Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I didn't say I would travel to Juarez with Texas plates - that would be as bad as having Mexican plates of some kind since many of the cartel now live on the Texas and New Mexico side of the border and have TX or NM plates.
I give up on trying to figure out exactly what plates you think people are ok or not ok to have on their cars. Maybe we should just keep three or four sets of plates in the trunk and stop and pop on the appropriate plates as we travel from place to another?
Even when people used to cross back and forth without anything, it was supposed to be through the legal ports of entry. Here where the fence was down or non-existent, and you could easily hike or ride a horse into Mexico and back to the USA, I'm not sure you were really supposed to but those days ended some time ago. I sure haven't heard of anyone doing that recently (as in years) mostly because people began to encounter problems, not with border patrol which was never out there then but with bad people.
• U.S. citizens entering the United States at sea or land ports of entry are required to have documents that comply with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), most commonly a U.S. passport, a passport card, a trusted traveler card such as NEXUS, SENTRI or FAST, or an enhanced driver's license. See the complete list of WHTI-compliant documents.
You are not comprehending something very basic here - for purposes of immigration, people on the surface of the lake are not considered as entering the country until they land. Therefore, the documentation requirements do not apply.
Water bodies are handled differently than land. That is demonstrated by the treaty I showed you.
International treaties obligate the federal government to comply with their terms and supercede and conflicting federal law. The only way to nullify a treaty is for Congress to formally rescind it. They cannot do so by merely [passing a new federal law that changes it.
Prove it. Let's see the link. I gave you the link - a .gov site no less - of the international treaty (which supercedes domestic law until rescinded) expressly giving citizens of both countries access to all surface areas of the lake. Show me that this was rescinded.
I guess that's Article 18:
ARTICLE 18
Public use of the water surface of lakes formed by international dams shall, when not harmful to the services rendered by such dams, be free and common to both countries, subject to the police regulations of each country in its territory, to such general regulations as may appropriately be prescribed and enforced by the Commission with the approval of the two Governments for the purpose of the application of the provisions of this Treaty, and to such regulations as may appropriately be prescribed and enforced for the same purpose by each Section of the Commission with respect to the areas and borders of such parts of those lakes as lie within its territory. Neither Government shall use for military purposes such water surface situated within the territory of the other country except by express agreement between the two Governments.
That right there might be why the cartel decided the lake was perfect for their operations. We allow them full use of it, they can easily transport whatever it is they want to transport across it and on over to either side.
The way things are, it's foolish that we leave such a large portion of the border completely unguarded - while the cartel keeps it's look-outs on both sides, our government ceded all control to them.
There is both corruption and lack of any kind of enforcement over the entire border that has allowed the cartels to take control over it.
You are not comprehending something very basic here - for purposes of immigration, people on the surface of the lake are not considered as entering the country until they land. Therefore, the documentation requirements do not apply.
Water bodies are handled differently than land. That is demonstrated by the treaty I showed you.
International treaties obligate the federal government to comply with their terms and supercede and conflicting federal law. The only way to nullify a treaty is for Congress to formally rescind it. They cannot do so by merely [passing a new federal law that changes it.
I'm not failing to comprehend that the border is very wide open and essentially unenforced - which is why the cartels have become so very powerful. I know it's extremely easy for anyone to cross over the border - land or sea or damned up lake. Our government fails to enforce much of anything at all, and the Mexican government fails to enforce anything at all. Into the void came the cartels.
Still - that doesn't mean people living along the border wouldn't know that the cartel runs Tamaulipas and the lake. The lake is perfect for smuggling and so why wouldn't you suspect the cartel is there doing just that? And of course it's lookouts have easy access to any portion of that lake (just like they have over the entire border). As easy as it is to cross over any portion of that border doesn't mean you have much common sense if you do.
Even if someone carefully reads that treaty, they would have to know that USA laws aren't going to protect them on that lake especially if they go way into the Mexican channels.
Lastly - it's easy for the USA to point fingers and say it's corruption and lawlessness in Mexico that created the cartels but in order for the cartels to operate so freely and openly on the border, it requires a lot of corruption and lawlessness in the USA - corruption and apathy that run all the way to the very top.
I've said it many times - our government knows full well how the drugs are brought over from Mexico. Not to mention 30 million or more illegals. If you try to cross that border with a parakeet or some fresh avocados, they're going to stop you, then they're sharp about detecting what's coming over the border.
But meanwhile a violent group of people can set up lookouts for their operation on both sides of the border and do whatever they please and the USA government sits idle. They can take control over a damned laked from both governments to run contraband and even now after some innocent couple was killed because the cartel lookouts mistook them for another cartel, the border remains just as open and unenforced as it has been all along.
Other treaties get changed and modified but no one wants to tell the cartel it cannot do what it wishes with the surface of that lake, so it will continue controlling it.
I agree with you absolutely in those two posts about how we are essentially leaving our borders wide open and letting the cartels have free access. I wouldn't argue against rescinding that treaty and clamping down.
All I am saying is that trying to cast doubt on this couple by alleging they were illegally entering Mexico is incorrect. And nobody ever suggested that USA laws would protect anyone within Mexican territory. Land, sea, or air.
However, you say the cartel controls Tamaulipas and the lake, and earlier said they should have known better than to cross the lake so does that mean they also should have known better to live in Tamaulipas? The cartel is found all along the border. Why would someone living along the border learn to live daily with it yet be afraid of a specific area where no violent murders have been recorded? Sure it's a prime smuggling location. At night. They aren't running boat loads of drugs across the lake during day time and this couple wasn't going across at night.
Lastly - it's easy for the USA to point fingers and say it's corruption and lawlessness in Mexico that created the cartels but in order for the cartels to operate so freely and openly on the border, it requires a lot of corruption and lawlessness in the USA - corruption and apathy that run all the way to the very top.
I would be careful about equating corruption and apathy. They are very different animals.
I think the situation exists mostly as a matter of politics. The USA catches flak from Mexico every time they try to do anything to tighten up the border. Congress wants to build a wall and Mexico fights it tooth and nail, and don't kid yourself if you think a lot of the domestic opposition isn't fueled and funded by them. Arizona tries to tighten up against illegals and Mexico files lawsuits as if they suddenly are concerned about the rights and liberties of U.S. citizens.
Treaties are tough to change. Amending them requires the agreement of all parties. Otherwise, all one side can do unilaterally is rescind it in whole. Mexico would probably threaten something stupid like tearing down the dam on their side thus reducing the lake to a river. A lake is actually a lot easier to defend than a river.
I've been watching "Border Wars" on the National Geographic channel. In an episode about Rio Grande City (near Falcon Lake) the border patrol commented on neighborhood houses being used by lookouts .. "they see use coming and warn the smugglers". The BP seems understaffed with many episodes showing a few guards hiding in the woods then running around a field trying to catch illegals in the dark. A more military operation with more men, better tactics, communications, & command&control would seem to be a more effective solution if the gov't was serious. The downside is that so far it's more of a game with illegals surrendering peacefully and with good relations with their captors - a more combat type operation might raise the stakes and the danger. I'd have no problems with an Iraqi type operation on the border but with the aim of capturing not killing.
I would be careful about equating corruption and apathy. They are very different animals.
I think the situation exists mostly as a matter of politics. The USA catches flak from Mexico every time they try to do anything to tighten up the border. Congress wants to build a wall and Mexico fights it tooth and nail, and don't kid yourself if you think a lot of the domestic opposition isn't fueled and funded by them. Arizona tries to tighten up against illegals and Mexico files lawsuits as if they suddenly are concerned about the rights and liberties of U.S. citizens.
Treaties are tough to change. Amending them requires the agreement of all parties. Otherwise, all one side can do unilaterally is rescind it in whole. Mexico would probably threaten something stupid like tearing down the dam on their side thus reducing the lake to a river. A lake is actually a lot easier to defend than a river.
I think it's more than apathy. For one our government is taking all kinds of tax payer money for some so-called "war on drugs" and homeland security and all that fraud it's convinced us it's doing. They're using too much of our money to believe it's just apathy.
There is no war on drugs when our government has every reason to know how drugs are getting shipped over the border and makes no real effort to stop it. Many drugs come right on over the legal ports of entry - tons of them, as well as illegals but also through the unguarded, unfenced regions, treaty or no treaty.
Both governments really should have seen it coming, they allowed the cartels to grow, they knew the nature of these groups but apathy and corruption both, they act like they just didn't realize the cartels were getting to be more powerful than the governments. I think it's an act and it still is a matter of follow the money. There are big bribes made - on both sides of the border that allow this to go on.
It's crazy because Juarez has now unraveled into a full-out blood bath and still nothing is done. Apparently the powers that be have decided to let it play itself out - or else this is all going according to plan.
I've been watching "Border Wars" on the National Geographic channel. In an episode about Rio Grande City (near Falcon Lake) the border patrol commented on neighborhood houses being used by lookouts .. "they see use coming and warn the smugglers". The BP seems understaffed with many episodes showing a few guards hiding in the woods then running around a field trying to catch illegals in the dark. A more military operation with more men, better tactics, communications, & command&control would seem to be a more effective solution if the gov't was serious. The downside is that so far it's more of a game with illegals surrendering peacefully and with good relations with their captors - a more combat type operation might raise the stakes and the danger. I'd have no problems with an Iraqi type operation on the border but with the aim of capturing not killing.
Brilliant idea! The US, Canada, and the UK are the only nations on the planet that entirely trust the border protection issue to civilian police forces. Practically every other nation uses the military as the border patrol, or has some form of militarized/paramilitary police force working alongside the customs agency. In Australia for example the border guard duties are split between the Australian Customs Service (armed officers and has armed patrol boats with .50 machine guns and M240 machine guns), the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Army (the regional surveillance units), the Royal Australian Air Force (maritime reconnaissance), and the Royal Australian Navy (which performs the bulk of the coastal patrols via the 14 Armindale class patrol boats on the RAN roster). In France, the border guard duties are split between the French Customs Directorate (which is a paramilitary force run by the Finance Ministry) and the French National Gendarmerie (paramilitary police branch of the French military, they also handle military police duties and protect the French president among other misc duties).
In fact, until about 2007 the Canadian border agents dident even carry firearms nor did their predecessors in the Canadian Customs Service, if they needed armed support they had to call the Mounties (RCMP) or the local police force to come help them. In the UK, HM Revenue & Customs officers previously were armed and HMRC had their own armed vessels separate from the Royal Navy but in the 1970s their weapons were taken away and they have had to rely on local police authorized firearms officers for armed support or have the Royal Navy stop a non-compliant vessel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
