WHAT? Mexican troops DISARMED American soldiers on the US side of the border!

Pentagon and DHS officials are demanding answers after two American soldiers were confronted and disarmed on the US side of the border by armed Mexican troops.

Here’s more from DC Examiner:

Armed Mexican troops disarmed two United States soldiers while they were on the American side of the border, U.S. defense officials have said.

U.S. Northern Command said in a statement that “five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations” this month. The U.S. soldiers were in an unmarked Customs and Border Protection [CBP] vehicle near the southwest border near Clint, Texas.

Officials confirmed that the Mexican troops were armed with what seemed to be rifles. They raised their weapons when they saw the two U.S. soldiers, and then took a pistol from one and put it in the CBP vehicle. According to officials talking to CNN, the two Americans obliged “in an attempt to de-escalate a potential volatile situation.”

“Throughout the incident, the U.S. soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols,” the statement said. The two U.S. troops were on the south side of the security perimeter but north of the Rio Grande and thus were in the U.S., according side American territory, it added.

Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security officials demanded an explanation from the Mexican government. “An inquiry by CBP and DOD [Department of Defense] revealed that the Mexican military members believed that the US Army soldiers were south of the border,” the statement said.

“Though they were south of the border fence, U.S. soldiers remained in U.S. territory, north of the actual border.”



Clint is very close to El Paso, which is opposite Ciudad Juarez.

I’m not familiar with the terrain down there but it would seem easy enough to know if you are north or south of the Rio Grande. It isn’t a huge river but you still have to cross it whether by boat or by bridge.

The question is why were Mexican troops on our side of the border anyway? Where they chasing drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?

While this should’ve never happened I suspect this will end up being a big misunderstanding, given that the CBP vehicle was unmarked.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

116 thoughts on “WHAT? Mexican troops DISARMED American soldiers on the US side of the border!

  1. Maybe there were no rules of engagement given.maybe they were Mexican Drug Cartel members disguised as Mexican troops.Maybe our troops were not given live ammunition and finally if they had of taken aggressive action maybe they felt our own Government would have prosecuted them.

  2. The idea of shutting down the border needs to gain steam. This is simply unacceptable BS for our men and women working on the border. I’m curious to see what Trump has to say about this.

  3. We need signs written in LARGE LETTERS and in Espanol so the Mexican troops understand where they are. If they do this again they should be found and prosecuted as illegals with guns. No excuses either.

  4. Doesn’t matter if they were in an unmarked vehicle or not. They have zero jurisdiction in the US. Not only that but they crossed over illegally so they should’ve been detained. Otherwise Mexico is sending military into the US without knowledge which is something the US can’t do. That’s either an act of war or a military style rescue which hacks off allies when you’re in their land without them knowing about it.

  5. “Where [sic] they chasing helping drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?”

    Fixed that for you.

  6. Given the porous border, I would be surprised if this did not happen on both sides. As long as they are able to solve this amicably, it should not really be a big deal … unless there is nefarious intent.

    1. Two uniformed soldiers in an unmarked vehicle against 5 Mexican army?

      Touch and go, man.

      And if those Federalis are guarding a cartel op? Another 15 or so armed drug runners?

      Discretion > valor.

  7. Could have been a misunderstanding being that it was an unmarked vehicle, but I don’t buy the claim they thought they were in Mexico. Sounds to me like they did it anyway despite the fact they were in the U.S.. Maybe just something so simple as wanting to be a-holes.

  8. Could have been a misunderstanding being that it was an unmarked vehicle, but I don’t buy the claim they thought they were in Mexico. Sounds to me like they did it anyway despite the fact they were in the U.S.. Maybe just something so simple as wanting to be a-holes.

  9. Oh, poo AT. Maybe, just maybe folks are fed up with the border situation. I am. I see no ‘rationalized murder’ or ‘prejudice’. Prejudice? Are you kidding with that one? Bring out that race card, baby. Every time. That’s very liberal.

    1. The prejudice is assuming, with no facts whatsoever, that these guys were playing cover for cartel runners.

      1. Apparently your psychopath comment was deleted. I was talking to a person who reads the articles and comments here, but doesn’t comment herself. She asked me who that AT person was and said that a whole lot of people sure hate you.

        1. @Dr. Strangelove I got that in my email for replies. Wondered where it was. Into the ether. I don’t hate AT. We just disagree…

          1. Odd. No, I don’t hate her either, let’s just say that she’s not someone who I’d choose as a friend.

            1. Doc, I’ve actually had some liberal friends who are a bit like AT. They enjoy rattling my cage occasionally, but there’s no real malice there. I think AT enjoys a little discord. It’s a bit amusing to me, considering the nuts I’ve dealt with on the internet. She’s not mean.

                1. “AT
                  Member
                  Noble Member
                  AT#1290887
                  Friends are overrated anyway.”

                  Ya gotta admit that’s a little petulant.

              1. @Renny Well, when I presented the facts to her about her mistaken beliefs on the rule of law, she got downright nasty and called me names. I’ve disagreed with just about everyone here at one time or another, but it’s usually done with a modicum of respect.

                1. You don’t present facts. You accuse me, baselessly, of being an anarchist and a cop-hater. And when you are challenged about anything, you immediately resort to fallacy instead of argument.

                  And you do this because you have a personal stake in that particular conversation, which clouds your ability to reason and be objective.

                2. I loved the way you said, “Blah, blah, blah.” but what really convinced me was when you followed up with, “Yada, yada, yada.”

                3. I like the way you had an position you couldn’t substantiate, particularly in the face of mine which you could not refute, so instead you called me names and ran away.

                4. You’re opinions are wrong about law enforcement, you just can’t admit it to yourself. You believe that you’re so intellectual you’re always right.

                5. See what I mean? You don’t talk about the merits of the argument, you talk about me. Argumentum ad hominem. Thank you for illustrating so perfectly.

                6. No, you called them (and me) names, appealed to a larger crowd to validate your position, and dismissed anything contrary to your conclusion out of hand.

                  Spouting fallacy isn’t refutation.

                  Honestly Doc, I don’t think you have what it takes to go the distance on that argument. You’re too prejudiced on account of your own fears and biases. It colors your objectivity.

                  Subjective blathering isn’t refutation either, btw.

                7. You called names. You’re projecting. And you never proved that highway enforcement was for monetary gain only. I know that you’ll never admit that you’re wrong, so you can have the last word.

                8. I never said it was for monetary gain only, that’s yet another misrepresentation of what I’ve said.

                  Which is par for the course. Keep on knocking down those straw men.

                9. No, I’m not.

                  But thanks for yet another ad hominem. Keep ’em coming. It’s all you have in your holster anyway. Continue proving me right.

        2. I’ve had a lot of posts deleted. Being against shooting people, and criticizing all you folks who seem to relish in the idea of it as a solution to our problems, is apparently taboo now.

          As for your friend – lol, investing that much emotionally into a random internet poster is taking this commenting thing too seriously.

          1. It was an observation on her part, no emotional investment. Your discordant, know-it-all attitude sticks out like a sore thumb.

            1. Hate’s a pretty strong word for the emotionally uninvested, but hey tell yourself whatever you please.

          2. Your posts are deleted because they violate comment policy, nothing more, nothing less. You think that the mods are like traffic cops?

            1. I like how mine violate policy, but the ones talking about opening fire into packs of civilians are totes legit.

                1. In the context of armed Mexicans capturing our troops and cartels shooting at us, absolutely. Read the comment policy if you are confused about why your posts are deleted and mine aren’t. After all, you seem to be the smartest person here, you should be able to figure it out.

                2. Then perhaps you should have said, “Let’s start shooting back.” Because the way you put it, in the context of avoiding “PC BS” was that we should just start shooting because no more mister nice guy.

                  Precision of language dude. If you don’t know how to use it, don’t.

                3. Semantics? That’s all you’ve got? You take a statement out of context and accuse me of being wrong. Just like a liberal. Sad.

                4. I read the statement exactly as it was written, and within the context of the post.

                  I’m sorry you’re not better with your words. Maybe you should consider further education. If you’d like, I could teach you.

                  For a fee, of course.

      2. Oh, AT, read that again. The assumption was that they may have been ‘chasing’ cartel members not covering for them.

          1. The point is the article. Oh, and no I don’t like that these military were on our side of the border. As Scoop points out it’s not hard to tell which side of the border you’re on there. Especially if they’re military. They should have known. Do you recall the Marine who took a wrong turn and ended up in a Mexican prison? It seems to be that they are much more harsh with only certain people, while ‘refugees’ get a pass on by. I find that strange.

            1. That’s because it’s in Mexico’s interests to dump all these Latin Americans at our doorstep.

  10. Heard one of AOC’S muzzie habib wearing Take something congressmen is calling for demoncraps is calling for all to do a hunger strike….hope they starve themselves.

  11. Mexico doesn’t stop illegals from passing through their country to go through our borders… why not let them get away with this BS too? I mean, it’s not like America is a powerful, sovereign nation. NO ONE can stop Mexicans from crossing our border!

    This sickens me. And yes, I was typing sarcastically. :exclamation:

    1. Yep, they just let those ‘refugees’ slip right by. But a couple of our guys and the weapons are out.

  12. In the San Diego Tijuana area I normally see U.S. and Mexican personnel in the area between two fence lines. It’s like a patrolling area. The exact line is difficult to pinpoint.

    Obviously the Rio Grande is a different story but if these were soldiers then something gave them the idea they were doing their job.

    If they were cartel disguised as soldiers, I doubt our service members would still be alive.

    1. All we need is our soldiers to be murdered by these lowlifes. What a travesty that would be, to have them survive being overseas in the war zones , only to be killed here on our sovereign border? It would be unspeakable.

      1. Not sure who you are referring to as “lowlifes”, probably don’t want to know.

        Most service members who have joined and are in their first or even second enlistment have not and most likely won’t see combat (many still go overseas for admin or training positions). Thankfully we are having a lull in operations with mainly SOF personnel overseas fighting.

        1. The people who detained our troops are the lowlifes. There ‘splained it to ya so you could understand.

  13. I guess if Mexico is allowed to get away with this act on our side of the Border it is a great way to rearm themselves with better equipment.

      1. Thanks HHNOLIKEE,that was a lot easier to do then sending Troops across our border.I wonder if Holder and Obama will ever be prosecuted for that little trick that ended up killing at least one of our own.

        1. If not they should be, but then they learned from the Clintons how to get away with murder.

          1. Obama Being elected was the perfect scenario for the Clintons and others like them to change the direction of this Country.

  14. Maybe there were no rules of engagement given.maybe they were Mexican Drug Cartel members disguised as Mexican troops.Maybe our troops were not given live ammunition and finally if they had of taken aggressive action maybe they felt our own Government would have prosecuted them.

  15. Doesn’t matter if they were in an unmarked vehicle or not. They have zero jurisdiction in the US. Not only that but they crossed over illegally so they should’ve been detained. Otherwise Mexico is sending military into the US without knowledge which is something the US can’t do. That’s either an act of war or a military style rescue which hacks off allies when you’re in their land without them knowing about it.

  16. SCOOP: WERE (not where) they chasing drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?

    Doubtful. They were likely there to facilitate and / or assist the movement of illegal migrants into the United States.

  17. We need signs written in LARGE LETTERS and in Espanol so the Mexican troops understand where they are. If they do this again they should be found and prosecuted as illegals with guns. No excuses either.

  18. The idea of shutting down the border needs to gain steam. This is simply unacceptable BS for our men and women working on the border. I’m curious to see what Trump has to say about this.

  19. Keep in mind that there are places on the Texas/Mexico border where the border is on the South/West side of the Rio Grande. There are no signs. Lots of places there’s no fence and certainly no wall.

    You can literally be “across the river” and still be in the US.

    Most of those places are way down past Banderas, though. Not way up by Clint.

      1. You can be north of the river, still in the US, but also on the Mexican side in some places. I’ve walked every inch of that border. It’s easy to get confused. No so much near Clint, but not impossible to get turned around.

        The border doesn’t follow the river exactly. And the “fence” isn’t always on the border. That’s all I’m saying.

    1. @Texas Chris I know that GPS has Spanish on it, that’s how the non-English speakers get around illegally driving commercial vehicles.

      1. GPS will get you in trouble. GPS will have you on the wrong side of the fence, still in the US, but exposed to the border.

  20. “Where [sic] they chasing helping drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?”

    Fixed that for you.

  21. Given the porous border, I would be surprised if this did not happen on both sides. As long as they are able to solve this amicably, it should not really be a big deal … unless there is nefarious intent.

    1. Two uniformed soldiers in an unmarked vehicle against 5 Mexican army?

      Touch and go, man.

      And if those Federalis are guarding a cartel op? Another 15 or so armed drug runners?

      Discretion > valor.

  22. I am incensed that our troops were detained. On our side of the border. Arrrrrrrgh! We might as well not have any troops there. Beginning to believe we should shoot first and ask questions later.

  23. They were probably there to protect cartel members. Enough of this PC BS, let’s start shooting. That’ll get their attention.

    1. @dr-strangelove
      With the militias roaming around near the border, plus the large numbers of border jumper invaders there now, it’s only a matter of time before someone starts shooting. With thousands more invaders on the way, it’s a powder keg about to be touched off. Then all hell is going to break loose, especially if the border property owners decide enough is enough and join the fray.

      Buckle up.

  24. I told my husband about this who is retired BP…He said they had encounters with them like this many times during his time there. It was always kept quiet…

    1. What great neighbors we have. Wars have been started for less provocation than they’re giving us. Not that we should. Just sayin’.

  25. “W[h]ere they chasing drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?” I can guarantee you the Mexican soldiers were aiding drug smugglers to get through the area from Juarez into Texas… the Federal, State and local police do not stop anyone being “escorted” by the Mexican military.

  26. Oh, poo AT. Maybe, just maybe folks are fed up with the border situation. I am. I see no ‘rationalized murder’ or ‘prejudice’. Prejudice? Are you kidding with that one? Bring out that race card, baby. Every time. That’s very liberal.

  27. Heard one of AOC’S muzzie habib wearing Take something congressmen is calling for demoncraps is calling for all to do a hunger strike….hope they starve themselves.

  28. Mexico doesn’t stop illegals from passing through their country to go through our borders… why not let them get away with this BS too? I mean, it’s not like America is a powerful, sovereign nation. NO ONE can stop Mexicans from crossing our border!

    This sickens me. And yes, I was typing sarcastically. :exclamation:

  29. In the San Diego Tijuana area I normally see U.S. and Mexican personnel in the area between two fence lines. It’s like a patrolling area. The exact line is difficult to pinpoint.

    Obviously the Rio Grande is a different story but if these were soldiers then something gave them the idea they were doing their job.

    If they were cartel disguised as soldiers, I doubt our service members would still be alive.

  30. I guess if Mexico is allowed to get away with this act on our side of the Border it is a great way to rearm themselves with better equipment.

  31. SCOOP: WERE (not where) they chasing drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?

    Doubtful. They were likely there to facilitate and / or assist the movement of illegal migrants into the United States.

  32. Keep in mind that there are places on the Texas/Mexico border where the border is on the South/West side of the Rio Grande. There are no signs. Lots of places there’s no fence and certainly no wall.

    You can literally be “across the river” and still be in the US.

    Most of those places are way down past Banderas, though. Not way up by Clint.

      1. You can be north of the river, still in the US, but also on the Mexican side in some places. I’ve walked every inch of that border. It’s easy to get confused. No so much near Clint, but not impossible to get turned around.

        The border doesn’t follow the river exactly. And the “fence” isn’t always on the border. That’s all I’m saying.

    1. @Texas Chris I know that GPS has Spanish on it, that’s how the non-English speakers get around illegally driving commercial vehicles.

  33. I am incensed that our troops were detained. On our side of the border. Arrrrrrrgh! We might as well not have any troops there. Beginning to believe we should shoot first and ask questions later.

  34. They were probably there to protect cartel members. Enough of this PC BS, let’s start shooting. That’ll get their attention.

    1. @dr-strangelove
      With the militias roaming around near the border, plus the large numbers of border jumper invaders there now, it’s only a matter of time before someone starts shooting. With thousands more invaders on the way, it’s a powder keg about to be touched off. Then all hell is going to break loose, especially if the border property owners decide enough is enough and join the fray.

      Buckle up.

  35. I told my husband about this who is retired BP…He said they had encounters with them like this many times during his time there. It was always kept quiet…

    1. What great neighbors we have. Wars have been started for less provocation than they’re giving us. Not that we should. Just sayin’.

  36. “W[h]ere they chasing drug cartel members or migrants trying to cross the border?” I can guarantee you the Mexican soldiers were aiding drug smugglers to get through the area from Juarez into Texas… the Federal, State and local police do not stop anyone being “escorted” by the Mexican military.

Comments are closed.