Mexican Troops Cross Border, Hold Border Agent

DTOP+USMC03+SHERMAN (taking on the whole staff, I love it! :-D)

Why we are in Iraq in the first place is already debatable but its a separate issue. However when ordering our National Guard overseas weakens our security at home that can never be a good or justified regardless of the reason or whether its in the NG mandate or not. The NG role should be the protection of US soil of any threat, thats first and foremost.

The point that I am trying to make is would these Mexicans troops tried anything if the looked across the border and saw not a single BP agent (or which they had little to fear) but US National Guardsmens? I cannot read their minds, but I'd guess that whatever the Pablo Escobar wannabee was paying these renegades wasnt worth getting into a border clash with US troops. Not only would they be at risk of getting killed, but they would incur the rath of BOTH US and Mexican governments afterwards.

As for this has happened before as USMC03 stated, I think that just reinforces the argument of why the NG should be sent home, because it SHOULDNT EVER happen, and if we have to use armed troops to keep Mexican troops and drug dealing trash out than so be it.

In my opinion, I think thats far more important than whatever is happening in Iraq.
 
I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely not enough National Guardsmen in the country to deal with this.
They may not be Texas National Guard but I don't think it's uncommon for an NG unit of one state to go and help out in another. If not, Militias from non Louisiana states came to help out during Katrina. What good they did, I don't know but I know that they did show up. If you're short on numbers you could hire them on contract, tell them what the ROEs and procedures are and if not complied it is a criminal offense but other than that, pay them. I'm sure they could use the money.
And if it comes down to it, I'm sure they'd love to pull the trigger.
If manpower's the problem, there's a possible solution.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely not enough National Guardsmen in the country to deal with this.
They may not be Texas National Guard but I don't think it's uncommon for an NG unit of one state to go and help out in another. If not, Militias from non Louisiana states came to help out during Katrina. What good they did, I don't know but I know that they did show up. If you're short on numbers you could hire them on contract, tell them what the ROEs and procedures are and if not complied it is a criminal offense but other than that, pay them. I'm sure they could use the money.
And if it comes down to it, I'm sure they'd love to pull the trigger.
If manpower's the problem, there's a possible solution.
Click to expand...

The NG has been always complained about its lack of manpower, even way before the Iraq war happened, although Iraq has compounded the issue. I remember the complaints they made to Clinton during the 1990s.

The reason you cannot use out of state forces is because there is not enough time to get them into place. First you'd have to get permission from the States Governor (red tape) and then transport them from (wherever). I'm not sure how exactly it works but I would imagine it only requires a couple of emergency phonecalls to scramble a NG Gunship to the location.
 
This is the idea I had.
Basically you set up a series of bases of operations... it'd be like an FOB except more permanent I guess. You'd set up a rapid reaction force of sorts down there. These would be maintained by a very small staff of active duty personnel (in terms of inventory etc.). NG units from different states would rotate in and out of these bases on something like a 6 month or a one year rotation schedule. For those with family dependents, accommodations for families should be included (after all this is mostly Texas, not Iraq). Would put far less strain on families than being separated.

So these bases would have up armored HUMVEEs with .50 MGs, as well as helicopter gunships (though not many. One active at a time may all that's required). It also won't be too hard to have fighter squadrons to rotate in and out in terms of duty for air strikes in case the bad guys show up with shoulder launched SAM that can be a problem for gunship helicopters. You'd only need one fighter on a ready 5 around the clock so you could pull this off with only one squadron as well. One rotating out of Iraq or Afghanistan would do beautifully. I also hear that lots of artillery pieces are not being used in the GWOT so I think we just found a new place for them. These would be deployed with popular routes in mind.

You tell me that wouldn't work.
 
There is another small detail or a couple small details. If my Guard unit is activated by my governor then the we answer to him. For us to go out of state and perform missions must be authorized by the Federal Powers that be. My governor can't say go to Arizona and help them secure the border. The majority of the equipment belongs to Dept. of the Army the majority of the funding is DOD.

The Military cannot enforce civil law Posse comatatuis forbids it. So a federalized NG unit cannot enforce entry and immigration laws as they are civil. Thats why CBP and DHS are in charge on the border and the NG units that are there only provide intel. and backup.

So until the Politicians in DC reach a happy median and quit playing the special interest games then we are stuck playing the same old game.
 
Wishing that the Guard had a different role doesn't change it's real role. It is what it is and unless it gets activated, it remains an armed state militia.
mmarsh, you're wrong. The reason you can't use out of state Guard units is because they are controlled by their home state, not because of red tape. BTW, what is a National Guard gunship?
 
DTop said:
Wishing that the Guard had a different role doesn't change it's real role. It is what it is and unless it gets activated, it remains an armed state militia.
mmarsh, you're wrong. The reason you can't use out of state Guard units is because they are controlled by their home state, not because of red tape. BTW, what is a National Guard gunship?
Click to expand...

Protecting the state is in the guardsman mandate is it not? That is its role. The real question is where are they best utilized. I would prefer them near the state border to deal with the threat of heavily armed drug dealers and their Mexican military mercenaries who succeed in penetrating our borders because our BP is capable of stopping them (no slight on them, but they are out of their league). We have known about the weak border security situation since 9-11, so this is hardly a surprise. If the BP is facing armed Mexican troops and/or gangs that are too tough for them then THAT is where the NG needs to be, not on some Arabian Desert Adventure. To me that's the priority. Homeland first. At the very least release the NG who states who are threatened on our southern border.

That's not what I was saying, a governor has no control over the NG of other states. I was saying the DOD (and probably the Governor of that state upon request) can release his guardsmen into another state, as was done during Hurricane Katrina.

Lastly Redneck is right. I was talking about the AH-1 Cobras that are assigned to the National guard, at least they are in New York State. Dunno if AZ NG operates them or not.
 
Last edited:
Giving the BP better eqpt would help, having political backing would help, having a country that appreciated their work would help, getting (what appears to be) corrupt DA's to quit charging BPA's that do their freakin job would help and of course, giving NG more practical SOP's would help as well, probably much more could go here. Also, BTW, if the NG personnel that are suppose to be working the border are required to be unarmed, NG ought to not be there then IMHO. No firearms for the NG on the border should = NO NG. Seems easy enough.
 
Last edited:
No weapon- no guards. I can tell you i would not patroll my own towns streets wearing any law enforment or military uniform unless i have a weapon.
Why:
Cause wearing a uniform means a couple of things- it makes you a target for bad guys. it also makes civilians to expect you to be able to defend them, not to speak of defend your self.

As I see it the solution is a matter of money and politics, the same reason we have problems with our southern border. I would imagine the best solution as follows(although just doing some of it would do alot of good):

A) Create an effective obstacle along the border, meaning: indecative fences, walls, fences, trenches even mines, depending on the terrain.

B)Create border police units that are incharge of specific sections of the obstacle. These should be law enforcment officers armed with a rational assortmant of light arms(at least rifles, LMGs) and sufficient night vision equippment. They should have support from Helicopters, not specifically gunships. I would imagine a Bell-212 type aircraft with a side mounted 7.62 weapon will do. They must have Up armored 4wd vehicles.They must have night vision equippment, including some TI systems. They should have thermal and regular observation posts. They need to collect intel and share it with each other and other agencies/autherities.

C)They MUST have reasonable ROEs. In my opinion, and maybe its just me, a person who crosses an international border and dose not stop when asked to, should be shot dead.

D) USAF anddAir national guard can be used for reccon flights, lighting suspected areas and such. If there are USAF gunships training around there, they can add a ready flight to their missions, its not that hard to do.

I say all of this based on my experience in two very problematic borders.
Its costly, its not PC (shooting people is never PC), but its how its done.
If a nation cannot protect its borders its in bad shape.
 
That's pretty good Sherman, obviously. It might be a matter of money a little but I would think that part is fairly easy to fix. The main problem I think is the politics.
 
mmarsh said:
Protecting the state is in the guardsman mandate is it not? That is its role. The real question is where are they best utilized. I would prefer them near the state border to deal with the threat of heavily armed drug dealers and their Mexican military mercenaries who succeed in penetrating our borders because our BP is capable of stopping them (no slight on them, but they are out of their league). We have known about the weak border security situation since 9-11, so this is hardly a surprise. If the BP is facing armed Mexican troops and/or gangs that are too tough for them then THAT is where the NG needs to be, not on some Arabian Desert Adventure. To me that's the priority. Homeland first. At the very least release the NG who states who are threatened on our southern border.

That's not what I was saying, a governor has no control over the NG of other states. I was saying the DOD (and probably the Governor of that state upon request) can release his guardsmen into another state, as was done during Hurricane Katrina.

Lastly Redneck is right. I was talking about the AH-1 Cobras that are assigned to the National guard, at least they are in New York State. Dunno if AZ NG operates them or not.
Click to expand...


The problem that you need to acknowledge is that protcting the boredres is a federal mandate. The guard units would have to be federalized. This would make them Military. That would mean that several laws would have to change or the border placed under martial law for them to effective. So first you have to convince DC.
 
03USMC said:
The problem that you need to acknowledge is that protcting the boredres is a federal mandate. The guard units would have to be federalized. This would make them Military. That would mean that several laws would have to change or the border placed under martial law for them to effective. So first you have to convince DC.
Click to expand...

You could go through the loophole. The National Guard can act in a law enforcement role when they are under the authority of the State and not the Federal Government. US States that share borders with Mexico have the legal right to defend their own borders without federal approval. So each state that shares a border with Mexico can place their National Guard units on their own borders. Also other states can send their guard units to fellow states without federal approval. It is done a lot down south during hurricanes.

The other means is that each state raises a State Defense Force Unit (Modern Day word for Militia) and place them on the borders.
 
Did anyone think that rather than trying to disentangle the mess created by the many and varied State and Federal laws,... because this is a new situation, or an old situation in need of a new solution, it might be easier just to scrub the old laws covering the National Guard etc., and create new laws that are more in line with current needs.

Other than that, why not use troublesome areas of the border as specialised training areas for parts of the military, in particular infantry and those assigned to work with UAV's etc.? Proactive patrolling, intelligence gathering, ambush, and things like working in conjunction with civil authority, the possibilities for training are endless.
 
Last edited:
5.56X45mm said:
You could go through the loophole. The National Guard can act in a law enforcement role when they are under the authority of the State and not the Federal Government. US States that share borders with Mexico have the legal right to defend their own borders without federal approval. So each state that shares a border with Mexico can place their National Guard units on their own borders. Also other states can send their guard units to fellow states without federal approval. It is done a lot down south during hurricanes.

The other means is that each state raises a State Defense Force Unit (Modern Day word for Militia) and place them on the borders.
Click to expand...


In theory that would work. But in practice it probably wouldn't. It's true enough that my Governor volunteered the use of our NG during Katrina and the offer was accepted by Lousiana's Governess Blanco. Thing is my unit was activated federally after the offer was accepted and the Fed's footed our bill. Same with the State Troopers that were sent down, they were paid by FEMA.

So while in theory the loaning of states guards to other states could happen it becomes a fiscal issue.Who pays? Lets say Kansas sends her Guard to Texas which state pays? Other States would probably quickly tire of footing the bill to deploy their guard in border states.

Then you have issues if the Fed's decide they don't agree with the practice. DOD pulls funding and the NG becomes a hollow shell. No probabale due to the over reilance on the guard and reserve but possible. More probable is the Fed's setting up a federal zone along the border and excluding state officers.

You also run into the "If our Guard wasn't in <fill the blank> they would have been here to help with the flood." issue you have now but instead of Iraq or A 'stan it would Tx AZ NM Ca.

The ability of the guard to enforce laws varies from state to state and situation to situation. In events like Katrina they can be very liberal in other events they can be very restrictive and arrests must be made by LEO's or State certified Peace Officers only. It's not blanket coverage that any Guardsman can fill an LE role.

Spike is right the laws need to change in order to successfully use the NG on the border.

The military itself became wary of deploying troops on the border. And is reluctant to do so. It stems from a border shooting near Redford Texas in 1997 involving a four man survillance team assigned by the Marine Corps to JTF-6 in El Paso. JTF-6 was an anti drug task force set up during the Reagan Administration.

On 20 May the team came under fire twice by 18 year old Ezequiel Hernandez. Cpl. Clemente Banuelos returned fire and killed Hernandez. Despite the fact that Hernandez had fired twice in the vicinty of the team and had been involved in another incident where he had shot in the vicinty of a USBP vehicle the state of Texas attempted to indict Banuelos . However the grand jury refused to indict.

The USMC stopped supplying STA Teams to JTF 6 at least for a while and I don't believe this formation exsits any longer. The military as a whole was leery about having their troops proseuted if a shooting fell under the accepted ROE's as Banuelo's shooting was.

So until we change the laws and quit playing patty cake with Mexico it's not going to change.
 
Last edited:
No doubt about it, if the military is going to prosecuted for defending themselves or the BP, they ought to not be there. Ought to Prosecute the idiot Prosecutor that decided to even go forward with the grand jury.
Obviously, the laws need to change to make it easier for our folks to do their jobs and I am in agreement with Seno, would be a great on going training program for the NG personnel. Put some NG personnel there for awhile and also send some to BP academy so that they perform dual roles if thats possible without having any conflict of interest crap, or at least send them to and have them certified at MP school as MP's. I think politics is the main issue here, but it cannot be that daggone difficult to fix and make more proficient.
 
AikiRooster said:
. I think politics is the main issue here, but it cannot be that daggone difficult to fix and make more proficient.
Click to expand...


But it's the politics, politicians in reality don't want it fixed. It's on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives like to use it as a bugaboo scare the crap outta ya . Vote for me and we'll put an M1 Abrams every twenty feet and 50's with interlocking fields of fire in between them. Liberals play the human rights cards (especially on the Latino community) Vote for me and I will make the border more open and Primo Juan can come up and get work. Niether side really addresses the real problem. Because if they fixed it then they have to find a new hot button issue.

The Latino Community has it's collective head up it's 4th POC on the issue especially the Mexican American Community. (Before I go on let me say that I am not Mexican American. I am an American of Mexican Heritage) For some reason alot of my people (especially the ones that call me a coconut) have some misplaced sense of loyalty to Mexico, a country they have never lived in or immigrated from. These people get more up in arms over a crack down on illegal immigration or a perceived slight on Mexico than they would if the US goverment suspended the Constitution.
These are yahoo's that join La Raza and the Atzalan movement and activly protest the goverment that they were raised under or that gave them the opportunity to prosper. They are also the ones who protest and will protest any time a mention of military on the border is brought up.These are the people that the liberal politicians court. Look at Texas . it's a red state except for areas like DFW, Houston Austin (of course) and the border counties which are strongly blue. Border Strife and Border issues are the bread and butter of those politicans down there...they love it.
 
Yeah, Thanks for that. I know what you say is correct but it's still frustrating as hell. The conservatives that are bozoing around with the issue ought to be fined for being retarded, don't need to say what ought to happen to the libs.

Personally, I love the latino community, I'd much rather deal with them than some others in our society. Obviously, as well, this border strictness ought to be all folks trying to come in here not just latino's. If it wasn't, then I could definitely see an issue. Obviously, the biggest threat in the South is going to be illegals from the Mexico area but the policy ought to be for any human trying to get into this country.
Even George Lopez admitted being for tighter border control.

I do like the idea of having the ability to have that much firepower on the border but I also like the idea of being friendly to friendly folks and don't want them poopin their pants when they see our people.
 
So here's what I'd do. Not that the career politicians would go along with it.

1. Continue to construct the fence.

2. Rework the laws and allow the military to conduct operations jointly with BP and Customs.

3. Advise the Mexican Goverment that our Military will be conducting patrols along the border and ........

A. That these units have ROE's that allow them to fire on any armed person or persons that they feel threatened by regardless if said indviduals are in Mexican Military or LE uniforms or vehicles.

B. Any Mexican Military/LE personnel that fire or threaten US military or LE will be engaged by US forces.

C. Any Mexican personnel on the US side of the Border who refuse to be taken under custody will be engaged.

D. Any Mexican Personnel taken into custody in the US, will be crimmanlly charged and detained. Their equipment will be confiscated.

E. Any Military /LE Personnel that are engaged from across the border by Mexican personnel will engage. Yes we will fire into your country,hell we'll send Apaches. Cobras, FA-18's , A-10's if thats what it takes.

F. Yes we will chase your people into Mexico from our side of the border to engage them if they engage us.

3. Come up with a feasible guest worker/visa program for Mexican Nationals that cut's the BS red Tape without compromising security.
If they behave while here then give them a shot at residency if they wish.

4. If your civilians want to throw rocks, bricks and bottles across the border at our BP personnel. Our B.P personnel will respond in kind with Chemical Agents (CS OC CN), Sting ball grenades, Bean Bags and rubber buck. Yeah we will deply these across the border. If they want to shoot well then we'll shoot back.

5. If your people get arrested/hurt/scared/intimadated/killed or whatever. Guess what? We will not entertain your protests you were told. Now control your people and your side of the fence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top