Prelude to a Mexican Invasion of Texas

[Knife]

Unmanned Mexican drone crashes near El Paso Texas.

Unmanned Mexican Drone Crashes Near El Paso, Texas


A remote-control drone operated by the Mexican government crashed in the United States near El Paso, Texas, this week, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency confirms to TPM.

"CBP/U.S. Border Patrol responded to a concerned citizen's call and recovered small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle which belonged to the government of Mexico (GOM)," CBP Press Officer Roger Maier told TPM in an e-mail. "We worked collaboratively with the GOM and other US Federal agencies to coordinate the return of the UAV to the GOM."

A spokesperson for the National Transportation Safety Board, which is leading the investigation, tells TPM that the plane that crashed was a "mini orbiter UAV" but declined to elaborate further. A Google search turns up a drone called a Orbiter Mini UAV made by Aeronautics Defense Systems, an Israeli company (check out the brochure and a video of the Orbiter in action here and here).

The news was first reported in The El Paso Times, which reported that the drone crashed in El Paso's Lower Valley on Tuesday. "I was told that it crashed in somebody's back yard, and that no one was injured. I was paged at 6:28 p.m. on Tuesday, so it happened shortly before that. We were told it was not a police matter," El Paso Police Department spokesman Mike Baranyay told the Times. The Times suggests that the crashed drone was returned to the Mexico government by U.S. authorities at one of the bridges which span the U.S.-Mexico border.

Keith Holloway, the NTSB Public Affairs Officer, told TPM that his agency was still collecting data on the incident, but that it would not be sending people to the crash site to investigate.

"We may or may not do a report on this," Holloway said.

Last year, Mexico spent $23.25 million to buy an "unspecified" number of Hermes 450 drones from the Israel-based Elbit Systems Ltd., Reuters reported in August. In July, the blog mxsecurity.wordpress.com reported that The Mexican Navy's Institute for Technology Innovation was developing three Unmanned Aerial Vehicles of its own, having previously purchased a "similar number" of UAVs made by Hydra Technologies.

The Department of Homeland Security started flying a Predator-B drone out of Corpus Christi, Texas in September. According to The Arizona Daily Star, the U.S. now how seven Predator-B drones operating on the border, with three more scheduled to begin operation before the end of 2011. In April 2006, a Predator-B drone crashed while on patrol near Nogales, Arizona.

You know, you really don't think about other countries are doing intel patrols and such and such, but they do; so I'm not surprised by this at all. That said, I like most American's live in a bubble sometimes and don't think stuff like this should, would, or could happen. Wonder which nut-job GOPer will want to put AAA on the boarder now?

[Stark]

America IS the country that gets outraged when its spyplanes are shot down by other countries over their own land, after all.

The American response to this sort of thing will be interesting.

[Talhe]

The right wing will be vindicated that their theories of a Mexican Invasion is underway.

[Zaune]

Leaving aside the fact that Mexico's claim to Texas is not completely without foundation, and the question of whether the rest of the States would actually miss it all that much, isn't this the same Tex-Mex border region where the Mexican authorities are fighting a losing COIN action against the drug gangs and which white Texans are afraid of setting foot in?

[Alyeska]

Mexico has no legal claim to Texas anymore. A corner stone of International Law is the power and ability to hold land. Whether we like it or night, Might Makes Right is still a fact of life.

Or does Poland still have a valid claim against Russia for land changes during World War 2? Sorry. The US has sole legal authority and right over Texas, Mexico has no valid claim as they lost the land in war to the US and the US has held it for an extended period of time while governing it.

[Thanas]

I am curious. What paralels do you think existed between Russia/Poland and Mexico/Texas?

[StarshipTitanic]

Or does Poland still have a valid claim against Russia for land changes during World War 2? Sorry. The US has sole legal authority and right over Texas, Mexico has no valid claim as they lost the land in war to the US and the US has held it for an extended period of time while governing it.

Mexico (and Poland, I imagine, in the case of the USSR) signed a treaty to relinquish their land claims because actual cornerstones of international law are treaties, not macho posturing between states based on "might makes right." An ongoing border dispute with no resolution based on a treaty is typically a sign of awful relations between states.

[Zaune]

I was thinking more of the Argentine claim to the Falklands, actually, which comes down to them having been there first but us having stronger cultural ties with the current inhabitants. And I'm not saying Mexico would be within its rights to invade the southern USA over something that happened over a century and a half ago, just that their claim deserves a fair hearing, and a willingness on the part of the US federal and Texan state governments to meet them part of the way.

[Shroom Man 777]

What? Maybe that drone was just for the Mexican border police, or whatever their equivalent is, to track down illegal traffic - from their own people fleeing to America, and from criminal cartels doing whatever they do near the border? Its not like the DHS doesn't have its own Predator drones there too.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

It's pretty clear the US and Mexico were being more or less cooperative on this one. (See, the return of the crashed drone to the Mexican government with a minimum of muss and fuss.) And why wouldn't they? As obnoxiously oversimplistic as the current situation with the cartels may have been rendered, the Calderon government and USG have similar goals and enemies at this juncture. Not that that has generally stopped the United States from being jealous of its airspace, but I guess exceptions can be made.

[StarshipTitanic]

I was thinking more of the Argentine claim to the Falklands, actually, which comes down to them having been there first but us having stronger cultural ties with the current inhabitants. And I'm not saying Mexico would be within its rights to invade the southern USA over something that happened over a century and a half ago, just that their claim deserves a fair hearing, and a willingness on the part of the US federal and Texan state governments to meet them part of the way.

That's ridiculous. Mexico has no claim on anything possessed by the US because they ceded those claims after the Mexican-American War. Just because there may be Mexican revanchists or Aztlan fanatics doesn't mean Mexico has any claim to the land any longer.

[LadyTevar]

Looks like Mexico was trying to keep an eye on the cartels, and had a mechanical failure. Interesting to know they have drones, but otherwise a non-issue imho.

[Alyeska]

I am curious. What paralels do you think existed between Russia/Poland and Mexico/Texas?

Both involved the taking of land through aggressive actions. Mexican-American War. World War 2/Invasion of Poland. The finalized borders were negotiated and agreed upon by treaty. Except the country that took the territory largely retained the territory and held a position of strength. The US had de facto control of the Texas territory and through its position of ownership of it stemming from the military invasion signed a treaty that benefited the United States. Russia largely did the same, though they also manipulated the Polish government through more overt gestures as well. Thats how territory is often ceded between countries after war. Its rare for a country to give up its territory. Its almost always taken by force and the victor then has a treaty signed regarding the ownership of said land.

[Thanas]

There is a bit of difference though in that Mexico was still a sovereign nation. WWII Poland was not. If you want to argue the stuff was legitimized, you'd have to look at the treaties arising after the dissolution of the warsaw Pact.

[Alyeska]

There is a bit of difference though in that Mexico was still a sovereign nation. WWII Poland was not. If you want to argue the stuff was legitimized, you'd have to look at the treaties arising after the dissolution of the warsaw Pact.

Poland not being sovereign is largely irrelevant. Mexico's sovereign status didn't actually help them hold onto their territory. It was blatantly stolen and yet a treaty was still signed. Polish territory was stolen when it still had a pretense of being sovereign. The treaty was only an after thought.

Though Poland would be an interesting case study. Its status was significantly changed from the start of World War 2 to the end of the Cold War. Sovereign nation, puppet state under two different governments, slow empowerment over time, and then eventual sovereignty again. A defining element that helped hold Poland together was its nationality which did not get destroyed by Soviet or German influence.

[Thanas]

There is a bit of difference though in that Mexico was still a sovereign nation. WWII Poland was not. If you want to argue the stuff was legitimized, you'd have to look at the treaties arising after the dissolution of the warsaw Pact.

Poland not being sovereign is largely irrelevant.

You do realize that treaties are only binding if made by sovereign parties, right?

[Alyeska]

There is a bit of difference though in that Mexico was still a sovereign nation. WWII Poland was not. If you want to argue the stuff was legitimized, you'd have to look at the treaties arising after the dissolution of the warsaw Pact.

Poland not being sovereign is largely irrelevant.

You do realize that treaties are only binding if made by sovereign parties, right?

The treaty itself is meaningless. The USSR exerted total control. Poland was conquered and held under USSR control for 45 years. In effect the USSR signed a treaty with itself. Having de facto control granted legitimacy to the situation. How many countries recognized the Polish government in exile by 1965?

What happened after Poland gained independence. The land had changed hands in WW2 and possession is nine tenths of the law. USSR breaks up, borders stay as they are.

I'm not saying that Poland is identical to Mexico in my example. Only similar in so much that the aggressor determined land ownership and treaties were mere formalities regardless of sovereignty.

[Thanas]

That is however a different argument - you are basing it on a factual argument which has nothing to do with the legal argument. Otherwise, for example, the Poland/germany border would not have been renegotiated after Poland gained sovereignty.

[Darth Fanboy]

So what was the unmanned drone anyway, a kite with a digital camera attached to it after being set to record?

[folti78]

So what was the unmanned drone anyway, a kite with a digital camera attached to it after being set to record?

Manufacturer's page from the original article. It's a short/medium range, medium endurance little critter.

[PeZook]

So what was the unmanned drone anyway, a kite with a digital camera attached to it after being set to record?

Drones are cheap nowadays. You're stuck in the early 1990s when they were still a new and exciting technology available only tob the developed nations - now anyone can operate them, the US just has an edge because of their hi-tech communications tech and infrastructure.

There is a bit of difference though in that Mexico was still a sovereign nation. WWII Poland was not. If you want to argue the stuff was legitimized, you'd have to look at the treaties arising after the dissolution of the warsaw Pact.

Poland not being sovereign is largely irrelevant. Mexico's sovereign status didn't actually help them hold onto their territory. It was blatantly stolen and yet a treaty was still signed. Polish territory was stolen when it still had a pretense of being sovereign. The treaty was only an after thought.

I really think you're both simplifying a bit here. A significant component of the entire matter between Russia and Poland were populations relocations from conquered territorries, and - here's the next big part - all land lost in WWII is now occupied by states other than Russia.

The eastern lands held by Poland until WWII are now occupied by Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine, all of which are states set up in their most modern incarnation after WWII by Russia and now independent.

The claim Poland was not a sovereign state while in the Warsaw Pact can also be disputed: the Lublin Comittee was definitely a puppet state, and for some time it was the USSR which made all decisions about policy (internal and foreign), the military, etc.

But it wasn't a rule. Poland was able to make deals against the wishes of Moscow all the time, it had its own currency, its own economic policy separate from the USSR with a private and state market, it took foreign debt, imported Western technology...Furthermore, the current Polish government does claim continuity with the Communist one: it was established via reform, honors all treaties and obligations made by the previous regime, honors all debt, all administrative decisions and precedent, maintains all lawful property ownership claims confirmed during communist times, pays out pensions to people who earned them during the old regime...

So it's not just "we are too weak to try and take the lands back", it's also "we honor treaties signed after WWII", "we have nothing but international scorn to gain from and attempt" and "these lands are no longer populated by a Polish majority, or even a significant minority".

Oh, and "the last time we tried we pissed so many people off they were disinclined to help us against Hitler"

While Mexico has little claim on Texas for much the same reasons, I must observe that the issue is more complicated than "look at the treaties" - since by that logic, france has no claim to 80% of its territorry which was ceded to Germany via treaty.

[Coyote]

That chunk of Poland that is now Russia... the Kaliningrad oblast, I think it is? Wasn't that actually German, originally?

As for Mexico & their errant drone, yeah, using drones to keep an eye on the drug cartels would be something the US probably sees favorable, so there won't be much of a problem over it. There have been problems in the past with Mexican Army and Federal Police crossing the border, either in error or pursuing someone; this will probably be a non-event by comparison.

[PeZook]

That chunk of Poland that is now Russia... the Kaliningrad oblast, I think it is? Wasn't that actually German, originally?

Teutonic originally, then it belonged to Poland for some time before falling under Prussian rule until after WWII.

As for chunks that belonged to Germany:



The slashed parts are the reassigned formerly German lands.

[K. A. Pital]

So it's not just "we are too weak to try and take the lands back", it's also "we honor treaties signed after WWII", "we have nothing but international scorn to gain from and attempt" and "these lands are no longer populated by a Polish majority, or even a significant minority".

Indeed. On the other hand, Mexico gains everything if it makes an attempt )). One, it is too weak compared to the US to retake this territory, ever. However, the government would get a much-needed high horse if it did lay a claim: "Look, we're sticking it up to the big man", in this case the USA. No consequences, popularity and - as a bonus - the US probably would be embarassed because somebody actually dared to lay a claim on lands lost back then in an old war. I'd find it hilarious and even a smart move by Mexico, although I wouldn't want to cheer them because they are corrupt scumbags... hmm... but so is the other side. Not sure, really. The whole situation just amuses me greatly. Stinging the US with spy equipment, heh.

Forcibly made treaties are not exactly the end of all anyway, too. Poland kept quiet in part also because they got land from Germany, and Germany kept quiet because they had tons of guilt after the war and levying any territorial claims would be sheer insanity.

But seriously - and I think Pezook would agree with me - what if the USSR gave Poland nothing after the war with Germany (remind me, did the USA give Mexico some other territories to use after it took Texas)? What if it made Poland into a tiny patch of land and never try to recompensate Poland's loss with German territories as IRL? Would Poland in the 1990s NOT make a claim? Now, it might not - but I think it would be much more of a real and pressing territorial issue than it is now, and there'd be many voices calling for compensation.

[spartasman]

At least the Russians were nice enough to compensate the Poles with new German lands that they had just raped and butchered their way through.

But in all seriousness; the Texans won their war of independence fair & square, the United States won fair & square to hammer out the border AND we paid for California and all the useless desert in between. The Mexicans saying they should have those lands back because they were stolen is idiotic escapism from the fact that their own country is falling apart at the seems from corruption and war.