Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States

[hispeed7721]

Do you realize that you're saying any mission outside the CONUS couldn't possibly protect America?

You just completely invalidated our participation in WW2 and OEF.

Think about that for a second.

Really...really?? Who's making a strawman argument now? Quote me where I said "any mission outside CONUS couldn't possibly protect America". I said it's more important to protect our own country than to protect other countries. I know exactly what I wrote. Please read and actually understand what I wrote before making incorrect assertions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited May 6, 2014 by hispeed7721

[Clark Griswold]

More on National Guard on the border as we are discussing the pros/cons and whether there should be a US military mission on the border

Operation Jump Start, largest operation running from 2006 to 2008.

Operation Phalanx, the successor operation running from 2008 to 2011.

Operation Nimbus, last significant operation, running from 2011 to 2013.

Each one following Jump Start was a draw down with Nimbus being mainly air support. The ROE was so restrictive that it was an observe and report only mission pretty much with Jump Start and the follow on missions had few boots on the ground.

No matter as it has all rolled up now and Mexico has it's own problems too on its southern border with Guatemala, but they're building a fence.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[joe1234]

I'm feeling generous today, so allow me to give you a crash course in logic and reasoning.

Clark said this:

Does anyone really believe that any of our OCONUS missions really take precedence over securing our actual border?

He literally just asked if any OCONUS mission takes precedence over the border. You know, are OCONUS missions like keeping Iran from getting the bomb, preventing another 9/11, making sure North Korea doesn't start World War 3, shit like that which are clearly much more existential threats against American lives...are those things more important than patrolling a border with Mexico. I said:

Uh....yes? I would hope a military man, especially an officer, would understand that more than anyone.

Because after all, how could someone be in the military for more than 5 minutes without understanding the threats that are out there, and think that it's less important than playing catch and release with Mexican immigrants. You replied with this gem:

YBGFSM...seriously? Please for the love of God explain why anyone, but to your point a military officer, would think that protecting another country is more important than protecting our own

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See, you just made a fucking strawman because you want me to explain a position that I never made in the first place: that protecting other countries is more important than protecting America. I said (paraphrased) that OCONUS missions were more important than playing border patrol, but for some reason, this is equivalent to "protecting other countries". Incorrect, it means that in order to protect this country from bigger threats, we have to do things OCONUS now and then.

You realize that we have 2 states and multiple territories that are OCONUS, right? You realize that we have missions that protect America that take place not within the contintental borders? And again you double down on your ignorance:

OCONUS missions take precedence over protecting our own border...protecting other countries (Which are OCONUS) is more important than protecting our own country (which is inside our border...see how this works?) Where exactly is the strawman?

There, you did it again, you immediately jumped to "protecting other countries". No, OCONUS means "outside the continental US". I said that OCONUS missions are more important than border patrol. Among those OCONUS missions are missions that directly protect Americans from much greater threats than Mexico could ever throw at us. But somehow you automatically equivocate all OCONUS missions to protecting other countries without allowing anything else. How do I know this? Because you just said it, right there. You gave an either/or choice, either OCONUS missions are important, or protecting our own country is important. If it sounds like I'm over-explaining this, then I am because reasoning is clearly not your strong suit.

If a spec ops unit takes down a terrorist cell in the Middle East planning another 9/11, that is somehow, according to you, protecting other countries over protecting our own country. If the Imperial Japanese Navy bombs Pearl Harbor and we declare war, according to your shitty logic, that is protecting other countries over the U.S. despite the fact that Hawaii is literally the U.S, but because it's not CONUS, then it isn't protecting America.

Get it now?

I'm not even going to bother explaining how defense treaties, or protecting other countries, actually also protects America, because we're getting into some fairly advanced foreign policy discussion that I'm not sure your "not in my backyard" mind could handle.

We can do both, we have the technology... seriously though we can defend our border(s) and participate OCONUS as required... the focus will be confronting and deterring our near peer enemies and competitors but not ignoring significant problems on our doorstep, border security is not only an LE mission

This is actually a logical position to take, although I still disagree that the illegal immigrant problem requires a military solution (by the way hispeed, this is the "he didn't say any of that" part right here). If you want to militarize the CBP further and increase their budget, then go hog wild. But I honestly don't like the idea of blurring the lines between military and civilian law enforcement. I see nations all around the world with those blurred lines and it usually doesn't turn out pretty.

Really...really?? Who's making a strawman argument now? Quote me where I said "any mission outside CONUS couldn't possibly protect America". I said it's more important to protect our own country than to protect other countries. I know exactly what I wrote. Please read and actually understand what I wrote before making incorrect assertions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See, this isn't a strawman argument because you stated this logic twice. And now that it sounds fucking absurd, you're backpedaling. Let's all just de-escalate here. You stop posting, and I'll stop pointing out how wrong you are. Let the thread get back on track.

[hispeed7721]

All your petty insults aside (which are a great tell btw), I'm not going to derail this thread to argue with you and go into a quoting war. Hopefully someone other than Joe can see what I was trying to get at

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HU&W]

Let's all just de-escalate here.

?

[MD]

Because after all, how could someone be in the military for more than 5 minutes without understanding the threats that are out there, and think that it's less important than playing catch and release with Mexican immigrants.

If you think that all that's going on down on the border states is "playing catch and release with Mexican immigrants", then you need to come down here actually see what's going on that isn't getting reported in your daily news. There are some persons and threats coming through that are caught, and many that aren't, that would make your head spin. There are situations, engagements, and other scenarios both with military and military-style forces, as well as cartels and other organized factions, where our outmanned and outgunned CBP can't (and in some cases, aren't allowed to) stop them. Come down and see sometime, it would open your eyes a bit.

So yes, playing masters of the universe around the world with every problem and situation large and small, shouldn't cause there to be a complete ignoring of the realities of what it slipping through central America and across our own "secured" borders. Without going into SIPR, it's a heck of alot more than just a couple of Mexican immigrants looking for work, that you and many others are under the incorrect and assuming impression of.

While I agree with you on not blurring the lines between military and law enforcement to the max extent possible, the military isn't being used for domestic law enforcement; and acting against or being used to counter external threats to this country, shouldn't blur those lines either.

Take care of things overseas as-needed. Don't leave the gate to the yard open while doing it.

Edited May 7, 2014 by MD

[DFRESH]

This thread got reported to me, but I can't tell why. Looks like mostly legitimate discussion with some personal insults mixed in. Carry on, but let's limit the name calling, eh?

[Clark Griswold]

Clark said this:

He literally just asked if any OCONUS mission takes precedence over the border. You know, are OCONUS missions like keeping Iran from getting the bomb, preventing another 9/11, making sure North Korea doesn't start World War 3, shit like that which are clearly much more existential threats against American lives...are those things more important than patrolling a border with Mexico. I said:

You realize that we have 2 states and multiple territories that are OCONUS, right? You realize that we have missions that protect America that take place not within the contintental borders? And again you double down on your ignorance:

Joe, let's keep a good discussion going. I'll agree with you to a point. instead of saying precedence I should have said, CONUS sovereignty & security is a mission of equal importance to our OCONUS missions. Precision in language is important.

All the things you listed are vital to our national security but you just can't ignore the threat next door. It is a threat, a threat of neglect and weak governance, on both sides of the border as the current situation benefits powerful and influential people on both sides of the border, the passive collusion is criminal and I would say borderline treasonous for the continued neglect.

Business interests in the US who want cheap, compliant and disposable labor coupled with ethnocentric advocacy organizations linked to a political party want a new working class that votes by and large a certain way and the elites of Mexico and Central America don't want to modernize their economies, provide for their poor and govern responsibly, they would rather off-load their "surplus" population, receive remittances into their economies and keep the status quo. This is the political, economic and I would say cultural problem, that will have to be solved at the ballot box, in the courts probably along with a vigorous debate.

What we need to solve as security professionals from all the domains of military, law enforcement, intelligence and legal, is a new integrated construct to solve the law enforcement / sovereignty / security problem. Not just a fence or a Guard mission but a whole encompassing strategy, not just new tactics. During the Cold War, most of the organs of Federal government worked toward the overall strategy of containing, undermining, deterring and fighting when necessary communist aggression. We need that same holistic approach to our law enforcement / sovereignty / security problem. This will be by necessity involve a military mission, appropriately sized, equipped, tasked and deployed, but an actual force to apprehend and if required neutralize any unauthorized person crossing into the United States.

The Heritage Foundation has a good idea for an encompassing strategy:

15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern Exposure

In this proposal the author advocates for State Defense Forces (volunteer forces that would be by law funded and accredited by DHS and DoD, I would argue for an enduring Guard mission for this under Title 32 status as a more appropriate solution.

[HeloDude]

If you think the majority of politicians in DC truly care about securing the border...well, then I have nothing for you. They haven't done it before and I don't see them doing it anytime soon (regardless of what political party is in control). Reagan allowed himself to get fooled in the 80's (maybe that was his goal all along?) and today if you support anything other than legal status and future citizenship for illegals then a third to one half of the country will call you anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti...well, you get the idea. Republicans were all about the cheap labor all those years (and still are) and the Dems (who were also fans of the cheap labor) now see millions of new voters once again for the future.

As for the security situation with the drug cartels, human trafficking, etc on the southern border...see above. I understand there are decent people who would just like to come here to better their families and they're not the same as the cartel members, but when the border is not secured, then both get to come in. Like I said, most politicians don't want to risk not allowing the former to enter even at the risk of the later. I've talked to quite a few in the border patrol over the years and I understand their focus is on the criminal aspect (as it should be)...but let's not kid ourselves, we don't know exactly who is coming over.

I'm all about letting the free market decide who/how many should be able to immigrate/come over for specific/temporary periods for work visas and allowing that to be the forefront front of the policy, but this is not popular as it creates 'inequality'. As for the folks already here, let's not kid ourselves, no politician is going to be for mass deportation (see Romney 2012), especially by force (see nobody). I'd petsonally be wiling to give legal status/permanent green cards to the illegals already in here as long as they're not given citizenship (kind of wrong to reward people for breaking the law...as for those brought over as children, maybe some wiggle room there because of the obvious situation) and only if it was attached to a trigger that required a truly secured border and the passage of a new Constitutional amendment to rewrite the 14th Amendment to not allow citizenship purely by birth in this country alone--that you would need to have at least one parent be a permanent resident to be given citizenship by birth alone. But since I'm not naive, I know none of this will happen--emotions almost always trump logic.

As for whose responsibly it is for securing and monitoring the border, I agree that it shouldn't be the military, but it's kind of irrelevant because it could be CBP, National Guard, a new DHS department (take your pick)--it's not going to happen, except on the margins so politicians can say that they're doing something. Think about this: How comfortable would the American people be if they found out that only half of the airports were screening passengers before flights.

We get the kind of country and government we deserve.

If you think the majority of politicians in DC truly care about securing the border...well, then I have nothing for you. They haven't done it before and I don't see them doing it anytime soon (regardless of what political party is in control). Reagan allowed himself to get fooled in the 80's (maybe that was his goal all along?) and today if you support anything other than legal status and future citizenship for illegals then a third to one half of the country will call you anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti...well, you get the idea. Republicans were all about the cheap labor all those years (and still are) and the Dems (who were also fans of the cheap labor) now see millions of new voters once again for the future.

As for the security situation with the drug cartels, human trafficking, etc on the southern border...see above. I understand there are decent people who would just like to come here to better their families and they're not the same as the cartel members, but when the border is not secured, then both get to come in. Like I said, most politicians don't want to risk not allowing the former to enter even at the risk of the later. I've talked to quite a few in the border patrol over the years and I understand their focus is on the criminal aspect (as it should be)...but let's not kid ourselves, we don't know exactly who is coming over.

I'm all about letting the free market decide who/how many should be able to immigrate/come over for specific/temporary periods for work visas and allowing that to be the forefront front of the policy, but this is not popular as it creates 'inequality'. As for the folks already here, let's not kid ourselves, no politician is going to be for mass deportation (see Romney 2012), especially by force (see nobody). I'd petsonally be wiling to give legal status/permanent green cards to the illegals already in here as long as they're not given citizenship (kind of wrong to reward people for breaking the law...as for those brought over as children, maybe some wiggle room there because of the obvious situation) and only if it was attached to a trigger that required a truly secured border and the passage of a new Constitutional amendment to rewrite the 14th Amendment to not allow citizenship purely by birth in this country alone--that you would need to have at least one parent be a permanent resident to be given citizenship by birth alone. But since I'm not naive, I know none of this will happen--emotions almost always trump logic.

As for whose responsibly it is for securing and monitoring the border, I agree that it shouldn't be the military, but it's kind of irrelevant because it could be CBP, National Guard, a new DHS department (take your pick)--it's not going to happen, except on the margins so politicians can say that they're doing something. Think about this: How comfortable would the American people be if they found out that only half of the airports were screening passengers before flights.

We get the kind of country and government we deserve.

[Vertigo]

Legalize drugs. Cartel problem solved. Next.

[HeloDude]

Legalize drugs. Cartel problem solved. Next.

Agreed. Though I'm sure there would still be somewhat of an limited underground presence and/or another black market to take its place. But I believe the strength of the cartels would be severely limited in both the business sense and the power they hold.

[Clark Griswold]

Legalization of some drugs maybe, it certainly will take away most of the cartels' money but the border is still going to need a new strategy, It is the loss of sovereignty slowly that is the long term problem, possession is 9/10th of the law and having a large population that in your country that are not citizens and still strongly identify with their country which borders yours has the hallmarks of disaster. As TreeA10 said:

I bet the Ukrainians wish they had been able to keep a neighboring different ethnic group out of their country now that the different ethnic group would rather identify with their mother country.

[HeloDude]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/05/06/mexican-cartel-allegedly-hired-ms-13-to-carry-out-torture-operation-in/

[Beaver]

Legalize drugs. Cartel problem solved. Next.

Limes. No shit.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/05/investing/lime-shortage-drug-cartels/

[Vertigo]

Relevant

[Clark Griswold]

Relevant

Yep - partial drug legalization (basically marijuana and a few others) is part of the solution. Drugs, like oil, sometimes gives money and power to some very unsavory nations, regimes, people, etc...

Relevant also

[Vertigo]

Yep - partial drug legalization (basically marijuana and a few others) is part of the solution. Drugs, like oil, sometimes gives money and power to some very unsavory nations, regimes, people, etc...

Relevant also

Love the comment section. People getting all excited about the possibility of killing another human being for crossing an imaginary line on the ground.

[waveshaper]

The only things you really need to know about the Border Patrol and Mexicans.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399568/border-patrol

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399557/texans-vs-Mexicans

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399559/be-sure-to-get-the-edges

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399571/base

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399562/work-mexican-work

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399564/were-going-back

[hispeed7721]

Love the comment section. People getting all excited about the possibility of killing another human being for crossing an imaginary line on the ground.

Let's just get rid of borders entirely and let anyone wander wherever they want to for work/living. Everyone will be happy and prosperous, so everyone wins.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Love the comment section. People getting all excited about the possibility of killing another human being for crossing an imaginary line on the ground.

An imaginary line on the ground? So if 10, 20, 30 million people just walked across the border, got here somehow or were sent from another country and just decided that wanted to live here that's ok? No say so on the part of the nation, its citizens or respect for its laws or sovereignty? The most basic definition of a nation is the ability to control its territory. If we don't enforce our borders and laws we are no longer a nation and ultimately a society in decline and disintegration.

Acting in defense of your interests and your nation is not racism, bigotry, unfair or un-American.

I don't believe in or advocate for shooting illegal border crossers on sight and people post shit on the internet out of the bravado of anonymity but that doesn't undermine the need for a physical barrier system, coupled with a border security and immigration enforcement and control strategy.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[CJ-6A]

Yep - partial drug legalization (basically marijuana and a few others) is part of the solution. Drugs, like oil, sometimes gives money and power to some very unsavory nations, regimes, people, etc...

Relevant also

I'm not sure that partial drug legalization is actually part of the solution. They aren't simply about drugs only anymore. Don't get me wrong, drugs are a large part of it. Mary Jane is just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits on cocaine, meth, etc... which will probably never be legalized. Like any good business, they have diversified. Many have evolved into essentially what Amazon is, a one stop logistical shop for everything.... kidnapping, human trafficking, pirating intellectual property, etc. Drugs may have launched their mechanism but their real bread and butter is how they sell and traffic their product. Either way it's a complete mess... especially when U.S. banks such as Wachovia in 2008 alone processed $378 billion in Mexico without any anti-laundering actions.

[Clark Griswold]

I'm not sure that partial drug legalization is actually part of the solution. They aren't simply about drugs only anymore. Don't get me wrong, drugs are a large part of it. Mary Jane is just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits on cocaine, meth, etc... which will probably never be legalized. Like any good business, they have diversified. Many have evolved into essentially what Amazon is, a one stop logistical shop for everything.... kidnapping, human trafficking, pirating intellectual property, etc. Drugs may have launched their mechanism but their real bread and butter is how they sell and traffic their product. Either way it's a complete mess... especially when U.S. banks such as Wachovia in 2008 alone processed $378 billion in Mexico without any anti-laundering actions.

Can't disagree with you, Vertigo's relevant link was an article about how legalized weed is hurting the illicit production & smuggling business from Mexican cartels, every little bit helps... weakening the Cartels helps the Mexican government defeat them and marijuana legalization with a strong secure border are good tactics in the strategy to build a stable, prosperous and modern Mexico... our ultimate southern border objective, long term for the US it is not optimal to live next door to a not third world exactly but not first world country either... the porous border and our lax immigration, employment and citizenship enforcement policies keep the elites of Mexico from having to deal with their problems, just encourage your poor to go North, send home money and demand citizenship; money goes home, can gets kicked down the road and political hegemony by demographic shift happens, seems tin foil hat and conspiratorial but it is happening...

Good article:

Is Illegal Immigration Good For Mexico?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[Vertigo]

An imaginary line on the ground? So if 10, 20, 30 million people just walked across the border, got here somehow or were sent from another country and just decided that wanted to live here that's ok? No say so on the part of the nation, its citizens or respect for its laws or sovereignty? The most basic definition of a nation is the ability to control its territory. If we don't enforce our borders and laws we are no longer a nation and ultimately a society in decline and disintegration.

Acting in defense of your interests and your nation is not racism, bigotry, unfair or un-American.

I don't believe in or advocate for shooting illegal border crossers on sight and people post shit on the internet out of the bravado of anonymity but that doesn't undermine the need for a physical barrier system, coupled with a border security and immigration enforcement and control strategy.

Keeping borders closed restricts human freedom.

Restrictions on the right to migrate are only moral if there is clear evidence of very bad consequences. Even then it could be questionable.

What are you defending by keeping an immigrant from entering? Undue pressure on your culture? Wage protection from a more competitive foreigner?

If it's pressure on your culture, does that mean you have the right to keep blacks out of your white neighborhood as well?

If it's wage protection does that mean you can keep a younger competitor willing to work for less from attending a job interview by any means possible?

Or is it just because it's the law and the state has the right to enforce its laws? Where does the state get those rights? From its citizens, correct? The government cannot have any rights that its citizens do not possess. And no citizen has the right to deny immigrants access across a border, or do we? If yes, does that mean I can restrict you from entering my state? After all you're not a citizen of my state, or my city, or my neighborhood.

If we as individuals don't have the right to close borders, then how can the state have that right?

Or perhaps you think U.S. citizens collectively own the land which makes our nation. And through the democratic process we've transferred part of the ownership to the government. Does that do the trick? Well no. There is plenty of land in the U.S. owned by foreigners and foreign entities that do not get to vote and therefor have no say in that democratic process that transfers ownership to the government. And if the government does own the land, that means they could decide who you can invite over to your next BBQ, or your Superbowl party and that's just absurd.

[hispeed7721]

Legit question... Are you suggesting getting rid of all borders and having free movement wherever/ whenever?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Keeping borders closed restricts human freedom.

So Israel doesn't have the right to keep Palestinians from coming back to Israel or 20 million Arabs just deciding they want to live in Israel?

What about Ukraine? Do they have the right to keep 50,000 Russian "citizens" on their border from coming across?

Human Freedom is balanced and reasonably controlled to prevent anarchy. Restricting human freedom is not always bad, I like restricting the freedom of criminals for instance.

Restrictions on the right to migrate are only moral if there is clear evidence of very bad consequences. Even then it could be questionable.

Examples of Serious Crimes of Illegal Aliens

What are you defending by keeping an immigrant from entering? Undue pressure on your culture? Wage protection from a more competitive foreigner?

Yes, societies and economies that adhere to different standards for workers' rights, environmental responsibility, rule of law, etc. have the right restrict themselves from those that don't. Why is our culture and nation required to be the accumulator for the rest of the world? Large scale immigration is actually not the norm for our country and wild rapid swings in demographics tends to lead to self-segregation as assimilation which is a slow, osmotic process is not allowed to take its course. New entrants to the society find a ready and sizeable cohort of those like them and choose to band together rather than blending with the majority and adding to it.

If it's pressure on your culture, does that mean you have the right to keep blacks out of your white neighborhood as well?

No, I am not arguing for a non-equal society of citizens, as illegal aliens are not citizens they have fewer rights inside of our sovereign borders. They have some basic rights if they are here (even illegally) but not the right to be here illegally.

If it's wage protection does that mean you can keep a younger competitor willing to work for less from attending a job interview by any means possible?

No, that is just sophistry and histrionics. Do you really believe that our nation is somehow different than other countries and it does not have the right to control itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, what you advocate for is anarchy.

Or is it just because it's the law and the state has the right to enforce its laws? Where does the state get those rights? From its citizens, correct? The government cannot have any rights that its citizens do not possess.

The government is entrusted with responsibilities that no citizen could or should posses, say the right to execute, declare war, enforce laws, negotiate treaties, etc... For the sane and rational function of society, liberty is responsibly curtailed and power transferred to the government composed of its citizens.

And no citizen has the right to deny immigrants access across a border, or do we? If yes, does that mean I can restrict you from entering my state? After all you're not a citizen of my state, or my city, or my neighborhood.

Yes, we have the right to deny people, if we choose to, not to come into our country. Really went out on a limb there.

If we as individuals don't have the right to close borders, then how can the state have that right?

Not sure if serious.

Or perhaps you think U.S. citizens collectively own the land which makes our nation. And through the democratic process we've transferred part of the ownership to the government. Does that do the trick? Well no. There is plenty of land in the U.S. owned by foreigners and foreign entities that do not get to vote and therefor have no say in that democratic process that transfers ownership to the government. And if the government does own the land, that means they could decide who you can invite over to your next BBQ, or your Superbowl party and that's just absurd.

Again. Not sure if serious...

Edited May 17, 2014 by Clark Griswold