Judicial Watch • Mexican Military Holds Border Patrol at Gunpoint Inside U.S.

Mexican Military Holds Border Patrol at Gunpoint Inside U.S.

Mexican Military Holds Border Patrol at Gunpoint Inside U.S.

APRIL 02, 2014

In the latest Mexican military incursion into the United States, two heavily armed camouflaged soldiers from Mexico actually crossed 50 yards inside Arizona and held American Border Patrol agents at gunpoint in a tense confrontation.

Armed with assault-style weapons, the Mexican soldiers retreated back south after a 35-minute standoff as if nothing ever happened and the Obama administration just let it slide. The unbelievable foray was made public by a mainstream newspaper that obtained government documents with alarming details of the January 26 incident. Specifically, the paper cites the Border Patrol Foreign Military Incursion report and a separate letter from U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, an Obama appointee who was recently sworn in.

The Mexican soldiers were spotted by a Border Patrol agent entering the U.S. about 2.5 miles west of Sasabe Arizona shortly before 9 a.m. A second federal agent positively identified the two individuals in tan, digital camouflage uniforms, on foot traveling westbound, on the United States side of the International Boundary Fence Line, according to the report obtained by the newspaper. The Mexicans misidentified themselves to U.S. Border agents and claimed to be pursuing drug smugglers, the government documents say.

Kerlikowske admits that the intruders were “confirmed members of the Mexican military” but he asserts that U.S. border officials determined that no further action was necessary involving the matter. Like a loyal Obama lapdog Kerlikowske claims military incursions from Mexico are infrequent though he was apparently forced to admit that there were 23 incidents in the Tucson and Yuma sectors of Arizona since 2010, including three this fiscal year alone.

The latest incursion was one of the most serious in recent years, according to U.S. officials that apparently didn’t want their name printed in the newspaper. The same officials, clearly insiders privy to information that’s not made public, seem to indicate that Mexican soldiers aren’t chasing drug smugglers but rather protecting cartels as they transport their cargo into the United States through the treacherous desert.

Not surprisingly, Mexico’s government long denied that its soldiers were involved in the January incursion and initially suggested the men were drug smugglers somehow clad in military uniforms. When reporters confronted Mexican officials with the evidence the embassy changed its story to this: “Those individuals were part of a counter-narcotics operation, which had taken place a few minutes prior on the Mexican side of the border,” said Ariel Moutsatsos, minister for press and public affairs at the Mexican Embassy. “The two members of the Mexican army did not see any sign notifying them that they were crossing the border.”

The official version from the U.S. Embassy in Mexico is that incursions happen and that they are “unintentional.” No worries, says an American Embassy spokesperson quoted in the story, because U.S. officials work closely with their Mexican counterparts to ensure respect for the border and to return them quickly to Mexican territory. “The bilateral collaboration in these incidents testifies to the strength of our security cooperation,” the U.S. Embassy official said.

Judicial Watch has done a lot of work in this area and has obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that show Mexican military incursions occur quite often and go unpunished by the U.S. For instance, the DHS documents reveal 226 incursions by Mexican government personnel into the U.S. occurred between 1996 and 2005. In 2007 alone, 25 incursions occurred along the U.S.-Mexico border involving Mexican military and/or law enforcement. The problem has only gotten worse over the years, according to the records obtained in the course of JW’s ongoing investigation.

A few years ago police in Phoenix Arizona reported that three members of Mexico’s army conducted a violent home invasion and assassination operation that killed one person and littered a neighborhood with gunfire. The Mexican military officers were hired by one of that country’s renowned drug cartels to carry out the deadly operation, according to Phoenix police officials, who confirmed the soldiers were armed with AR-15 assault rifles and dressed in military tactical gear. An official police memorandum describes it as a “drug rip,” a tactical assault in which approximately 100 rounds were fired.

Sign Up for Updates!

Read more about

© 2010-2015 Judicial Watch, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



  • JoeW6558

    I understood what James was saying…quit being spelling Nazi.

  • Shawn

    Seriously? Grammar lessons? Whats next, going to tell people the correct way to wipe their arse?

  • Roy Mallmann

    can we charged Mexico for the expense of supporting their citizens who entered the U.S. illegally?

  • letmeeatcake

    …yes…i am agreement…i not unerstand everthing but i think it ok for stop a usa border patrol…you are right…there is no excuse…
    Subject: Re: New comment posted on Mexican Military Holds Border Patrol at Gunpoint Inside U.S.

  • troye68

    “…this good news”…now usa…

    Okay, stop. Do you have no shift key or capitalization function if other than a QWRTY keyboard in the case of a laptop? “USA Border Patrol” is the correct expression…but then…”know how it fee for be stop for no reason”….What excuse for grammar, syntax and subject/verb agreement is this supposed to be?!

  • troye68

    “So while were they were here”? Then you end the question “Why did we not give them some illegals to take home with them?” using a full-stop? Spell “opportunity” with TWO Ps “They cross the border and then take some of ‘there’ own citizens back with them”? “Their”- “Their” is the plural possessive pronoun; “There” is a preposition. You need to proof-read before publishing.

  • Fr Jim Rosselli

    That’s it? That’s what you’ve got? This is what constitutes an argument? Please–one-liners are fine, my friend, but at least
    reply to the content at the same time.

  • James Bergen

    So while they were here? Why did we not give them some illegals to take home with them. Sounds like a wasted oportunity to me. We need to have better comunication with them. They cross the border and then take some of there own citizens back with them. No problem there. Just don’t let them turn around and go home.

  • http://www.grinolsson.com/ Grin Olsson

    The Mexican incursion isn’t as bad as our own government stopping Americans on American soil, wasting our time to ask if we are Americans so they can have their dogs sniff our cars under this pretext. Not to mention some of our border guards noted to have shot weapons at Mexican children throwing rocks – my gosh – maybe they are pursuing criminals in the heat of a crime. God only knows – but I think we should open the borders of Mexico and Canada back up like they were when I was a kid. Why?

    Well it seems to me that 9/11/2001 was the pretext to build the Mexican wall and ethnic cleanse Mexicans from our nation – and I have real problem with this concept because the terrorists were Saudi Arabians ie: Sunni Muslims – who haven’t been banned and in fact have increased from 1970 of 100,000 to over 9 million Sunni Muslims in America today. And these new residents don’t believe in Christian oaths, have a citizenship (brotherhood) to a conceptual nation – (Ummah Islam) with a political agenda – sharia law – and a military agenda – jihadists to back up their future goals of overthrowing our government. To be honest, I prefer the Catholic Mexicans and not to mention Mexicans and Canadians have always been part of our American history. As for the Muslims – the only thing I recall being taught is that President Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli to stop Islamic pirates from attacking our ships and enslaving our American citizens.

  • gemini1971

    Yup! I have a reply for you ….you’re an IDIOT! Bwa..ha…ha…ha!

  • Jerry Lynch

    What an idiotic non-reply. If you have nothing to say, then keep your trap shut so you don’t catch flies.

  • gemini1971

    This is what smoking pot will do to your brain, your brain has been reduced into size of a peanut!

  • letmeeatcake

    …this good news…now usa border patrol know how it feel for be stop for no reason…

  • Yankee Mike Bravo

    If by “stolen” you mean bought and paid for pursuant to the treaty ending the war which began because Mexican troops ambushed American troops inside U.S., then the answer is yes.

  • Mike1983

    What about every other president before him?? Did they build a wall?
    You are obviously an uneducated idiot!!!!!!!

  • purple1960


  • Do Whatchyalike


  • NigelDixon

    Well yes, the gringos did build that six lane highway themselves. Before that it was a single lane dirt track.

  • rubio321

    A Mexican friend told me the story of his crossing the border from Tiajuana to San Diego with his children on their way to Disneyland. One of his children remarked on the great six lane highway and how nice things looked. The child looked at her father and asked the following question: :Daddy didn’t this all belong to Mexico?” The father answered that yes it did! The little girl replied “Gee the Gringos took the best part!”

  • rubio321

    Israel has a 30 foot concrete fence to stop incursions. Socialist Obummer welcomes these problems so he can call up the president of Mexico and explain, he is protecting Mexican citizens. If these people can walk across the border and disappear like so many other illegals, how do we know they are not terrorists? Do we have to wait until they blow something up? Obummer is the biggest disgrace this country has had in its history.

  • Richard G Morrison

    And I have read yours. The things you are not are legion. The things you are are unprintable. And you can stop screaming anytime.

  • Richard G Morrison

    Absolutely correct. And that’s what nations, all nations, do to other nations with desirable assets, if they’re weak enough.

  • purple1960

    i dont know how a liberal like you types with his hands over his head all day….

  • Garamasala

    Wasnt arizona part of mexico that was stolen by polk?

  • Jerry Lynch

    My wife is not hiding from me. The child being hidden from me is with his mother, my ex girlfriend , not my wife, but who is a member of a religious cult run by a convicted murderer. Just search the Philippine Benevolent Missionary Association (PBMA) and its leader Ruben Ecleo Jr. and draw some conclusions for yourself.

    As for being a “useful idiot” I may be useful, but idiot I am not. You have not said a single word about the event in the article, just made a pathetic attempt to attack the messenger instead of engaging your brain about the message.

    If you think it absolutely necessary to puff up like a blowfish afraid for your life, why don’t you read some of the other comments by people wh happen tp agree with me that policemen either mistakenly or even criminally 50 yards on the wrong side of the border is not something the US needs to or should go to war over. At this point it is not yet determined if the people were mistaken or if they were protecting drug or human traffickers. You are saying to just go to war over something that may or may not have happened? The Shrub went to war in Iraq and he KNEW the reasons for doing so were lies and he fed them to us anyway.

  • purple1960


  • purple1960


  • Jerry Lynch

    Yup, just go to war when the military makes a mistake and crosses our huge border? Sounds to me like your middle name(s) is George W Bush, otherwise known as The Shrub. While it is possible that those soldiers were protecting smugglers, it certainly is not something worth going to war over. Get a life outside FOX Pseudo News why doncha!

  • http://www.vsla.net/ Kenhubert

    OK, then what do you suggest? That we go to war with Mexico? I really think that the US hasn’t got a great deal to fear from a couple of lost troopers.

  • Tom Hope

    Oblaba won’t do anything against illegals but harass our own citizens NOTE THEY WERE THE BLM
    When will we fight????

  • steve h.

    Hay there bro, lets see your facts on this situation, what Newspaper, and documents you are talking about, Need the Facts. This is not Fox No News Facts Channel. We deal in the truth. Jan 29 of what year? Need time to make up something??? Give me a Break?

  • steve h

    Yes, and you are another right wing nut getting his 15 minutes of shame???

  • steve h.

    This just go to show you, the Judicial Watch will do anything to sell newsprint. Give me a break??? They just stood there for 30 minutes trying to get dates???

  • Fr Jim Rosselli

    An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a civilian, semi-automatic rifle that fires one round at a time. If the Mexicans were carrying assault rifles, they were either M-16s or M-4s. One would think this writer would know the difference.

    As for the rest, it’s just another day in Obamaville, the Democrat utopia.

  • valsor

    Bottom line is that one cannot have open uncontrolled borders where drugs and illegal workers pass through without consequences.

  • MexVike

    Its Quid Pro Quo….we have DEA agents doing all kinds of nasty stuff on the Mexico side, all under the dont ask dont tell type of shrug from the Mexico Military. Im a US citizen with a business down here in Mexico and we see the unfiltered news that the puppet MSM feeds US Citizens in reference to the supposed war on drugs and so called Mexico border protection. Any US citizen that reacts to this report as offensive or schoking, really needs to wake up. Its been very well documented as well as very well hushed up that the CIA and DEA both have encouraged and allowed all kinds of illegal drugs to flow in from Mexico.

    The reasons why are so obvious.

    Further, its also well documented that Ex Mexico President Vicente Fox openly encouraged his citizens to cross illegaly to the US, and the US Fed of couse obliged, all for the purpose to obtain those so called low paying wages so they could then remit cash back to Mexico and of course many of US corporations earned higher profit margins on the worrk of the illegals……..and later as newly prosperous Mexico citizens in the US, Fox encouraged the Meico Congress to allow Mexicans living in the US to vote in Mexico Elections.

    The war on drugs as well as illegal imigration is a farce and should be confronted as such, even with just 2 US States legalizing marijuana has started the drug dealers down here to start to abandon long term plans on weed (by the way Ex President Fox is openly soliciting to grow pot on his vast farm land bordering with Texas and ship it legaly to the US market calling Mexico weed the best in the world), and focusing now on synthetic drugs with the Chinese mafia.

    Decriminializing pot and opening a temporary job workers visa for Mexico and Latinamerican work force makes better sense, the vast majority of those wokers truly are just hard working honest people whom $7.00 an hour is more than the $6.50 per day minimum wage thats paid in Mexico for example.

    Shame on the politics on both sides of the border making life more difficult for decent people in the pursuit of a dignified life.

  • Cal

    Constitutionally and lawfully speaking, the federal government does not now, nor has it ever had, any lawful authority over our borders. It is assigned the duty to decide what it takes to become a citizen of the USA. The rest is up to the states.

    US Constitution, Article I. Section. 8. Clause 4 – To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    The duties of the executive branch are:
    Article. II.Section. 2.
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
    Section. 3.
    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Notice that nowhere is listed that the federal government defends our borders, only that it creates the rules by which an immigrant can become a US citizen – and ONLY the legislative branch can do that.

    So when a federal agency tries to dictate to a state about that concerns only that state’s LAWFUL authority, not the federal governments, they are attacking that state unlawfully.

    Any branch that takes power from another branch, or that tries to take power from the states that was NOT assigned to the federal government they are “usurping” power – a crime. When they use force they are making war on that state. (War: ‘Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations’)

    It is up to the Militia of each state to protect it’s borders, and they may request the assistance of another state.

    Our LEGITIMATE government, the Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11:

    “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

    The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

    Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised:

    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

    * NOTE: The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allowed time of two years for the support of a “standing military” was/and still is a misappropriation of funds (misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official…), a felony, a crime against the American people.

    Clause 15 requires of the congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS”.

    This clause is very straightforward also. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.

    Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

    When the founders created the US Constitution they realized that we would never be able to count on state and federal representatives or agencies to protect our lives, property, and freedom. They decided to continue with what the people here had already been using, and the one proven throughout history to have the best needs of the people themselves always put first, the Militia of the several states. Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.

    Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People”. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

    Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

    The forefathers wouldn’t put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made. Then they assigned the duty of organizing, arming, and disciplining each state’s militia to the federal congress; and to each state the appointment of their Militia’s officers and their training; all under Article I, Section. 8, Clause 16.

    The Second Amendment was and IS to preserve and guarantee the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms, it does not grant them.

    What the framers, courts, newspapers of that time period, and the people said about the Militia, and the Second Amendment.

    Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    Samuel Adams: “Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes.  Whenever a people … entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
    And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.

    William Rawle, whose work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions, and was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:
    “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

    Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    George Mason: “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” and

    “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State.”

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

    Cockrum vs State: The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.

    James Madison: An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.

    James Madison: … large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

    You must now understand that ONLY the Militia of the several states has the constitutionally assigned duty to defend US borders, while the federal government – LEGISLATIVE branch has the duty to create the rules by which an immigrant may become an American citizen. The feds have no lawful duty regarding our borders at all.

Sign Up for Updates!