Thread: Entry of Mexican troops into United States territory

Why the aggression from the Tancredo side to the Paul side? You post an article that is over a year and a half old just to turn it into a Tancredo/Paul debate? What is with all of this mud slinging towards Ron Paul? There are plenty of other candidates out there, why are you singling him out? Does Tancredo think he can take all the Paul supporters by smearing him?

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Entry of Mexican troops into United States territory--nothing short of terorrism.

I would think it more an act of war.

Originally Posted by kniggit

Why the aggression from the Tancredo side to the Paul side? You post an article that is over a year and a half old just to turn it into a Tancredo/Paul debate? What is with all of this mud slinging towards Ron Paul? There are plenty of other candidates out there, why are you singling him out? Does Tancredo think he can take all the Paul supporters by smearing him?

Actually, I had confined my comments about Ron Paul to posting about his voting record on legal immigration and illegal immigration issues until Ron Paul supporters started posting about Tom Tancredo with regard to issues not related legal immigration or illegal immigration. Rep. Tancredo was accused by Paul supporters of having neocon connections and being supportive of NAFTA. Both of those charges were untrue. They were, however, apparently based passed on by other Paul supporters. Tom Tancredo is not a neocon and, along with Ron Paul and other congressmen, actually cosponsored an anti-NAFTA bill.

The aggression started from the Paul side, not the Tancredo side.

Many Ron Paul supporters believe that Ron Paul's record on immigration is as good or better than Tom Tancredo's. I disagree. If Ron Paul supporters wish to continue contending that their candidate's record on immigration is as good as or better than Tom Tancredo, then they should be prepared for a discussion of Ron Paul's record in Congress on immigration.

I would be very happy from this point forward to confine my posts about Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and other candidates to their positions and voting record on the issues of legal immigration and illegal immigration. Until Tom Tancredo was attacked about things unrelated to immigration, I had no intention of posting anything about Ron Paul that did not relate to immigration.

Everything I have posted about Ron Paul in this thread that is about illegal immigration is accurate.

The incursion of Mexican troops into U.S. territory is highly relevant to the issue of border security in July 2007, just as it was on January 15, 2006, when this article was originally published.

Everyone, please vote for Tom Tancredo to stop this and many other problems that affect the United States.

Originally Posted by kniggit

Why the aggression from the Tancredo side to the Paul side? You post an article that is over a year and a half old just to turn it into a Tancredo/Paul debate? What is with all of this mud slinging towards Ron Paul? There are plenty of other candidates out there, why are you singling him out? Does Tancredo think he can take all the Paul supporters by smearing him?

I agree, this is highly unnecessary. We have a real issue with regards to the current invasion one that must be dealt with PRIOR to 2009. So, while we are all going to vote for the candidate we agree with most, we need to focus on actually doing our best to combat the issue at hand rather than trying to start fights over presidential candidate choices.

Sure, it will matter in fall / 2008, but theres no sense in this nonsense right now.

Originally Posted by Wyurm

Originally Posted by kniggit

Why the aggression from the Tancredo side to the Paul side? You post an article that is over a year and a half old just to turn it into a Tancredo/Paul debate? What is with all of this mud slinging towards Ron Paul? There are plenty of other candidates out there, why are you singling him out? Does Tancredo think he can take all the Paul supporters by smearing him?

I agree, this is highly unnecessary. We have a real issue with regards to the current invasion one that must be dealt with PRIOR to 2009. So, while we are all going to vote for the candidate we agree with most, we need to focus on actually doing our best to combat the issue at hand rather than trying to start fights over presidential candidate choices.

Sure, it will matter in fall / 2008, but theres no sense in this nonsense right now.

The Republican nomination for president will be decided by February 5, 2008. Unfortunately, my best guess is that the nominee will be Thompson, Romney or Rudy. Now is the time to be discussing the immigration voting records of potential nominees. As far the Democratic candidates, their records on immigration are all so horrible that they are not even worth discussing.

If you want to wait until the fall 2008 to discuss the voting records of presidential candidates on immigration, that is fine, but many people don't want to wait that long, including me.

If you consider posting a copy of a NumbersUSA webpage that provides the immigration voting record of a particular presidential candidate to be starting a fight, that's fine. However, I disagree with you.

I believe the immigration voting records of all the GOP presidential canidates should be discussed in July 2007.

Originally Posted by MountainDog

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Entry of Mexican troops into United States territory--nothing short of terorrism.

I would think it more an act of war.

Absolutely, without question. That is exactly why the military needs to be on the border.

As far as the Paul/Tancredo fued on this board. If Paul opposes putting US Marines or Army on the border to defend against Mexican Army units, he is wrong. End of story. If a foreign military is invading your soil, you have every right under the sun -- and even under international law -- to use you own military to repel it. When in history has ANY nation looked the other way when a foreign military repeatedly violated their territory? When has any nation debated whether they had the right to use their own military to confront foreign invasions? This is unheard of in the annals of military history. If anyone has an exception to what I just posted, bring it forward......I would bet my bottum dollar that the government in question was complicit in an annexation.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48357

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Mexican troops defiant: 'Border? What border?'
Military 'crosses into America 216 times during past 9 years'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 15, 2006
8:39 p.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com





The Mexican military has little regard for the border as troops have entered the United States 216 times over nine years, according to a Department of Homeland Security document and a map of incursions.

California's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin says U.S. officials claim the border-crossings are designed to help foreign drug and human smugglers gain safe access into American territory.


While the White House refused comment, a spokeswoman for the DHS said her department is in ongoing discussions with the Mexican government about the incursions.

"We – the Department of Homeland Security and the CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) – are determined to gain control of the border and will continue to collaborate with our partners on the border,'' Kristi Clemens told the paper.

The document indicates since 1996, Mexican military personnel made their way into the U.S. at the following Border Patrol sectors:


San Diego County, 17 times

El Centro, 58

Yuma, Ariz., 24

Tucson, Ariz., 39

El Paso, Texas, 33

Marfa, Texas, 8

Del Rio, Texas, 3

Laredo, Texas, 6

Rio Grande Valley, Texas, 28.
"That number [of 216] is 20 times larger than even the Minuteman project organizers are aware of,'' said Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, a civilian group concerned with border security. "But I'm not surprised at that number. There are significant drug and human cargo cartels involving Mexican military threatening Americans at the border. But our Congress has turned a blind eye to it because what the American people don't know won't bother them – that's how our representatives think.''

One border agent speaking on condition of anonymity told the Bulletin: "We've had armed showdowns with the Mexican army. ... These aren't just ex-military guys. These are Mexican army officials assisting drug smugglers.''

Officials with Mexico's government dispute the findings, claiming not a single crossing has been made by its troops.

"I strongly deny any incursion by the Mexican military on United States soil,'' said Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C. "When it comes to Mexican military on the southern side, I have no reports of them crossing into the United States. That would mean that the patrol got lost or lack of expertise and orientation. This could be smugglers with fake uniforms as a tactic to confuse the authorities.''

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said the high numbers of incursions show suggestions for increasing Border Patrol resources or building a border fence won't be enough to secure the boundary between the U.S. and Mexico.

"It is a military problem,'' said Tancredo. "We should commit the military to the border – tomorrow. I mean, with armor and weapons.''

Mexico is constantly committing acts of aggression against us. Between the matricula cards, the comic books about how to sneak across the border, the defense of illegals and their military incursions into the US. Our government should have declared war against them years ago.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by MountainDog

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Entry of Mexican troops into United States territory--nothing short of terorrism.

I would think it more an act of war.

Absolutely, without question. That is exactly why the military needs to be on the border.

As far as the Paul/Tancredo fued on this board. If Paul opposes putting US Marines or Army on the border to defend against Mexican Army units, he is wrong. End of story. If a foreign military is invading your soil, you have every right under the sun -- and even under international law -- to use you own military to repel it. When in history has ANY nation looked the other way when a foreign military repeatedly violated their territory? When has any nation debated whether they had the right to use their own military to confront foreign invasions? This is unheard of in the annals of military history. If anyone has an exception to what I just posted, bring it forward......I would bet my bottum dollar that the government in question was complicit in an annexation.

It is almost absurd to suggest that it is unconsitutional for the commander-in-chief of our military forces to place those forces on the Mexican border to guard that international border. Ron Paul said very clearly on The Terry Anderson Show that he opposes the U.S. military guarding our borders. He also said on that same show that he opposes the federalizing national guard units without the permission of governors. He believes that governors should decide whether national guard units go to the borders.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by MountainDog

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Entry of Mexican troops into United States territory--nothing short of terorrism.

I would think it more an act of war.

Absolutely, without question. That is exactly why the military needs to be on the border.

As far as the Paul/Tancredo fued on this board. If Paul opposes putting US Marines or Army on the border to defend against Mexican Army units, he is wrong. End of story. If a foreign military is invading your soil, you have every right under the sun -- and even under international law -- to use you own military to repel it. When in history has ANY nation looked the other way when a foreign military repeatedly violated their territory? When has any nation debated whether they had the right to use their own military to confront foreign invasions? This is unheard of in the annals of military history. If anyone has an exception to what I just posted, bring it forward......I would bet my bottum dollar that the government in question was complicit in an annexation.

It is almost absurd to suggest that it is unconsitutional for the commander-in-chief of our military forces to place those forces on the Mexican border to guard that international border. Ron Paul said very clearly on The Terry Anderson Show that he opposes the U.S. military guarding our borders. He also said on that same show that he opposes the federalizing national guard units without the permission of governors. He believes that governors should decide whether national guard units go to the borders.

Tancredo is who we need to support. Hunter is good too but not well known enough for a realistic bid (if Tancredo gets the nomination, Hunter could still run as VP though, even though Tancredo lacks the necessary name recognition he's still better known than Hunter)