Mexican Military Cross Into U.S. - Hold Border Patrol Agent At Gun Point
Four Mexican army soldiers entered southern Arizona and pointed their rifles at a U.S. Border Patrol agent early this week.
The incident Sunday was the Mexican military's 43rd incursion across the U.S. border since October.
However, it was unusual because firearms were involved.
The Border Patrol and the Mexican government are investigating.
The incident occurred at 2 a.m. on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation about 50 miles southeast of Ajo.
The incident took place just north of the border in sight of the new border fence.
The soldiers held their weapons on the agent for several minutes until he identified himself in Spanish, whereupon they lowered their guns and walked back across a gap in the fence.
Submitted by Red_Wing on Sat, 2008-08-09 03:43
-->
- Red_Wing's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Tags:
Comments :
It is fascinating how for the most part ...
...liberals don't want to talk about immigration, or border security?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
what's there to talk about?
If you are wondering about the lack of response to this story, I can give you two reasons that I didn't see any reason to comment;
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
OK...
I can put a link...
But the astonishing thing is another countries ARMY freely crossed into our nation...holds our border patrol at GUNPOINT... then strolls home back across the border like its no big deal?
I don't think so...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
thanks for the link
I think it's a big excessive to speak of the Mexican army violating US territory--as if this were orchastrated by their generals or involved an actual unit of the army.
I think the issue is how we deal with "gangland" being right across the border (and in our cities...though not as bad there) . We've been trying to work with the Mexican government, and I don't know if it is accomplishing much.
I don't think an incursion would accomplish much. Even if we decapitated the drug rings, they'd reform in a few years. A big chunk of the problem is the massive difference in wealth between the USA and Latin America, combined with the illegal drug trade.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thats all well and fine...
...but the issue is far simpler and less convoluted than that.
It is a border security issue, we must secure the perimeter of our nation.
It sounds funny to have to argue about, but at this point we can't stop illegal immigrants, whether they are nice & hard working, or drug runners, we can't stop chemical or biological weapons anymore than we can conventional ones, we can't even prevent the Mexican army from wandering over the border and holding our border patrol at gunpoint for God sakes!
We can't stop anything, and in todays world that is just unacceptable.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Has the border ever been secure?
The border has always been pretty porous, and I don't see any reason that it has to be a perfect barrier. The border is just the first of many levels in our public security system.
I don't consider $100 billion dollars a year to be simple (that estimate starts with the multi-billion dollar cost of a partial border fence
, and tacks on my amatuer guesses of the administrative costs of thoroughly regulating cross-border traffic, and the cost of lost business opportunities arising from the hassle at the border) -- especially since this massive expenditure still wouldn't provide us with perfect security.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
what is simple?
Which is simpler?:
1) Building a massive government bureacracy with immense survailence and detainment capabilities, along with the arbitrary power to harrass (and possibly detain) Americans crossing the border. Sounds like a mega-TSA
.
2) Decriminalize marijuana (sustantially reducing the size/power of an aggressive government burearcacy in the process).
I know that decriminalizing marijuana would only address a part of the trouble at the border, but if we're interested in simplicity, it's the obvious place to start.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I Agree, Red_Wing
It is a border security issue, we must secure the perimeter of our nation.
But you know as well as I that our government doesn't want to get serious about immigration because it would involve tough solutions that neither "side" wants to agree on.
We need a fence to keep border incursions down to a minimum. No, it won't prevent all illegal people from getting into the country, but it will reduce entry points.
At the same time, we should enforce a true immigration policy by ending brainless immigration policies like our Cuban wet-foot-dry-foot rule
We should also update the arcane immigration rules--why not go back to the turn-of-the-century requirements?
Prove that:
- You don't have a disease,
- No felonies/criminal history,
- You are at least somewhat educated, and that
- You are not destined to become a public charge (welfare recipient) by bring money or willing to work
- And you are native English speaker (or actively learning)..
Then guess what? You're in. Keep your nose clean, stay employed or in school, and stay off the dole, and we'll see you in 5 years at naturalization ceremony. It's not that hard.
Drugs I'm with, but biological weapons? Ever try to get one of those over a fence? They're heavy. Even the smaller ones pose a challenge because you have to assume that Mexico depends on us as well and would probably not allow that through their borders (their immigration policy is more stringent than ours).
We probably need to help Mexico out with their economy to keep them from leeching off of ours so that their citizens don't feel they have to come here.
Whaddya think?
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
immigration requirements
I know you addressed this to Red_Wing, but I'll say that I can buy your program. The only change I'd make is to say that they'd have to be fluent in English (which seems to be what you meant by allowing for those who are learning English).
As for "education"--the ability to read, write, and speak English fluently would be sufficient for me.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I wouldn't
In many parts of the country you don't need to be fluent in English to hold a steady job. French is an official language of Louisiana, for instance. Many border towns speak Spanish almost exclusively. And there are Spanish-speaking enclaves in many Californian cities.
The only thing I'd demand is #2 and a reasonable ability to hold down a decent-paying job. In many areas this would demand fluency in English, but there are cases where such a demand isn't warranted other than to satisfy the "Americanization" of incoming immigrants.
The above is also subject to quotas. We aren't the world's job center. Some of us white people need jobs, too. Contrary to popular belief, we'll pick lettuce and raise your children, just not at subsistence wages.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
a job for white people...
Why pick lettuce when you could be the overseer for the foreigners who come to pick the lettuce (assuming you speak the same language as them)?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I took French in high school
So unless a bunch of Canadians are coming south from Quebec, I'm useless.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
criteria not quotas for immigrants
Well, this is basically my point--immigration should be based on personal criteria, not quotas. Sure, we could raise the bar if we felt that too many immigrants were coming, but I think it's really important that the decision be based on individual merit, not a lottery or something like that.
I can't explain it too well at the moment (gotta go for a run before it gets dark)...but maybe we should have a more thorough conversation about this.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Get serious...
There is a difference between those we want to have come immigrate to the US, and those that come to do seasonal work.
Even Rush has standards for immigrants. Watch this all the way through.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
link is broken
The "Rush" link is broken.
I didn't suggest that quota supporters have no standards. My point was just that I want no quotas.
I'm not interested in temporary workers. It seems like nothing more than a scam to undermine the barganing position of workers by replacing Americans with "throw-away" workers.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Link
http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHPm_TEQ0PA&hl=en&fs=1
AFAIK
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Thanks! ;-)
But watch it all the way through...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Cheap labor conservatism
There is no need for temporary workers unless the unemployment rate is zero.
Getting people to come across the border to do "seasonal work" is more about keeping wages low than about some actual shortage of people to do the work. This is simple free market economics that the right loves when it works for them, but doesn't when it bites them in the rear.
Can't find enough locals to pick veggies? Time to offer better pay.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Please elaborate...
When do free markets not work? When does it bite us in the ass?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A short list...
Free markets fail in the vast majority of cases. In fact there's only one thing free markets do well at all- the manufacture and distribution of luxury items. In every other field they fail, often spectacularly.
Power, water, food, health care, military, intelligence, science, the arts, communications, politics, education, emergency services, penal system, et cetera ad nauseum... all areas that free markets have attempted to dominate and universally &^%$ed up when they've succeeded.
Now admittedly "luxuries" covers a lot of stuff, basically anything that is not needed either to live, to fulfill civic duties, or to ensure the security o the citizen- essentially all the consumer crap we drown ourselves in. Which means the one thing free markets does well is one thing we probably shouldn't do at all, actually.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I blown away by your answer?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I have that effect
on people who believe in free markets. Just ask the local libertarians. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Free market theory requires some preconditions
Free markets don't work when the preconditions for free markets are not present. Natural monopolies distort the free-market-as-in-theory concept, as do high barriers to entry (ie, if I wanted to, I could start a small PC troubleshooting and repair business tomorrow, but I can't start an oil company no matter how much I wanted to). Generally speaking, buyer and seller must be on equal terms as well. Free markets usually assume imperfect information, but they don't assume the buyer has near zero information, which is often the case.
When the preconditions do not exist, the government has two choices:
*create the preconditions by legislative fiat to the extent possible
*eliminate the free market via regulations (ie., scary socialism)
I actually prefer the first option to the second. The idea that the government is required to enforce preconditions for a free market is totally anathema to most market liberals.
Take cable television as an example. In my city one can only get cable (and cable internet access) from Buckeye Cablevision. This is not due to the city restricting other would-be players by law, but because the market can bear only one cable provider. Time-Warner could offer service if they wanted, but they don't because they'd almost never recoup any costs of rolling out new infrastructure. The way to create a free market would be to buy up all of the cable infrastructure via eminent domain and then allow anyone to provide services over the infrastructure subject to a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee. In this fashion, the government has eliminated the natural monopoly, which has increased competition. This intervention brings us closer to the free market ideal.
Generally speaking, the way to deal with the natural monopoly problem is this way. Ohio already does it to a lesser extent with electric and natural gas service. I can buy my gas from anyone I choose. It gets delivered by my local gas monopoly, who owns the infrastructure. The program doesn't work perfectly (for instance, buying gas from anyone but your local monopoly incurs a sales tax, which is usually enough to make a third party supplier more expensive), but it's better than nothing at all.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Which then begs the question-
if the free market is incapable of operating withoout substantial oversight and continual manipulation by the governmnet, why bother?
Take your cable example. Cable companies are monopolistic ventures across America not because they had to be but because they chose to be. They entered into agreements to divide up the total market into mini-fiefdoms. They did this because it was lucrative. Rather than spend cash on competing they'd each get to play robber baron in their own turf. The high entry costs just helped to cement the deal by discouraging any of the players from making surprise "attacks" on one anothers territory (also by discouraging any new companies that weren't part of the deal from showing up).
SO you have government buy out the local infrastructure and open it to all comers. This breaks the monopoly, sure. But to what gain?
The whole point of the free market is supposed to be that it doesn't require any centralized control. The actions of millions of independent selfish actors is supposed to transmute the "wisdom of crowds" into an "invisible hand." If that's not the case and instead free markets have to be propped up and made viable by a centralized planning source why not just go to a planned economy?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
your whole premise is flawed...
Did you read my post "Socialism" in the Voight article thread?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Please link to fence reference
I saw no reference to a fence in the version to which you linked. The Fox news version of this story stated that there are many sections in that area where there are no border markings and that the issue ended when the border agents convinced the Mexican army on which side of the border they were.
Since you are so eager to discuss immigration, here's an immigration story
where someone actually died.
funny
So we're like fighting them there (in Iraq) so we can't afford to keep the border fence in good repair here?
Sic semper tyrannis