getting already.
I see potentially this part of the US becoming as violent as Juarez, Mexico. It may take a few years, but it will escalate, and it will happen. You don't live here. You don't know how bad it's getting already.
That may be the case in NM but i seriously do not see that occurring in Texas. Especially if we simply close the boarder.
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 12:23
That may be the case in NM but i seriously do not see that occurring in Texas. Especially if we simply close the boarder.
It will happen in Brownsville, Laredo, and other towns I'm not familiar with that share a border with Mejico. It's a worst-case-scenario I realize, but when you don't treat a disease, what happens? The disease gets worse.
It will happen in Brownsville, Laredo, and other towns I'm not familiar with that share a border with Mejico. It's a worst-case-scenario I realize, but when you don't treat a disease, what happens? The disease gets worse.
I am from the Brownsville area....... it is only an issue now because the border is open and entry and exit is easy. Close it and it will stop.
You immunize before even coming into contact with it....... too late for that as the wall should have been built 40 years ago.
Doc Safari
04-24-19, 12:34
I am from the Brownsville area....... it is only an issue now because the border is open and entry and exit is easy. Close it and it will stop.
You immunize before even coming into contact with it....... too late for that as the wall should have been built 40 years ago.
And will the powers that be do anything about it? I don't think so. We have been on a steady decline toward all-out migrant invasion since Reagan granted amnesty in the 1980's. People in Washington DO NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE BORDER. The Dems want new voters, and the Repubs want low-wage workers. The Deep State will fight Trump's every attempt to secure the border. Best case scenario is that all of his efforts survive the legal challenges and we end up with a militarized border, but what's the likelihood of that happening? My own state of New Mexico wants open borders and sanctuary cities and counties. The government is literally forbidding any attempts at border security. They will probably find a way to charge and prosecute every member of that militia group. They do not care about securing the border. As long as new Democrats are coming into the country, they could care less about how many citizens suffer for it.
Sorry for the rant, but I get texts all day long from friends of mine who are revealing things not known to the public, like what places are being used to house migrants, how much money is actually being spent on them, how people in opposition are paying a political price, etc. If I had the money I think I'd move to Montana or something. I'll take the snow over the chaos that's coming. When the government fails to protect you, you can consider yourself well and truly F@#$ed.
Wake up. We are already losing the war with Mexico.
And they are a corrupt, failing state with a small rebel insurgency also happening.
Couple things.
1. Strykers are not on the border because it’s not considered a military function, nor has it ever been as far as I know. The American Army is “trying” to refocus on the near peer threat, so no BN or BDE CDR is going to want to park his armored vehicles on the border to deal with mostly unarmed people or the occasional dudes with AKs.
2. There are only two ways to avoid an insurgency - don’t get into a conflict, or crush the civilian populace so completely that it literally breaks their will to fight AND deters foreigners who haven’t taken part in the fighting from even trying. The United States is not going to do that, especially not against Mexico.
Keep in mind that I’m making zero arguments about how things should be, but this is how it is. Also, I pretty much expect the country to implode (or at least be fully on the unavoidable path) before US “leadership” does anything of true significance on the border.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
04-24-19, 16:01
Look at the history of the southern border. Does anyone remember Pancho Villa? He was armed and did bad things in the US. We then sent troops to the boarder. Then LT George S. PATTON Jr. went into Mexico and got him. I do not remember a war with Mexico in the 20th Century.........
Patton (and really more Pershing than Patton), "got," Villa in the same sort of way the CIA, "got," UBL at Tora Bora.
Couple things.
1. Strykers are not on the border because it’s not considered a military function, nor has it ever been as far as I know. The American Army is “trying” to refocus on the near peer threat, so no BN or BDE CDR is going to want to park his armored vehicles on the border to deal with mostly unarmed people or the occasional dudes with AKs.
2. There are only two ways to avoid an insurgency - don’t get into a conflict, or crush the civilian populace so completely that it literally breaks their will to fight AND deters foreigners who haven’t taken part in the fighting from even trying. The United States is not going to do that, especially not against Mexico.
Keep in mind that I’m making zero arguments about how things should be, but this is how it is. Also, I pretty much expect the country to implode (or at least be fully on the unavoidable path) before US “leadership” does anything of true significance on the border.
IIRC, patrolling the border with Mexico was one of the US Army's primary missions until WWII.
Patton (and really more Pershing than Patton), "got," Villa in the same sort of way the CIA, "got," UBL at Tora Bora.
IIRC, patrolling the border with Mexico was one of the US Army's primary missions until WWII.
Villa never again came to the US after that action. So your comparison would be better if you used the Japanese Emperor during WWII as nether of them were ever a threat to the US again.
Do you want another war? Because this is how you start another war...
At the end of the day, the confusion was settled and everyone went home....
I’ve read several comments from guys who are ready to pull some stupid gung-ho move off.. This isn’t a movie...
I did read in a separate article that while our guys were to the south of the security fence, they were pretty much past the edge of the water, but still on U.S land.
No, not everyone is corrupt over there. Many of those guys have seen family and fellow soldiers killed by the Cartels, they are in a REAL war, one with massive corruption on both sides. But as long as the gringos want the dope, the market will be there.
Cry me a river. Those POS could be EASILY whacked, and remember, we don't need to OCCUPY them, just defend out border. Makes things much, much simpler. Like an ass-kicking in Iraq but without the need to occupy for 8 years. Sounds to me like you're an Mexi-sympathizer.
And no, I believe I specifically stated that if I was in the same boat as those TWO guys armed with a damn pistol I probably would have done the same thing. The solution is to have MORE guys per OP/LP/whatever and armed to the teeth with orders to kill any foreign armed persons. And air power on tap to pursue into that shithole called Mexico and incinerate any possible backup forces. Too bad so sad.
I do not give one f*****g shit about Mexico, their people, or their corrupt armed forces. Sounds like you do. Come onto our territory armed and you die. Period.
I also don't want to hear any bullshit about being "confused" as to their whereabouts. The f*****g RIVER is the boundary in that area and they were NORTH of it. No excuses, although you can continue to make them for them.
There have also been numerous armed border incursions by the fine Mexican military over the past decade or more. BTW, how many have occurred on the Canadian border?
A war with Mexico has every indication of a long running and bloody insurgency. And of course, like we always do when we knock over third world $h!tholes, you are underestimating home field advantage.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to visit the Yucatan someday, while I’m still (barely) of fighting age.
Who said anything about invading and occupying? I don't want that shithole anymore than I wanted Iraq or Shitcanistan. Conduct extremely violent military strikes on their forces who cross, as well as possible backup units just over the border, then defend that border. F**k pacifying them. You've no doubt been consumed (as a military member) by the last nearly two decades of thinking that we have to "fix" what we've broken. We don't, we just gotta break it. Fixing it is up to them.
An insurgency is only if we had eyes on occupying, and we shouldn't.
The insurgency would be within this country, with millions of enemy reserve units suddenly feeling pan-Mexican unity. While our military would be heading south, crushing everything on the way to Mexico City, Americans would not be safe in their homes as the guerrilla units slaughter entire neighborhoods in peaceful suburbia.
What Hispanic/Aztec fantasy land are you living in? Gimme a friggin' break. They would hide even more than they do now in the make-believe situation you suggest (if they were smart).
I need to find the paper I did in 2010 while at Leavenworth about the Mexican army on our border. They are 100% corrupt and complicite, and have fired on our border patrol to facilitate border crossings. "Former" Mexican SF had conducted raids as far as Dallas on rival gangs.
Maybe time for the D-Boys and DEVGRU to pay some visits? All Sicario and shit.
Couple things.
1. Strykers are not on the border because it’s not considered a military function, nor has it ever been as far as I know. The American Army is “trying” to refocus on the near peer threat, so no BN or BDE CDR is going to want to park his armored vehicles on the border to deal with mostly unarmed people or the occasional dudes with AKs.
2. There are only two ways to avoid an insurgency - don’t get into a conflict, or crush the civilian populace so completely that it literally breaks their will to fight AND deters foreigners who haven’t taken part in the fighting from even trying. The United States is not going to do that, especially not against Mexico.
Keep in mind that I’m making zero arguments about how things should be, but this is how it is. Also, I pretty much expect the country to implode (or at least be fully on the unavoidable path) before US “leadership” does anything of true significance on the border.
There is a third way: conduct military ops and defend the border without occupation of Mexico. We need to get out of the Colin Powell theory of "If you broke it you bought it".
Maybe time for the D-Boys and DEVGRU to pay some visits? All Sicario and shit.
If we were serious about border security we could solve it pretty damn quick. No asking permission from Mexico. Anyone armed north of the Rio Grande and trying to gain entry can be shot on sight. Any cartel member is fair game anywhere, no trial, no discussion. When we identify armed cartel members we track them down and bomb their homes and hideouts, hellfire their convoys, Apache their technicals.
Innocents should be warned that we will be ruthless with the cartels and to keep their distance.
If we were serious about border security we could solve it pretty damn quick. No asking permission from Mexico. Anyone armed north of the Rio Grande and trying to gain entry can be shot on sight. Any cartel member is fair game anywhere, no trial, no discussion. When we identify armed cartel members we track them down and bomb their homes and hideouts, hellfire their convoys, Apache their technicals.
Innocents should be warned that we will be ruthless with the cartels and to keep their distance.
Pretty much this. If we can drone a hadji taking a shit in Waziristan we can certainly drone key cartel soldados if we wanted to. I guaran-freaking-tee you we have the data to input into a drone/Hellfire if we decided to do it.
I too don't care to target innocents in any way, but by the same token I don't want them here and don't give a damn about their plight or their country. THEY need to fix it themselves or wallow in a shithole the rest of their lives like they've done for generations. We could always arm civvie groups who seek to effect change but not one of our troops should step foot into their country to "fix" it, unless on a limited mission to destroy Mexican military/cartel assets in the vicinity of the border.
Diamondback
04-24-19, 18:57
If we were serious about border security we could solve it pretty damn quick. No asking permission from Mexico. Anyone armed north of the Rio Grande and trying to gain entry can be shot on sight. Any cartel member is fair game anywhere, no trial, no discussion. When we identify armed cartel members we track them down and bomb their homes and hideouts, hellfire their convoys, Apache their technicals.
Innocents should be warned that we will be ruthless with the cartels and to keep their distance.
Same with the Salvatruchas vermin--declare them both outlaws (which literally meant 'outside the protection of the law' and thus at the mercy of anyone they encountered without legal recourse) and Open Season, no permit needed and no bag limit.
If we were serious about border security we could solve it pretty damn quick. No asking permission from Mexico. Anyone armed north of the Rio Grande and trying to gain entry can be shot on sight. Any cartel member is fair game anywhere, no trial, no discussion. When we identify armed cartel members we track them down and bomb their homes and hideouts, hellfire their convoys, Apache their technicals.
Innocents should be warned that we will be ruthless with the cartels and to keep their distance.
Yeah I’d absolutely be down for this. This won’t solve everything, but it’d be a great start.
There is a third way: conduct military ops and defend the border without occupation of Mexico. We need to get out of the Colin Powell theory of "If you broke it you bought it".
I thought there were posts here advocating that we go south of the border. Maybe not, I don’t care enough to look.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought there were posts here advocating that we go south of the border.
There were some alluding to that.
Not me though. No way Jose (pun intended). Do what we have to to defend our border against armed incursions, be it Mex-mil or cartels. No COPs, FOBs, or any such things in Mexico proper. Probably the most cut-and-dry military op we would have done since WWII (minus the occupation of vanquished enemies part).
There is a book called "Chasing Villa" about the Punitive Expedition of 1916 in which we (almost) captured Villa. It sure sounds a lot like Afghanistan in recent years. To paraphrase Bismarck, Mexico isn't worth the bones of one American soldier.
But I do see merit in locking down the border and a very serious crackdown as required...
(Retired INS agent, son of a Border Patrolman and WWII vet.)
SPR’s and tight lips. Word would spread quickly...
Whiskey_Bravo
04-24-19, 21:21
The insurgency would be within this country, with millions of enemy reserve units suddenly feeling pan-Mexican unity. While our military would be heading south, crushing everything on the way to Mexico City, Americans would not be safe in their homes as the guerrilla units slaughter entire neighborhoods in peaceful suburbia.
lol, what kind of La Raza propaganda is this?
SilverBullet432
04-24-19, 22:30
Sounds to me like you're an Mexi-sympathizer.
And no, I believe I specifically stated that if I was in the same boat as those TWO guys armed with a damn pistol I probably would have done the same thing. The solution is to have MORE guys per OP/LP/whatever and armed to the teeth.
I do not give one f*****g shit about Mexico, Sounds like you do. Come onto our territory armed and you die. Period.
I also don't want to hear any bullshit about being "confused" as to their whereabouts. The f*****g RIVER is the boundary in that area and they were NORTH of it. No excuses, although you can continue to make them for them.
1. I am Mexican American, my parents are both Legal migrants who came here to better themselves, which they have.
2. I'm with you on this one, we seriously need to give our troops the right tools for the job, but I don't believe they should just shoot anyone armed on-site. Whatever happened to RoE ????
3. I'm not saying you should, it's a country in dire need with a government who obviously can't get it together. Yes, I do care about it. There are hundreds of thousands feeling the effects of a blood bath they know the .Gov can't win, and again, RoE..
4. I never made a single excuse for them, cool your jets pal.
1. I am Mexican American, my parents are both Legal migrants who came here to better themselves, which they have.
2. I'm with you on this one, we seriously need to give our troops the right tools for the job, but I don't believe they should just shoot anyone armed on-site. Whatever happened to RoE ????
3. I'm not saying you should, it's a country in dire need with a government who obviously can't get it together. Yes, I do care about it Well I and many other Americans don't.. There are hundreds of thousands feeling the effects of a blood bath they know the .Gov can't win, and again, RoE..
4. I never made a single excuse for them, cool your jets pal.
Sounds to me like there might be an excuse in this quote from your earlier post:
No, not everyone is corrupt over there. Many of those guys have seen family and fellow soldiers killed by the Cartels, they are in a REAL war, one with massive corruption on both sides. But as long as the gringos want the dope, the market will be there.
So essentially the cartels are our doings, not Mexico's, right?
I don't understand "loyalties" to a place you're not even from. I take it you were born here and your family legally immigrated, so your allegiance should be to America 100% and nowhere else. Do you identify (if asked) as a hyphenated American? Funny, I have ZERO "feelings" for Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, or Italy (where my ancestry is from).
1. I am Mexican American, my parents are both Legal migrants who came here to better themselves, which they have.
2. I'm with you on this one, we seriously need to give our troops the right tools for the job, but I don't believe they should just shoot anyone armed on-site. Whatever happened to RoE ????
3. I'm not saying you should, it's a country in dire need with a government who obviously can't get it together. Yes, I do care about it. There are hundreds of thousands feeling the effects of a blood bath they know the .Gov can't win, and again, RoE..
4. I never made a single excuse for them, cool your jets pal.
Shooting armed people is still ROE, it’s just loose ROE.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My vote is double wall fencing, Hyena's loose in between. Followed by machine gun towers and then roving patrols. Leave the carcasses to bleach.
Doc Safari
04-25-19, 09:27
My vote is double wall fencing, Hyena's loose in between. Followed by machine gun towers and then roving patrols. Leave the carcasses to bleach.
"The Great Wall of the Americas" is my long-term goal.
So essentially the cartels are our doings, not Mexico's, right?
Mexico has skin in the game to be sure, but yeah. This is a question? Same reason folks are jumping the border, there's a huuuuuuuge market for them (labor).
I can care about people without feeling a duty to help them or allow them to come here. I also care about the people who will be doing the shooting and living with that for the rest of their lives. We can better secure our border without going to war, let's start with that. And larger, better armed patrols.
The military is going to go wherever the **** they get told to go. BCT Commanders do not get to decide what the best strategic use of a Stryker is.
We own most of this mess. We allow illegals to work here, their kids to go to our schools, and most are able to get our generous welfare. We have an enormous appetite for drugs that fund the cartels.
I care about the Mexican people, my wife’s family three generations back is from there. And I support trying to help the people IN Mexico. Good neighbor and all. But I have no sympathy for people who knowingly try to illegally trespass and especially those who do business with cartel coyotes and henchmen to gain entry. My wife’s extended family is very proud to be all American and very many have served in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and lately in the ME/SEA. They fully support a wall, and whatever is necessary to secure the border against illegal entry. They mostly live in San Antonio and San Diego and are very concerned with the violence and trafficking increase.
We need to make a strong presence on the border that it wipes out illegal crossings and deters the non-cartel migrants. And I support decriminalizing drugs in order to dismantle the financial underpinnings of the drug cartels, and hunting them down and demolishing them wherever they go to ground.
I care about the Mexican people, my wife’s family three generations back is from there. And I support trying to help the people IN Mexico. Good neighbor and all. But I have no sympathy for people who knowingly try to illegally trespass and especially those who do business with cartel coyotes and henchmen to gain entry. My wife’s extended family is very proud to be all American and very many have served in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and lately in the ME/SEA. They fully support a wall, and whatever is necessary to secure the border against illegal entry. They mostly live in San Antonio and San Diego and are very concerned with the violence and trafficking increase.
We need to make a strong presence on the border that it wipes out illegal crossings and deters the non-cartel migrants. And I support decriminalizing drugs in order to dismantle the financial underpinnings of the drug cartels, and hunting them down and demolishing them wherever they go to ground.
Which is fine and all but they really need to un**** their own country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you ever been in the military?
ETA - there is such a thing as two groups of Soldiers trying to figure out what the hell is going on without getting killed by each other. Again, I’m not crazy about the fact that our guys were disarmed, but two small groups of guys ultimately ended up talking. That’s not a hostile act from a foreign country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Definitely, happened in Berlin quite a bit.
Time to invade Mexico and create a 400-mile "No-Man's Land" between the US border and the nearest Mexican settlement or village. And yes, I mean bulldoze Palomas, Juarez, Tijuana, and everything else in the way.
Yes, and cause billions of dollars in improvements, too....
Those border cities were built by American greenbacks and drug money....
Doc Safari
04-25-19, 13:16
Here is the bottom line: Mexico WANTS their people migrating to the US so they dont' have to take care of them and need not fear another revolution.
The current crop of migrants is mostly OTM's, "other than Mexicans." Yes, that includes Asians, Arabs, and whomever else you can think of. It's mostly Central Americans, though.
We literally do not know what percentage of migrants are Islamic jihadists, or Chinese wanting to spy, gang bangers, etc.
The net result is we do not know what these masses of people are going to do to our country, but it ain't gonna be good!
Diamondback
04-25-19, 13:46
The other problem is many if not most would-be revolutionaries in Mexico are Castro-Che-Chavez level Commies...
Which is fine and all but they really need to un**** their own country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. We should use overwhelming force to secure our border. And if we as a country or individuals want to help Mexicans then do it in their country. But we will never solve their political problems.
But the cartels are not just Mexican. They operate in several countries including the US. We should decriminalize to eliminate the bulk of their cash flow and then hunt them down in the US, Mexico, Central America, wherever. That isn’t to solve Mexico’s problem, that is to eliminate any cartel presence in the US. I would hope we would do the same with all organized crime. There should be an exception to individual prosecution when it comes to organized crime. Once an organization is determined and proven it is engaged in murder then any member of that organization should be “Wanted Dead or Alive or Piecemeal.”
I can care about people without feeling a duty to help them or allow them to come here. I also care about the people who will be doing the shooting and living with that for the rest of their lives. We can better secure our border without going to war, let's start with that. And larger, better armed patrols.
The military is going to go wherever the **** they get told to go. BCT Commanders do not get to decide what the best strategic use of a Stryker is.
We own most of this mess. We allow illegals to work here, their kids to go to our schools, and most are able to get our generous welfare. We have an enormous appetite for drugs that fund the cartels.
"We" amigo? I get what you're saying, but there ain't no "we" about it. I do not advocate ANY of that. Yet our powers-that-be turn a blind eye…..Dems for the potential votes and Republicans for the cheap labor (thank you Chamber of Commerce).
Illegals should not get one dime of welfare, be it food or otherwise. Hungry? Take your ass on back south. The dirty little secret, although everyone claims "Illegals can't get welfare", is that they do and it is utter horseshit. I guarantee you that these vermin who come across and are released while awaiting their court date for which they will never appear, are somehow eligible for SNAP or other such assistance. You really think the bleeding hearts aren't gonna see to it that mamacita and her three little leeches aren't gonna be given SNAP and housing funds?
They can starve for all I care because.....
THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
It is a CULTURE thing. Yep, that's gonna piss off some of you but I don't care. Every damn country south of the Rio Grande is corrupt as hell. Has nothing to do with skin color, has everything to do with culture. Some of those countries are more well off than others but they are all corrupt as hell.
This illegal alien situation is getting WAY out of hand. One thing I can do is to swear I will vehemently resist any suggestion of them EVER voting. EVER. I know it certainly wouldn't be Democrat suggesting that, but for the sake of discussion if there was and his opponent wanted them to vote then for the first time in my life I'd vote Democrat. That's how strongly I feel about that subject. I will also vehemently oppose their EVER getting citizenship if they are here illegally, and for stripping/denying their anchor-babies of the same. We cannot allow them to benefit in any way from being here illegally.
I do not care about the Mexican/Honduran/Guatemalan/Salvadoran people. I also do not care about the British, German, Chinese, Ukrainian, Indian, etc. peoples. I care about Americans of all colors, makes, and models (well, except for libtards, I don't give two shits about them!). I see a good deal of hand-wringing here for the "plight" of those south of us. I don't understand it. I'm not advocating their deaths or demise by any means, but I really don't care about them at all. We have much bigger fish to fry right here in the good ole US of A. (caveat: exception is armed Mexicans crossing into our country, those should die violently)
What Hispanic/Aztec fantasy land are you living in? Gimme a friggin' break. They would hide even more than they do now in the make-believe situation you suggest (if they were smart).
My post was in jest, as I see the talk of land mines, gunships and military incursions ludicrous.
I’ve looked at the data and the only solution here involves:
Severe landmining
Crucifixions
Right Wing Death Squads on both sides of the border
Decriminalizing hard drugs so as to reduce their market value
Potential Anschluss of Mexico with tax incentives for people to move their
Mexico becomes a protectorate
Possible invasion of Cuba with heavy A-10 runs
Puppeting Central America with hard Right dictators
Crucifixions
Reclamation of the Panama Canal
Kicking the Russians and Chinese out on a rail
Crucifixions
And forcing people to learn English
More crucifixions
And global denunciation of Trudeau
Also a few hangings with piano wire to balance out the multitudes of crucifixions
Legalizing the wholesale murder of any and all cartel members Purge style. Possibly talk of bounties.
I have more in an OPLAN I’ve written up but the gist of it is Crucifixions and Wildlands
Exactly. We should use overwhelming force to secure our border. And if we as a country or individuals want to help Mexicans then do it in their country. But we will never solve their political problems.
But the cartels are not just Mexican. They operate in several countries including the US. We should decriminalize to eliminate the bulk of their cash flow and then hunt them down in the US, Mexico, Central America, wherever. That isn’t to solve Mexico’s problem, that is to eliminate any cartel presence in the US. I would hope we would do the same with all organized crime. There should be an exception to individual prosecution when it comes to organized crime. Once an organization is determined and proven it is engaged in murder then any member of that organization should be “Wanted Dead or Alive or Piecemeal.”
Maybe if we had a CIA that actually did CIA stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In my humble estimation unchecked illegal immigration is the most serious threat we face as a country, if this scourge is not rectified soon
we will cease to be a nation and become another s**t hole country, no different than any banana republic.
They do indeed receive assistance in many forms, which we pay for in increased taxation, cause DUH!!!! There just here for a better life.
Because they prefer working for cash they will work for less, they drive the wages down for everyone doing manual labor, for the most part.
So when you have that Mexican trim your palm tree you are in effect screwing yourself and everyone else.
Palm trees suck up too much water, provide too little shade, cut them down and send Haesus us back to the old country.
But they won't go because they know Americans are foolish, weak people who have not the will to protect their own children's birthright.
We actually deserve this but our children don't.
We could solve this problem in an afternoon by dragging every member of the Senate, Congress and the Silly Supremes out onto Philadelphia
Ave. and shooting them in the head !!!!!
But we won't do that either, we will instead sentence our children to a death sentence, pariah's in their own country because we are cowards.
When there are enough of them here, they will demonstrate what we should have done.
My post was in jest, as I see the talk of land mines, gunships and military incursions ludicrous.
I will recalibrate my sarcasm meter, but some of what you see as ludicrous I don't (see below).
Land mines? No.
Gunships? Only in response to armed incursions.
Military incursions? Not from infantry types. *Maybe* some HSLD Tier 1 ops for whacking specific targets then GTFO....maybe. CAS (fixed wing, rotary, or drones)? Definitely.
Keep the border simple.
We need a wall, but I dont like the idea of having to have one.
We just need a simple fence, just to mark the border, sniper towers every so often.
Manned by volunteers( I am sure there would be no shortage), no permission needed, if you are in between said fence and tower you are fair game. Maybe even a bounty like the Squaw fish on the Columbia river. $5 a piece, $200 if a backpack is full of drugs.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
https://regmedia.co.uk/2010/01/08/appian_way.jpg
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/25/feds-indict-sanctuary-city-judge-for-helping-illegal-alien-escape-arrest/
The federal government is charging a Massachusetts judge and a courtroom officer with obstruction of justice after the pair allegedly helped a twice-deported illegal alien escape out the back door while an immigration enforcement officer was kept outside the front door.
we have a problem in our own country of course with our own people
SilverBullet432
04-25-19, 23:03
Sounds to me like there might be an excuse in this quote from your earlier post:
No, not everyone is corrupt over there. Many of those guys have seen family and fellow soldiers killed by the Cartels, they are in a REAL war, one with massive corruption on both sides. But as long as the gringos want the dope, the market will be there.
So essentially the cartels are our doings, not Mexico's, right?
I don't understand "loyalties" to a place you're not even from. I take it you were born here and your family legally immigrated, so your allegiance should be to America 100% and nowhere else. Do you identify (if asked) as a hyphenated American? Funny, I have ZERO "feelings" for Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, or Italy (where my ancestry is from).
I identify as American, born and raised. Actually you know what? I identify as 100% Texan! Fight me!
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-25-19, 23:20
Remember the Alamo...or something like that.
I identify as American, born and raised. Actually you know what? I identify as 100% Texan! Fight me!
Oh God. [face/palm]
Averageman
04-26-19, 08:17
If you consider the very few things we originally wanted the Federal Government to do Constitutionally, controlling immigration and defending our borders were one of the few yet paramount powers written in there.
That we now allow politicians to partisan politics and lobbying agents be used to avoid their political duty to do so means we really do need to drain the swamp.
We have far fewer reasons to deploy our military outside CONUS than we have to use them to control our borders and protect American Citizens from the influx of illegal immigration and illicit drugs.
I really have no problem with a ROE that would include deadly force and Squadron sized outposts all along our border to protect our sovereignty and safety.
That an American Soldier was disarmed on our side of the border by agents of the Military of Mexico should be a hell of a wake up call for Big Army and our Congress as to how far off the chain this thing has gone.
"We" amigo? I get what you're saying, but there ain't no "we" about it. I do not advocate ANY of that. Yet our powers-that-be turn a blind eye…..Dems for the potential votes and Republicans for the cheap labor (thank you Chamber of Commerce).
I'm saying it's an attractive place to come to and we made it this way, through who we have voted for. It's not that we owe anything to anyone. The mess is mainly our own fault.
I'm saying it's an attractive place to come to and we made it this way, through who we have voted for. It's not that we owe anything to anyone. The mess is mainly our own fault.
As is not fixing it.
I always have to laugh (well, really shake my head) when it is brought up about "....because of who we voted for". Whatever the subject, be it guns, the economy, Social Security, or illegal immigration. Exactly who the hell are we supposed to vote for? [rhetorical question] You vote for the best candidate that fits your views and beliefs. Often times they don't do exactly what they say they're going to once in office. So you don't vote for them next time and the worse guy wins. Hell, even on this site there is castigation for not "holding your nose" and voting the lesser of two evils, because one is considerably worse. I can't totally agree with that but then again I can't disagree with it either. So where do we find this miracle candidate that fits all of our Conservative/freedom-minded views and still wins the general election? And if/when you do find them how do you get enough people to support them to win the general? Sorry, but in this society the winner takes all in Federal elections, and that means enough people have to vote for them in order to win. Therefore they have to appeal to more than just us like-minded folks. I don't know what the answer is but saying we "voted" for this isn't exactly true. Considering roughly half this country (IMHO) has their heads firmly planted up their asses, if you can get the 50% + 1 then that candidate has to also appeal to the people theoretically on "your" side but who lean a little leftward, yet not left enough to vote the other way.
There is no easy answer, but I refuse to accept responsibility for this border mess as I am adamantly opposed to the way things are being handled now (and for the last 30+ years). I voted for Trump but he waffles a bit when push comes to shove (although he talks a good game) and our illustrious Congress has hamstringed him on this subject.....even when the Republicans held both houses!
If you consider the very few things we originally wanted the Federal Government to do Constitutionally, controlling immigration and defending our borders were one of the few yet paramount powers written in there.
That we now allow politicians to partisan politics and lobbying agents be used to avoid their political duty to do so means we really do need to drain the swamp.
We have far fewer reasons to deploy our military outside CONUS than we have to use them to control our borders and protect American Citizens from the influx of illegal immigration and illicit drugs.
I really have no problem with a ROE that would include deadly force and Squadron sized outposts all along our border to protect our sovereignty and safety.
That an American Soldier was disarmed on our side of the border by agents of the Military of Mexico should be a hell of a wake up call for Big Army and our Congress as to how far off the chain this thing has gone.
This is exactly what our military should be doing. Screw foreign wars. Screw nation building. Secure our border.
For those of you who have never been on the New Mexico/Mexico border, here is video from last year showing the progress. Prior to the new "wall" going up, it was nothing but some barbed wire and anti-tank hedgehog barriers. Previously nothing to stop you from crossing into the US of many miles of nothing. The video is west of Santa Teresa, New Mexico:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odnndq_GOUY
And a view from ground level:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLkFS5oAGi4
And a view from ground level:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLkFS5oAGi4
Excellent but where are the gun turrets?
RioGrandeGreen
04-27-19, 14:51
Excellent but where are the gun turrets?
All you get is Mark II eyeball, HK .40 cal. and M4A1 every 10 miles.
For those of you who have never been on the New Mexico/Mexico border, here is video from last year showing the progress. Prior to the new "wall" going up, it was nothing but some barbed wire and anti-tank hedgehog barriers. Previously nothing to stop you from crossing into the US of many miles of nothing. The video is west of Santa Teresa, New Mexico:
Do you know what's up with this, is the guy a crackpot?
State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn has claimed the border wall in Santa Teresa was built on state trust land.
His office plans to auction about 7 acres of land there that includes the border wall.
https://www.koat.com/article/border-wall-replacement-along-new-mexicos-border-with-mexico-is-finished/25311792
Do you know what's up with this, is the guy a crackpot?
State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn has claimed the border wall in Santa Teresa was built on state trust land.
His office plans to auction about 7 acres of land there that includes the border wall.
https://www.koat.com/article/border-wall-replacement-along-new-mexicos-border-with-mexico-is-finished/25311792
Never happened, nor will it. The Federal Government retains an easement of @ 25-30 feet from the international border inward. You can't do anything with that, whether you're the State or private land owner. Look at the video above and see the long stretch of access easement along the border, going east towards El Paso and west towards Arizona. In the mountainous areas there are now trails and just some kind of worthless, broken down fences. Many ranchers have land up to the border, with the exception of that Federal easement. Some have placed some form of gate which allowed access into Mexico in these areas. I have passed thru them myself in Arizona back in the early 1980's. Also, along that whole stretch are piles of stones that mark the 1855-1856 Emory Expedition marking the boundary of the Gadsden Purchase. These are still easy to find.
vicious_cb
04-27-19, 22:53
Excellent but where are the gun turrets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA2cYol_GG8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA2cYol_GG8
That'll do.
Averageman
04-28-19, 10:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIzmEOQhaH8
Spot on.
BoringGuy45
04-28-19, 12:54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA2cYol_GG8
I want this! I don't have an urgent need for one or the money, but I want one anyway!
Nightvisionary
04-29-19, 15:56
Mex military routinely crosses the border supporting/retrieving/escorting cartel drug shipments in Southern Arizona. This kind of thing is only news to those who are not Border Patrol agents or don't live or spend time on the border which admittedly is 99% of the population. It is an entirely different world in those remote places. The border is very fluid in many areas and not really under the control of the U.S. Government. I think we are eventually going to lose that fight and end up relinquishing lands gained under the Treaty of Guadalupe back to Mexico.
Doc Safari
04-29-19, 15:57
Mex military routinely crosses the border supporting/retrieving/escorting cartel drug shipments in Southern Arizona. This kind of thing is only news to those who are not Border Patrol agents or don't live or spend time on the border which admittedly is 99% of the population. It is an entirely different world in those remote places. The border is very fluid in many areas and not really under the control of the U.S. Government. I think we are eventually going to lose that fight and end up relinquishing lands gained under the Treaty of Guadalupe back to Mexico.
OVER MY DEAD BODY.
Mex military routinely crosses the border supporting/retrieving/escorting cartel drug shipments in Southern Arizona. This kind of thing is only news to those who are not Border Patrol agents or don't live or spend time on the border which admittedly is 99% of the population. It is an entirely different world in those remote places. The border is very fluid in many areas and not really under the control of the U.S. Government. I think we are eventually going to lose that fight and end up relinquishing lands gained under the Treaty of Guadalupe back to Mexico.
I read a biography of Frank Hamer recommended in the B&C thread and in it the author states that the Texas Rangers were initially formed to control the border and protect the settlers from the Comanches, and bandits, etc. they seemed pretty effective at that with relatively small numbers. They were still doing that actively in the early 20th century but then the feds took it over with the customs and then Border Patrol in the 40s or there abouts? I think what has changed so dramatically is that we have so many incentives for people to come here even illegally: welfare, employers willing to hire, free education, free health care, etc. If we want to control illegal entry we have to shut down the incentive side as well as strengthen the border fence/wall and patrols.
Comprehensive immigration policy should mean removing incentives and strengthening border control, NOT more free stuff and amnesty.
I'm still waiting for the handwringers on here who insist that illegals can't get welfare explain to me just how they indeed do get it? [crickets chirping]
MountainRaven
04-29-19, 20:29
I'm still waiting for the handwringers on here who insist that illegals can't get welfare explain to me just how they indeed do get it? [crickets chirping]
How do they get it?
How do they get it?
Here is something on it:
In an April 12 appearance on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox Business, Kobach made a compelling argument that the Department of Homeland Security has been operating more like a branch of the Deep State Swamp than as the agency tasked with protecting our borders.
In particular, Kobach told Dobbs that a carry-over policy from the Obama administration could be working as a magnet to attract migrants who want to take advantage of generous U.S. welfare policies.
“The crisis is not getting better. It’s getting worse right now, and it appears that what’s happening is there is an old Obama administration policy that is causing all kinds of problems. The policy is giving what’s called immigration parole to people who come into the United States illegally before releasing them. And what that means is once you give them this special status — an immigration parole — then they’re eligible for a work permit and they’re eligible for welfare benefits earlier than they would be otherwise.”
As Kobach told Dobbs, “Now we’re seeing the consequences, which is were getting this huge magnet, and the word is getting out. … We’re hearing reports from the migrants themselves that they are coming in expecting to get welfare benefits, food cards as we refer to them, and they are expecting to get employment authorization.”
With parole, these illegal immigrants would be able to qualify for welfare benefits within a year. Without parole, they couldn’t get work permits or welfare benefits until they got asylum, a process that could take years, especially with the current crush of illegal border crossers.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/29/border_brawl_kobach__trump_vs_cloward__piven_140174.html
Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Public Benefits
Are undocumented immigrants eligible for federal public benefit programs?
Generally no. Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges.
Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
Are legal immigrants eligible for federal public benefit programs?
Only those with lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, but not until they have resided as a legal resident for five years. LPRs – sometimes referred to as green card holders – do not have full access to all public benefit programs and are subject to limitations before being eligible for federal means-tested benefits, including Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), TANF, SNAP, and SSI. Such limitations include the “five-year bar,” which requires the individual to have maintained LPR status in the U.S. for five years before being eligible for benefits. However, under some federal benefit programs, this requirement can be bypassed when the recipient has worked 40 quarters under a visa. Quarters worked by parents when the immigrant was a dependent child, or by a spouse while married to the immigrant, count towards the immigrant’s 40 quarters.
LPRs are eligible to apply for Medicare and Public/“Section 8” Housing as well, as long as the five-year bar is fulfilled. For LPRs to become eligible for Social Security benefits for both retirement and disability, they are required to have completed 40 quarters of work in addition to having maintained LPR status for five years.
Certain additional categories of immigrants, specifically refugees, asylum seekers, and victims of human trafficking or domestic violence have the same eligibility requirements for federal benefits as LPRs. Individuals on non-immigrant and temporary visa holders are ineligible for benefits.
Are immigrants eligible for state benefit programs?
In some states, yes. Twenty-six states make immigrants eligible for state-funded benefit programs. Most of these states either offer assistance to families or provide access to healthcare to otherwise uninsured immigrants. Examples of these programs are New York’s Safety Net Assistance, California’s CalFresh Food Assistance Program, and California’s Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI).
What is the protocol for “mixed-status families,” i.e., undocumented parents with citizen children?
Like any U.S.-born citizen, U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents can received federal benefits if they meet eligibility requirements without penalty. Similarly, the child’s eligibility does not change their parents’ or any other family members’ eligibility for that benefit.
How much do legal immigrants use federal public benefit programs?
Legal immigrants use federal public benefit programs at lower rates than U.S.-born citizens. As recently as 2013, the rate at which non-citizens have used public benefit programs was less than that of U.S.-born citizens. For example, 32.5 percent of native-born citizen adults receive SNAP benefits compared to 25.4 percent of naturalized citizen adults and 29 percent of noncitizen adults. In addition to immigrants’ lower rate of SNAP usage, they also receive lower benefit values, costing the program less.
How much do immigrants contribute to support public benefits programs?
Both documented and undocumented immigrants pay more into public benefit programs than they take out. According to Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local economies each year. However, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for many of the federal or state benefits that their tax dollars help fund.
Additionally, a few states have completed studies demonstrating that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government services and benefits. A study in Arizona found that the state’s immigrants generate $2.4 billion in tax revenue per year, which more than offsets the $1.4 billion in their use of benefit programs. Another study in Florida estimated that, on a per capita basis, immigrants in the state pay nearly $1,500 more in taxes per capita than they receive in public benefits.
Do undocumented children have access to a public education?
Yes. In accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in Plyer v. Doe, all immigrant children, regardless of status, have access to a public education and are eligible to attend public schools for grades K-12. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Head Start program as it is not considered a federal public benefit program – any child who is otherwise eligible, regardless of their or their parents’ immigration status, may enroll in Head Start or Early Head Start.
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/
How do they get it?
Looks like 26 Inf answered it quite well (damn, that dude can research shit!). Specifically this part: "The policy is giving what’s called immigration parole to people who come into the United States illegally before releasing them. And what that means is once you give them this special status — an immigration parole — then they’re eligible for a work permit and they’re eligible for welfare benefits earlier than they would be otherwise."
I also surmise that under some f****d-up BS about these non-Mexican "asylum" illegals being released with a court date that they can get SNAP (at least, probably some type of housing assistance too) while they await the court date they will never show up for.
Personally, they can friggin' starve and live in a cardboard box (with their uninvited kids too) for all I care. They are NOT supposed to be here, PERIOD. ANY of them, ninos too. We are our own worst enemy......:suicide:
I guarantee DSHS does not see its job to prudently manage the financial resources of taxpayer funds to aid only the legitimate needy. Govt manager pay is based on the complexity of programs managed, the number of employees supervised and the size of budget managed. See anything in there that incentivizes prudence? No. So every worker that wants to make their boss happy will maximize the number of approved claims and amounts dispensed. Do you think anyone actually audits those millions of claims? Do you think any govt claims manager has ever been reprimanded let alone fired for being loose with govt payouts?
Therefore, if there is ANY WAY possible, the DSHS claims adjudicators will approve as many claims as possible no matter how flimsy the person’s status is. Worse thing happens is that 1 out of a few thousand sketchy approvals are pointed out and the manager says whoopsie, sorry let’s move along. The law provides a narrow window which govt bureaucrats drive freight trains through. This style of thinking in govt assistance agencies really took off after Clinton was elected. And it has taken permanent root.
This is exactly what our military should be doing. Screw foreign wars. Screw nation building. Secure our border.Our military in not set up to win wars or protect this nation . Sorry guys but it is a fact.
Our military in not set up to win wars. Sorry guys but it is a fact.
Our military is pretty damn good at winning. It is our State Dept and politicians who put stupid boundaries and conditions on them that guarantee they can never win. Because winning is too masculine and mean.
Our military in not set up to win wars or protect this nation . Sorry guys but it is a fact.
How so?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Our military in not set up to win wars or protect this nation . Sorry guys but it is a fact.
I disagree. Please elaborate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.