# Mexico Boycott



## Dave&Linda (Jun 25, 2014)

Maybe I'm becoming an old curmudgeon or just getting angry in my old age, but is there any sort of organized movement to boycott Mexican timeshares/resorts over what I consider the absurd imprisonment of the US Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi in Mexico?  Seems to me that the Mexican tourist industry should have something to say to the government over this issue.  This whole situation is total BS, especially since our own government won't do anything about it.  I am an owner at two timeshare organizations in Mexico and already raised hell about this; interestingly got a snarky remark back from one of them.  Any thoughts on this or am I just blowing off steam for no reason?


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 25, 2014)

Dave&Linda said:


> Maybe I'm becoming an old curmudgeon or just getting angry in my old age, but is there any sort of organized movement to boycott Mexican timeshares/resorts over what I consider the absurd imprisonment of the US Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi in Mexico?  Seems to me that the Mexican tourist industry should have something to say to the government over this issue.  This whole situation is total BS, especially since our own government won't do anything about it.  I am an owner at two timeshare organizations in Mexico and already raised hell about this; interestingly got a snarky remark back from one of them.  Any thoughts on this or am I just blowing off steam for no reason?



Maybe you are an old curmudgeon, but if it makes you feel better to vent, go for it. That one American owner of Mexican timeshares raises his ire toward their government is probably of less importance than a mosquito who lands on the exposed backside of a distant relative. But if you feel better, why not? Maybe someone in a position to do something about it will realize that somebody cares. What does it hurt.

OTOH, IF on the outside chance your boycott gains some traction (doubtful imo), who will be hurt? The Mexican government? No. The 'regular' workers at resorts, restaurants, taxi stands, shops, airlines, etc. etc. etc.

So vent here. You feel better. Nobody gets hurt.

Jim


----------



## Dave&Linda (Jun 25, 2014)

Yup just venting, nothing more than that. I'm not trying to organize anything.  Just want to see what others think.  Realize I have no means to do anything about this but just asking if there is any movement out there. Simple question.


----------



## oldbuyer (Jun 26, 2014)

Why would you blame either government when he broke the law? There are large signs that say you are entering MEXICO and all guns are prohibited, as is the case in nearly every foreign country you enter. He could have stopped before crossing and he would have been helped. Unfortunately once over the line, he's outside the wire.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 26, 2014)

I don't see you would boycott Mexican timeshares because you disagree with the imprisonment of a Marine in Mexico _who broke Mexican law._ 

How would you feel if, say, Mexicans (or any other nationals) boycotted American timeshares because we imprisoned some of their nationals who broke our laws?

If you feel strongly about not supporting things Mexican, then put your Mexican timeshares up for sale and vacation at home. But don't hurt the gracious people who depend on tourism for their livelihood. 

Fern


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 26, 2014)

We cross that border at that spot several times a week.  Until he was imprisoned and the media started covering it, the sign was virtually impossible to see (now, they have a new large one).  In addition, there simply is no way to get to the lane that would allow you to turn around and not enter Mexico if you aren't in the far left hand lane to begin with.  As to saying "he could have stopped before crossing and he would have been helped," you clearly are not very familiar with that crossing.  He could not have stopped--not without being rammed from behind; he was among literally hundreds of cars; that is the busiest border crossing in the world.  There is no American presence before being in Mexico.  There is simply no way. 

The entrance he took to the highway from the parking lot is VERY confusing, even to those who know the area, and once you commit to the lane at that entrance, you can't avoid crossing.  You are to the right of at least 6 lanes, maybe 8, and there are concrete baracades between each of them.  The only lane that would allow you to not enter Mexico is on the far left--and it simply isn't possible to get there.  There is no way to avoid crossing the border from the other lanes given where he entered the highway.  THE ONLY PLACE TO STOP IS WHERE HE DID STOP--AND THAT'S MEXICAN PROPERTY/MEXICAN CUSTOMS/MEXICAN MILITARY.  There is no one there representating the U.S. of A.  

NOW, the sign is large--but you still can't get to the lane for a turn around if you aren't on the left land side.  You STILL have to cross into Mexico.  If the sign were lighted and 50 feet tall, if you aren't already in the left hand lane, it is physically impossible to get there.  You WILL cross into Mexico.  We drive that crossing many, many times a year, and if we entered where he did, even though we know the road and where the turn around lane is, we couldn't get there.  Not knowing the road--when the sign was quite small and on the other side of a 6 or 8 lane highway--how do you think he could have stopped?

At the point he entered, he was already south of the last U.S. exit.  To go back would require a 180 degree turn and driving head-on into 6 to 8 lanes of traffic, or ramming into a baracade and stopping traffic until someone came to sort out the mess.  He did the logical thing:  assume when he told the authorities he'd made a mistake and didn't want to be in Mexico, they would turn him around before he went through customs-----but that isn't possible.  You have to go through customs before there is any road that you could take to go back north across the border.


----------



## pammex (Jun 26, 2014)

The Mexican law on guns is very very clear.  He broke the law.  Why boycott anything in Mexico for his actions.  To expect anyone government, timeshare companies etc. to do anything about this is not right.  You break the law you pay the price, no matter where you are!


----------



## bjones9942 (Jun 26, 2014)

He misses his exit and finds himself in Mexico.  After arrest he tries to escape.  Then he stabs himself with a broken lightbulb.

I have to think that, scary as it may be, another person in the same circumstance might tell the border guards they missed their exit and just need to turn around.  Admit there are guns in the car and ask for help going home.

Did he do that?  The news stories I've read don't indicate it.

If I were to jump on the bandwagon every time someone did something stupid I'd never get down!  And where's the logic in wondering if owners of timeshares in Mexico would get involved?  What tie-in does it have with us?

Just my opinion.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 26, 2014)

pammex said:


> The Mexican law on guns is very very clear.  He broke the law.  Why boycott anything in Mexico for his actions.  To expect anyone government, timeshare companies etc. to do anything about this is not right.  You break the law you pay the price, no matter where you are!



Yes, the law is perfectly clear.  That's why he knew he had a problem when he absolutely could not avoid being in Mexico.  Once he made one wrong turn in the U.S., there was no avoiding crossing that border.  That crossing is set up in a way that means after that turn, while still in the U.S., even if there were a sign over the lane--which there isn't--saying "Following this road will lead automatically to Mexico," there was no way to prevent its happening.  He had guns that are legal in the U.S. in the car.  One wrong turn resulted in his discovering he couldn't avoid Mexico, and he immediately declared the guns and tried to return to the U.S. at customs.

Honestly, I don't know what else he could have done.  (He could have tried seeing if he would simply get a green light--which could have happened--and gone beyond customs and found the road to return to the U.S. and not been in trouble, but he did the forthright/legal thing and turned himself in.)  The same thing happens if you have too much liquor in your car or a new t.v.  You can see if you get a green light; if you do, you smuggle the items into Mexico without paying duty.  Or you can pull into the proper lane to declare the items and pay duty.  He did what he could to be legal after finding himself absolutely unavoidably in Mexico because of one wrong turn in the U.S.

Those who don't make this crossing regularly and who don't know the set-up have absolutely no clue of the situation the man was in.


----------



## myoakley (Jun 26, 2014)

Those who don't make this crossing regularly and who don't know the set-up have absolutely no clue of the situation the man was in.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree.  And those who haven't watched the TV talking heads driving the same route and illustrating how easy it is to make the mistake and wind up in Mexico, can not empathize either.  Sgt. Tamooresi immediately declared his guns to the Mexican police as soon as he realized his error.  Furthermore, our allegiance and sympathy should be with this veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD after HONORABLY SERVING 2 tours of duty in a war zone.  There is no excuse for Mexico to be holding him so long.


----------



## geekette (Jun 26, 2014)

boycotting would definitely hurt the wrong people and accomplish nothing.

If I were a front desk clerk at A1 timeshare resort and received a call from a citizen of another country complaining about some political or legal hoo hah, yeah, I'd probably blow you off.  What the hell could I do about it?  NOTHING.

I didn't do it, maybe I know nothing about it, why are you calling me about it, etc.  

Vent here and leave the good people that make our MX vacations superb alone!


----------



## joewillie12 (Jun 26, 2014)

PStreet1 said:


> Yes, the law is perfectly clear.  That's why he knew he had a problem when he absolutely could not avoid being in Mexico.  Once he made one wrong turn in the U.S., there was no avoiding crossing that border.  That crossing is set up in a way that means after that turn, while still in the U.S., even if there were a sign over the lane--which there isn't--saying "Following this road will lead automatically to Mexico," there was no way to prevent its happening.  He had guns that are legal in the U.S. in the car.  One wrong turn resulted in his discovering he couldn't avoid Mexico, and he immediately declared the guns and tried to return to the U.S. at customs.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what else he could have done.  (He could have tried seeing if he would simply get a green light--which could have happened--and gone beyond customs and found the road to return to the U.S. and not been in trouble, but he did the forthright/legal thing and turned himself in.)  The same thing happens if you have too much liquor in your car or a new t.v.  You can see if you get a green light; if you do, you smuggle the items into Mexico without paying duty.  Or you can pull into the proper lane to declare the items and pay duty.  He did what he could to be legal after finding himself absolutely unavoidably in Mexico because of one wrong turn in the U.S.
> 
> Those who don't make this crossing regularly and who don't know the set-up have absolutely no clue of the situation the man was in.


 Thanks Pat for taking the time to explain the road scenerio. Sounds like me driving in NYC  seeing my exit but not a chance of getting off and winding up in Staten Island .  Unfortunatly the guy is still guilty even though it was a mistake or accident.


----------



## siesta (Jun 26, 2014)

I would rather get rear ended, or go off road to turn back, then end up in a mexican prison.

Stil sympathize with him, hope he gets out soon.


----------



## Dave&Linda (Jun 26, 2014)

Didn't want to start a rant on this, just opinions which many of you have put forward. As for my opinion, just irked about this and what is going on with the kids running across the border and we who frequent the resorts down there are just letting things go as they are. Seems to me that the Mexican resort community should be doing something to stop all this BS but then they are in business and trying to make money. Sorry but all of this really irks me, just saying. That said, interesting to see the comments to this post.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 27, 2014)

Forgetaboutit.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 27, 2014)

Thanks for the New York example; it is that kind of thing, with the additional complication that at the point he entered, he was already south of the last U.S. exit--there simply was no place to go but across the border.

On the U.S. side, the same thing occurs from time to time.  Once you are in the lanes to cross into the U.S., you can't get out.  Normal practice is to enable the "offender" to turn around and return to Mexico.

In addition, on crossing into the U.S., there are lanes the regular tourist can not use; the fine is several hundred dollars.  However, tourists generally don't know what the Sentri lane is; they simply see the sign that says "Sentri--San Diego."  If you don't know what Sentri lanes are, it is easy to assume the "sentry" part of the sign is just something the Mexicans have placed on the sign, and assume that "San Diego" makes it o.k.  Even if you manage to figure out it isn't a lane for you, once you are in it, there is absolutely no way out.  You will get back into the U.S. because you are a citizen, but they don't have to make it easy for you; it can take hours, and they can fine you several hundred dollars.  Normally, though, they warn the offender and send him on.  

We haven't seen the same willingness on the part of Mexico to deal with a hapless American who wound up in Mexico accidentally that the U.S. displays for Mexicans that wind up entering the U.S. accidentally.  I think the anger comes from the lack of reciprocity--not to mention thousands who cross into the U.S. illegally and receive good treatment.

The discussion about Mexican jails is another subject.  If you don't know anyone who has had to spend a night in a Mexican jail, you simply have no clue.  I do know a woman who because of an insurance misunderstanding wound up having to spend 3 nights in the Tijuana jail--in the deluxe part of the jail.  I repeat, if you don't know anyone who has had the experience, you know absolutely nothing.


----------



## bjones9942 (Jun 27, 2014)

Well, upon further reading, it appears that Sgt. Tahmooressi wasn't exactly truthful.  He had been to Mexico on three previous occasions:



			
				LA Times said:
			
		

> "He initially told reporters and his family that he had mistakenly driven across the border because he had never been to Mexico and missed seeing a sign along Interstate 5 that would have allowed him to remain in the U.S.
> 
> That story has since unraveled with information from U.S. authorities that shows that Tahmooressi had been in Mexico on at least three occasions.
> 
> ...



(>>LA Times story here<<)

People say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the 'facts' presented by each side.  Even the middle of this story is fishy.


----------



## california-bighorn (Jun 27, 2014)

His 1st Mexican attorney came up with the false story that he had never been to Mexico and was promptly fired by the family.  He is now on attorney #3 an attorney from California.  As mentioned above once he neared Mexico there was no going back as the lanes have cement barriers between each lane.  And it is not that difficult to get into the wrong lane at some of the border crossings and be forced to go where you had not attended. It happened to me a few years back at the Calixico / Mexicali checkpoint.  As soon as he crossed the border he told the Mexican officials he had entered by mistake and declared he had the 3 guns (that are legal in CA).  The Mexican officials at the border were assisting him on getting turned around to return to the U S when a military official intervened and made the arrest.  In the past few months several Mexican law enforcement and military have illegally entered the U S with guns and were just advised to turn-around and go back.  
The VFW and news commentator Bill O'Reilly have started the boycott movement this week.  I agree with the boycott and I'm trying to find a way to cancel the 2 weeks we have in Cabo later this year without taking too big a hit.  As much as we have loved spending time in Mexico, enough is enough and if this is not resolved soon we will never travel to Mexico again.  
What I'm really disappointed with is the lack of action by our State Department and the White House.


----------



## california-bighorn (Jun 27, 2014)

pammex said:


> The Mexican law on guns is very very clear.  He broke the law.  Why boycott anything in Mexico for his actions.  To expect anyone government, timeshare companies etc. to do anything about this is not right.  You break the law you pay the price, no matter where you are!



Even tho Mexico takes their gun laws very seriously, there is the common sense  issue of "intent" even if it may not a legal defense in Mexico.  And even in Mexico you are assumed innocent until the government proves you are guilty.  A boycott would at least bring attention to this matter.  Mexico really doesn't need any more bad press.


----------



## CarolF (Jun 27, 2014)

An armed marine (with 3 weapons), has done 2 tours of Afghanistan and is unable to get himself out of the wrong traffic queue leading into a country with gun restrictions, despite previous visits!  Reportedly, he is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. 

Thank-you Mexico for removing him from the streets and keeping him and everyone else safe.  

May he be treated kindly and appropriately whilst his condition and intentions   are thoroughly assessed.


----------



## pedro47 (Jun 27, 2014)

There are two sides to every story. This marine has too many stories in this incident. That is my opinion only.


----------



## am1 (Jun 27, 2014)

Even when US border officers are wrong they are right.  Border officers everywhere have a lot of power.

Hopefully this is resolved and there is a better return to USA signage installed.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2014)

california-bighorn said:


> The VFW and *news commentator Bill O'Reilly have started the boycott movement this week. * I agree with the boycott and I'm trying to find a way to cancel the 2 weeks we have in Cabo later this year without taking too big a hit.  As much as we have loved spending time in Mexico, enough is enough and if this is not resolved soon we will never travel to Mexico again.
> What I'm really disappointed with is the lack of action by our State Department and the White House.



Now I see that this entire episode is NOT about one guy getting into the wrong lane while innocently packin' heat & the big, bad furriners taking him hostage.

It's been politically blown out of proportion. He was aware of the law. He'd been there before. As to lack of action mentioned in the last sentence quoted above, I'd ask, how do you know there isn't behind-the-scenes discussion through diplomatic channels? That's how international diplomacy works. Not on 'The Factor.'

Change your vacation plans if you wish, but know that this will NOT influence any government's legal system in any way. All a boycott (should it gain even noticeable traction) would do is hurt honest, hard-working, hospitality and tourism workers. 

Far more good would come from a factual letter to a Mexican consulate, asking for a speedy review of the facts.

We hope for the former soldier's prompt repatriation. Mexican jails are not pleasant places.

Jim


----------



## myoakley (Jun 27, 2014)

I am surprised by the lack of sympathy on the part of several posters for this young man, who, I repeat, served his country WITH HONOR.  I hope these are not the same posters who so fiercely defended a deserter and insisted that no judgement could be made until we could hear directly from him.


----------



## california-bighorn (Jun 27, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> Far more good would come from a factual letter to a Mexican consulate, asking for a speedy review of the facts.
> Jim



A letter to the Mexican consulate in Washington D. C. was hand delivered along with a petition (signed by 100,000 ?) stating the facts and asking the White House for immediate action.


----------



## california-bighorn (Jun 27, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> It's been politically blown out of proportion. He was aware of the law. He'd been there before. As to lack of action mentioned in the last sentence quoted above, I'd ask, how do you know there isn't behind-the-scenes discussion through diplomatic channels? That's how international diplomacy works. Not on 'The Factor.'
> 
> Jim



In your interpretation of this being "politically blown out of proportion" and that this is the result of a news commentator, you conveniently ignored the part about the Veterans of Foreign War (VFW) being the organization that initiated the boycott.  Unless, you consider the VFW to be a "political" organization. And yes, he was aware of the law, that is why his first statement was to notify the Mexican officials he had the 3 weapons.  His actions were not the actions of a gun smuggler, gun smugglers hide guns when they take them across the border.  His were in plain sight to comply with the law in California. His mistake was not being able to get into the Turn-around  lane to re-enter the U S.  And we don't know if there are behind-the-scenes discussions taking place.  But, if there are, should something like this take 3 months to resolve?


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2014)

california-bighorn said:


> In your interpretation of this being "politically blown out of proportion" and that this is the result of a news commentator, you conveniently ignored the part about the Veterans of Foreign War (VFW) being the organization that initiated the boycott.  Unless, you consider the VFW to be a "political" organization.



I'm a life member of the VFW. I get their magazine, emails, newsletters from National, and my state Department. Until this thread I was unaware of this case. It appears to me that VFW is probably not exactly a banner carrier for this cause.

I hope that it can be resolved soon, and agree that 3 months is too long for the Mexican government to resolve a mistake. Still, back to the premise of the original post:

What good would it do to boycott Mexican resorts? They have no impact on border crossing laws and activities, where lanes are marked, law enforcement, gun laws, or incarceration of foreign law breakers. All a boycott would do is hurt innocent workers. I have no quarrel with signing a petition (I did that this morning), but a boycott (imo) would be both ineffective, and hurtful to people who have no dog in the fight.

Jim


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 27, 2014)

CarolF said:


> An armed marine (with 3 weapons), has done 2 tours of Afghanistan and is unable to get himself out of the wrong traffic queue leading into a country with gun restrictions, despite previous visits!  Reportedly, he is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.
> 
> Thank-you Mexico for removing him from the streets and keeping him and everyone else safe.
> 
> May he be treated kindly and appropriately whilst his condition and intentions   are thoroughly assessed.



Carol, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.  NO ONE could have prevented going into Mexico--not even I, and I make that crossing twice a week--if I had entered the highway where he did.  That entrance is south of the last possible exit INTO the U.S.  I checked yesterday when we crossed the border, and it is an 8 lane highway.  He, and anyone else entering at that point, is to the right of 8 lanes packed with bumper to bumber traffic.  There is no way to cross those 8 lanes of traffic.  The only possible turn-around lane is 7 lanes away from the entry position, and there is almost no time to get across even if everyone in 7 lanes were to come to a dead stop and let you through.  Almost immediately, each lane is confined with concrete baricades.   GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD:  from the position he entered, it isn't possible for anyone to prevent himself from going into Mexico.

His first attorney has admitted on tv (I saw the interview) that he believed the marine's case would be stronger if he said he had never been in Mexico; he also admitted the marine didn't want to make that case.  (Incidentally, his having been in Mexico before has zero bearing on his ability to deal with "the queue"  People who intend to go to nightclubs in Tijuana generally don't drive into Mexico.  They park in lots on the U.S. side and walk across the border.  Having done that three times in a group doesn't prepare anyone for driving back.

Additionally, in the last 2 years, the Mexican border crossing has been physically moved from its previous location.  It now is a long  bottom half of an S-shaped funnel located no where close to the old crossing.  All roads on the U.S. side have been extensively modified.  The crossing into the U.S. from Mexico has been extensively modified also, and even as frequent crossers, we are never entirely sure where we are going to be directed.  His having walked across at 3 times "sometime" in the past, would be ZERO preparation for driving now.

Everyone knows your objection to U.S. gun laws, and frankly, that has no bearing on his case either.  The fact is his guns are legal in the U.S. and he had no intent to take them into Mexico.  He did the correct thing and turned into the declarations lane to try to get aid for returning to the U.S.; he tried to avoid clearing customs and, thus, avoid entering Mexico.  Whether his mental condition warrants his having guns is an entirely separate issue.  It is not related to his "crime" in Mexico.

As to his being treated humanely, he has not been, and he won't be.  It does not happen in a Me xican jail.  Again, if you know no one who has been there, you simply don't have a clue.


----------



## california-bighorn (Jun 27, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> I'm a life member of the VFW. I get their magazine, emails, newsletters from National, and my state Department. Until this thread I was unaware of this case. It appears to me that VFW is probably not exactly a banner carrier for this cause.
> 
> I hope that it can be resolved soon, and agree that 3 months is too long for the Mexican government to resolve a mistake. Still, back to the premise of the original post:
> 
> ...



Jim

I agree boycotts in themselves do little or nothing.  But, the publicity it generates brings the issue to the attention of those who would not otherwise be aware of it.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 27, 2014)

myoakley said:


> I am surprised by the lack of sympathy on the part of several posters for this young man, who, I repeat, served his country WITH HONOR.  I hope these are not the same posters who so fiercely defended a deserter and insisted that no judgement could be made until we could hear directly from him.



I hope not, too, but I suspect they are.


----------



## california-bighorn (Jun 27, 2014)

*Nice reply and explanation*

Pat (Pstreet1)

Thank you for your great explanation and response to the comments made by CarolF.  I was having a serious problem with her comment, but, when I started to reply to her statement I found I couldn't do it in a civil manner.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 27, 2014)

siesta said:


> I would rather get rear ended, or go off road to turn back, then end up in a mexican prison.
> 
> Stil sympathize with him, hope he gets out soon.



Knowing what he knows now, I'm sure he'd agree.  Going off the road isn't an option, either.  You're looking at the backs of buildings and fences.  His only real hope would be to cause an accident, and now, with hindsight, that would have been a far, far better thing to do.  Until it happened, though, I imagine he believed if he just explained what happened, they would let him turn around someplace--he didn't know anything about the set up now--and let him go back.  Some of the reports have said they were, indeed, going to facilitate his getting back, but someone higher up the chain of command interveined and he's now in the situation he's in.  A Mexican general population jail would be beyond most Americans' comprehension.


----------



## CarolF (Jun 27, 2014)

PStreet1 said:


> Again, if you know no one who has been there, you simply don't have a clue.



Friends and family regularly travel to Mexico but you are quite right, not by road.  I should have been clearer, I expect and trust the Mexicans to observe and fully investigate any breaches of their laws, particularly those designed to protect the safety of my family and friends whilst they travel.  

Like me, I'm sure the Mexicans don't care how he got there, he just shouldn't have been there whilst he was armed.  It sounds like an American problem to me, the Mexicans should not be held responsible for what sounds like a badly designed American border crossing.  Borders around the world are very strictly monitored and if that crossing allows your citizens to "accidentally" break the law, it sounds like something should be implemented to allow you to better protect your own people.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 28, 2014)

Friends and family regularly travel to Mexico but you are quite right, not by road. The reference was to knowing someone who has been in a Mexican jail.  I repeat, "As to his being treated humanely, he has not been, and he won't be. It does not happen in a Mexican jail. Again, if you know no one who has been there, you simply don't have a clue."  Mexican jails bear no resemblance to even the worst jail you can think of in a really bad part of a U.S. city.  (I know nothing of Australian jails, but I assume they are similar to those in the U.S.)  To be placed in the general population jail in Tijuana means to be placed with cartel members, murderers, and those incarcerated for violent crimes.  Murders occur in all jails, but they are far from unusual in a jail of the type he was placed in.  An American Marine would be an open target for that group.  There is no question he feared for his life--and anyone in his right mind in that situation would have the same fear.  

I should have been clearer, I expect and trust the Mexicans to observe and fully investigate any breaches of their laws, particularly those designed to protect the safety of my family and friends whilst they travel. 
And there, again, you are wrong.  I know a man incarcerated for having a hand gun in his glove compartment (obviously, illegal).  He was in jail 3 days and released.  Your statement proves only one thing:  you've never had any legal matters that needed to move through the Mexican system.  


Like me, I'm sure the Mexicans don't care how he got there, he just shouldn't have been there whilst he was armed. Nor should the Mexicans who accidentally cross the U.S. border--often, the military crosses when they have no right--be allowed to return to Mexico, but they are allowed, as are others.  To expect reciprocity is not unreasonable.

It sounds like an American problem to me, the Mexicans should not be held responsible for what sounds like a badly designed American border crossing. Well.....when the new border crossing was designed, it was to (as would seem logical) be a joint effort.  Americans approved the design and needed to re-do a number of roads as a result.  At the same time the border crossing from Mexico to the U.S. was to be redesigned.  It has been a multi-year project.  Everyone agreed.  Then, Mexico moved their border literally years before it was to be done.  Americans had no funds to do the extensive revamping the Mexican move required.  I'd say they are responsible for not following the jointly designed plan.

Borders around the world are very strictly monitored Well, not really.  Do you have some idea that in the U.S. there is a guard station on the U.S. side followed immediately by a Mexican guard station?  Like in old movies?  Going into Mexico by road, no passports are checked, no visa stamps are affixed--unless a person wants to get a tourist visa, but it is not required for a 72 hours stay in Baja.  There is no record until the person goes back into the U.S., and then, a check of documents may/may not be made.  When I said he did the correct thing and stopped to declare the weapons and state that he didn't want to enter Mexico, I was saying that he didn't have to; he could have tried to go on in.  If he had gotten a green light--which most people do--he wouldn't be in this situation.  Of course, had he gotten a red light, he would be exactly where he is right now.  He assumed--incorrectly--that if he didn't clear customs, he wouldn't be officially in Mexico and could simply be turned around.  That, of course, turned out not to be the case--though the Mexican authorities have said they were going to do just that and let him return, but an official arrived and decided not to allow that to happen.

and if that crossing allows your citizens to "accidentally" Again, you have absolutely no idea of the border there.  Your feeling that it couldn't be an accident is ridiculous.  This happens to others, but if they don't have guns, it's not a problem.  The Marine did have, and it was a problem--one he recognized immediately and did everything he could to do the right thing given the circumstances.  
break the law, it sounds like something should be implemented As I said above, the roads need to be altered because of the new border crossing, but since the joint construction plans were not followed, that hasn't been done yet.  to allow you to better protect your own people.   Again, a foolish statement, in my opinion.  You, quite obviously, have no understanding of the situation, but quite obviously, not having any understanding of the situation does not prevent you from making judgments.


----------



## CarolF (Jun 28, 2014)

I'm wondering where you are obtaining such detailed information about Sgt. Tahmooressi's case?  Could you please share?  My understanding is that Sgt. Tahmooressi was found illegally armed within the borders of a foreign country, otherwise, why was he arrested? 

Members of our armed forces represent our governments so we are discussing a very serious international incident.  Military personnel are educated about international law and the significance of borders, there can be no excuses.  Surely no-one can complain about Mexicans enforcing their own laws.

btw, the Bangkok Hilton, (locally named Bang Kwang Central Prison) in Thailand, one of the most notorious prisons on Earth, has a long history of hosting my countrymen.  All travellers should educate themselves about what to expect should they decide to break the laws of the host country.  

Again, I expect a country to uphold its laws and do not expect exceptions to be made, for anyone.  You seem to be suggesting that the arrangements have become a little cosy and blurred at that border crossing, I hope that isn't true because that doesn't help anyone imo .

Edited to Add -

The Washington Times Daily, 26 June 2014, page 6



> “Leading up to the entry point into Mexico, there are signs that indicate which lanes drivers should follow if they have something to declare to customs and which lanes to follow if they have nothing to declare. Mr. Tahmooressi chose to enter through the ‘nothing to declare’ lane, forfeiting his opportunity to make known that he had arms and ammunition with him and/ or rectify a possible driving mistake and declare that he did not wish to enter Mexico,” the Mexican embassy wrote in an official fact sheet on Sgt. Tahmooressi’s case.
> Mexican officials also claim that Sgt. Tahmooressi did not state that he was an active duty member of the military and that when he crossed the border he was not in uniform, driving an official vehicle, or on official business.
> “In Mexico, as in the United States, ignorance of the law, error or misunderstandings about the consequences of breaking the law, do not exempt an individual from responsibility,” a statement from the Mexican attorney general’s office said.



Atm, I'm annoyed at myself for being silly and even considering that Sgt. Tahmooressi's arrest was an error caused by road construction and traffic congestion.  Credible reports are not disputing the charges and the delays in his hearing were caused by sacking his lawyers.  This looks like American politics to me - 

http://www.vfw.org/uploadedFiles/VF...ident re USMC Sgt Tahmooressi June 6 2014.pdf


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 28, 2014)

My "detailed knowledge," as you term it, relates only to driving that stretch of road all the time.  I repeat, on the U.S. highway, there was then, and is now, only one sign indicating there is a turn-around lane to avoid going into Mexico.  At the time, the sign was a small one, placed about the height of the driver of an SUV and located beside the far left side of an 8 lane highway.

Because of all the publicity,after the Marine's detention, pointing out that almost no one could even see the sign, the small sign has been replaced with a large one, which is easy to see--but it is still located on the far left hand side of an 8 lane highway which is literally packed with cars most of the time.  By the time the driver can see the sign, there is almost no time for anyone not already in the left hand lane to get there.  Very shortly after you can see the sign, you enter an area where the lanes are separated by concrete baricades to eliminate the possibility of changing lanes. At this point, you are still in the U.S.

At that point, you are looking directly at the old border entrance to Mexico, which is no longer operational.  The road then begins to curve to the right, in "the lower half of an S curve" which runs along a 12-14 foot wall which separates the U.S. and Mexico; then it curves to the left and you drive into the open area which funnels the cars into the Mexican customs area.

On the right of the customs area is the Declarations area.  All other stations are "nothing to declare" areas--though if you get a red light, the car will be examined, but your passport/visa will not be asked for.  If you clear customs, you will then start the top half of the S curve to go south or vear off to the left to go into Tijuana.

News sources I have seen said the Marine did declare his weapons.  I see that your source says he did not according to the Mexicans.  At this point, whatever he did or didn't do, the version told by the Mexican(s) who decided to detain him will be the version entered into the record, and it is absolutely certain that their version of what happened will be the version that holds them blameless.

Your contention that "border crossings all over the world are very strictly monitored" is simply not the case here; actual border checkpoints are monitored, but few would call it "strict" even entering the U.S., and entering Mexico into Baja is a total non-event most of the time.  Because we have almost 2000 miles of border to the south, our border is a long way from "strictly monitored."

As to "arrangements have[ing] become a little cosy and blurred at that border crossing," that is the case, but they have not "become" cosy, they always have been.  Mexico/U.S. border has always been a relatively friendly one.  Entrance into Mexico by land has always been a non-event with no passport check and no visas for short stays.  It has always been a matter for self-declaration:  if you're going to be in Baja longer than the authorized period, you stop and get a stamp, which no one will ever again look at.  The U.S. doesn't look at it when you re-enter, and no Mexican authority will ever ask to see it.  There is NEVER a line at the office to get a stamp--so, presumably, all those cars going south are either residents or people who plan to stay only 72 hours.  If you drive south as far as Guerrero Negro and enter Baja Sur, they may ask to see your passport, and they may ask you to stop and get a stamp there, but there is certainly no assurance they will.  If they do ask you to stop for a stamp, they don't care that you didn't get one when you entered the country.  When you enter Baja, even if you get a red light and your car is inspected--generally, in a very cursory way--no one will ask for your passport, not even if you must go pay tax on some item. 

The border is not "strictly monitored" in any sense, and there is a great deal of reciprocity between the two governments when mistakes are made--and that doesn't even touch on the subject of the thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants entering the U.S., which is an entirely different matter.  The United States/Mexico is definitely not now, and never has been, "strictly monitored," despite your belief that "borders all over the world are very strictly monitored."  (The border with Canada is similar.)


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 28, 2014)

"Leading up to the entry point into Mexico, there are signs that indicate which lanes drivers should follow if they have something to declare to customs and which lanes to follow if they have nothing to declare."

Your source could not possibly be more incorrect.  There are no signs--except the one indicating the turn-around lane on the U.S. side.  After you enter the concrete barriers, you are still in the U.S.  When you see the OLD Mexican entry point straight ahead, at some point there, you enter Mexican boundaries.  The road then curves to the right--running beside the very high, blank wall.  There are no signs, absolutely nothing you could see to determine where to go on the Mexican side.  THEN, you enter an open area with the Mexican customs station to the left.  You have already been on Mexican soil since you saw the old entry point.  There are signs over the stations in this area, mostly "nothing to declare."  However, as the Marine discovered, telling them at customs that you don't want to enter Mexico doesn't help at all; you are already in Mexico, and if a law has been violated, you've already violated it.  The signs DEFINITELY DO NOT LEAD UP TO THE ENTRY POINT INTO MEXICO; by the time there are any signs, you've been in Mexico for 5 minutes or so.

I'll be crossing again on Monday and I'll count to see how many customs stations there are and how many are "nothing to declare" and how many are "declarations."


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 28, 2014)

First, I appreciate Pat's first hand accounts of the location.  

I am absolutely amazed a solution hasn't been worked out by our government by now.


----------



## ondeadlin (Jun 28, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I am absolutely amazed a solution hasn't been worked out by our government by now.



Really?  Because while I view this as a very regrettable incident and feel very badly for the marine and his family, I'm not the last bit surprised surprised it hasn't been easy to work out.

Let's turn the scenario around for a moment, shall we?  Let's say a Mexican military member accidentally entered the U.S. with three guns, and confessed to that point at the border.  I would not be surprised in the least if he were arrested, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were difficult to work the issue out and took several months, if not longer.

Not because of any anti-Mexican sentiment, but simply because the the criminal justice system isn't set up to take innocent mistakes into consideration very often.


----------



## bjones9942 (Jun 28, 2014)

According to this Foxnews Insider story, Sgt. Tahmooressi was stopped on the way BACK to the USA (>>link here<<) ....




			
				Foxnews Insider said:
			
		

> Greta Van Susteren spoke to Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, the United States Marine who has been held in a Mexican prison for two months. The 25-year-old claims that he mistakenly crossed the San Diego border into Mexico.
> 
> Tahmooressi told Greta that he left his truck in a parking lot and headed to Tijuana around noon on March 31st.
> 
> ...


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 28, 2014)

CarolF said:


> ....  Military personnel are educated about international law and the significance of borders, there can be no excuses.  ...



Really, where are you getting this info? I don't think you really know anything about the  training and education of our military personnel.

Instead of being afraid that the legal gun carriers are a threat to your safety, I think you should be looking out for those that are illegally armed.  They are the ones that are up to no good.

While drug lords and drug lord wannabes run rampant in areas of Mexico you're really worried about this young fellow who made a wrong turn and tried not to enter Mexico?


----------



## CarolF (Jun 29, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> Why would anyone not be on the side of the Marine in this matter?



I agree, and he is US Marine with the backing of the US government.  It is for that reason I think the Mexican authorities must be confident with their case.

So many stories around - he was leaving Mexico after visiting his girlfriend, the guns were hidden in clothing in the car; the guns were readily available to the driver, loaded, and ready to fire; the method of transporting the guns would also have violated US regulations; in possession of 400 rounds of ammunition used by the Mexican military.  It is complex I think.

We are close allies and I am more than happy to support cases of injustice by signing petitions and spreading the word etc.  In this case, I think the kindest thing I can do is to trust in Sgt Tahmooressi and the lawyers he has chosen.  I want Sgt Tahmooressi's lawyer to have all the time needed to be able to prepare his case and to present a confident and lucid Marine.  I want Sgt Tahmooressi to have his hearing and for him to be able to go home with his head held high if he is indeed innocent.  That doesn't change the fact that I am pleased the Mexicans have taken him off the streets, keeping him and everyone else safe until the case is fully investigated.



> After all, his mother, who is a nurse, has told reporters that her son has post-traumatic stress disorder, that he has shown symptoms of paranoia and that he has what she called “hunter-prey syndrome” in which he feels he is the  prey.



http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-maybe-we-should-thank-mexico-20140606-column.html


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 29, 2014)

bjones9942 said:


> According to this Foxnews Insider story, Sgt. Tahmooressi was stopped on the way BACK to the USA (>>link here<<) ....



You don't understand what people do.  They park their cars on the U.S. side (partly to avoid having to buy Mexican insurance for them, partly to avoid having to drive in Tijuana), and walk across.  After he left Mexico, he walked back across the border and went to the parking lot.  It was in exiting the parking lot that he made the wrong turn and wound up on the highway heading south (already south of the last U.S. exit which would allow a person to avoid going to Mexico) and found himself in Mexico.


----------



## bjones9942 (Jun 29, 2014)

I understand what liars do - I have ample experience with them.  Serviceman or not, he's a liar and holds no credibility with me.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 29, 2014)

PStreet1 said:


> You don't understand what people do.  They park their cars on the U.S. side (partly to avoid having to buy Mexican insurance for them, partly to avoid having to drive in Tijuana), and walk across.  After he left Mexico, he walked back across the border and went to the parking lot.  It was in exiting the parking lot that he made the wrong turn and wound up on the highway heading south (already south of the last U.S. exit which would allow a person to avoid going to Mexico) and found himself in Mexico.



Pat, I watched the video on the link that bjones provided.  What you've described is exactly what Tahmooressi said happened.  He parked on the USA side, walked over to Tijuana, booked a room, decided the room was terrible (I do have some suspicions about this), and then decided to leave and walk back to his car on the US side.  It was when he was exiting the parking lot on the US side of the border that he made the wrong turn and inadvertently headed into Mexico.

I'm not vouching for whether it's true or not, just stating the story the young man told in the video.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 29, 2014)

Parking in the U.S. and walking across is a very, very common practice to spend a day sightseeing or an evening or a few days in Tijuana.  I often have people contact me about advice for where to leave their cars in the U.S. and how to take the bus to Rosarito to spend a week.  I always tell them to simply drive their own cars, but many are leary about driving in Mexico.  For a day or two in Tijuana, though, leaving the car in the U.S. is sensible:  it avoids Mexican insurance and the difficulties of navigating Tijuana.  It's really the normal thing to do when going just to Tijuana.


----------



## CarolF (Jun 30, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> It was when he was exiting the parking lot on the US side of the border that he made the wrong turn and inadvertently headed into Mexico.





bjones9942 said:


> >>link here<<[/URL]) ....



The interview neglects to mention that on re-entering Mexico, he chose the "nothing to declare" lanes instead of the "something to declare" lanes where he could have parked his car and declared that he had made a driving error and didn't want to enter Mexico.  In the interview, he describes the process of entering the "nothing to declare" area.

The far right lane is for use by people who have "something to declare" or need to visit the customs or immigration offices to get a tourist entry visa or temporary vehicle import permit.  It is a very conventional international arrangement and there looks to be plenty of parking next to the offices for this business.  

This video (published on 5 Jul 2013) shows the road to a very simple and conventional international border entrance, not a lot of sophistication here, nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary.   Three, use the right lane for "declarations" road signs appear in this video before the car park of the "declaration" office.  To "make a declaration" means you need to stop and explain/fill out a form, there is never the opportunity to pass by without stopping and making your declaration, there isn't a "green light" option until the very end of the process.  

See the road signs at - 0:13, 0:51, 1:00.  At 1.13 you see the customs building to the right hand side and the lanes with red crosses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG3bqDD7l8E


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 30, 2014)

CarolF said:


> This video (published on 5 Jul 2013) shows the road to a very simple and conventional international border entrance, not a lot of sophistication here, nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary.   Three, use the right lane for "declarations" road signs appear in this video before the car park of the "declaration" office.  To "make a declaration" means you need to stop and explain/fill out a form, there is never the opportunity to pass by without stopping and handing over your goods, there isn't a "green light" option until you have stopped and been processed.
> 
> See the road signs at - 0:13, 0:51, 1:00
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG3bqDD7l8E




He declared his weapons as soon as he arrived in Mexico.  Just so we're all clear, what is the crime you feel he committed that he deserved to be locked up in this manner?


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 30, 2014)

No one ever said there wasn't a declarations area, Carol.  I always said it was to the far right.  I said it was clear.  The "red light/green light" is still a common expression because that's what we had until the new station was opened; now, the same thing occurs, but we have words instead of just the light.  I don't think I ever implied it was an unusual crossing area.

If you'll recall, I said that AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY ENTERED MEXICO in the vicinity of the old border crossing--which you don't use--you drive along the area with the high wall.  Then you enter an open area and to the left as you enter the open area, you see all the customs stations.  That is what the video shows.  The declarations area is the right, as I said.  That is the same area where you get a visa stamp if you're going to get one because you are staying more than 72 hours.  If you aren't declaring anything, you simply drive straight up to the "light," where you get to proceed with no check from anyone or you are told to pull into one of the stations where they check the car.  If you go to the declarations lane, you of course, stop--no light there.

News reports here say the Marine stopped in the declarations area to declare the guns and try to avoid "officially" entering Mexico--he was, of course, already in Mexico, and had been since the old, non-used entrance.  That's what they are saying is his crime:  the fact that he entered Mexico with weapons.  He tried not to "officially" enter Mexico at the customs station, but, as I said, they are saying--correctly--that he entered Mexico with weapons.

The point is that from the U.S., his wrong turn placed him in a position to be unable to avoid entering Mexico.

I believe I also said several times before that news reports here have stated he declared the guns voluntarily--which would mean he went to the declarations area.  

He also placed a call to the U.S. for aid, but since he was already in Mexico, they couldn't help.  I don't know, but the tape of the call I heard certainly IMPLIED he hadn't had contact with the Mexican authorities yet, which would seem to indicate he was in the large open area before customs.  From there, he did the only thing he could do--proceed.  His choices were to go to the nothing to declare lanes, the majority of them, and see if he got a "red light" (or word) or not or go to the declarations lane.  

He declared his guns.  He was arrested for having guns in Mexico.

If the Mexican authorities say he didn't declare the guns, that will be the official story.  You, I assume, will choose to believe that he didn't declare them, despite Mexican officials earlier saying he did declare them, but that since he was already in Mexico when he declared them, that was a crime.  There was absolutely nothing he could do to prevent this happening once he made the wrong turn in the U.S.


----------



## CarolF (Jun 30, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> He declared his weapons as soon as he arrived in Mexico.  Just so we're all clear, what is the crime you feel he committed that he deserved to be locked up in this manner?



In the interview he describes going to the "nothing to declare" area when he did in fact have something to declare.  Many people use the "nothing to declare" lanes when they are trying to sneak goods or money into a country dishonestly.  

It is conventional to be locked up if you enter any "nothing to declare area" with guns.  

If you enter the "nothing to declare" area with too much money or the wrong quantity of alcohol you might  be fined rather than locked up.

Here is the interview link.  I messed it up before


bjones9942 said:


> According to this Foxnews Insider story, Sgt. Tahmooressi was stopped on the way BACK to the USA (>>link here<<) ....


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 30, 2014)

I really appreciate the posts by Pat and california-bighorn.  They have first hand knowledge of the area and how it's laid out.  Thank you.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 1, 2014)

I did, indeed, cross the border today, and I paid VERY close attention.

1.  We passed the last exit possible to leave the highway by exiting to another street and remain in the U.S.
2.  We came to the entrance to the highway the Marine entered from.  At that point, he was already past the last possible U.S. highway exit that would have allowed him to avoid going to Mexico. (A wrong turn in the U.S. got him to this point--and once the turn is made, there is no way to exit that ramp.) 
3.  At that point, the highway is 6 lanes; his entrance lane made the 7th lane.
4.  At the point his entrance lane met the 6 lane highway, he was exactly EVEN with the sign 6 lanes away saying the 7th lane was the U-turn lane that would allow a return to the U.S.  Bear in mind, that* NOW* it is possible to SEE the sign across the lanes; before he was arrested and this incident received publicity, it was impossible to see the sign.  It was a small, shoulder-of-a- driver height sign at that time.  It showed a U-turn diagram and said in small letters something like U.S. return.  Even if he had known the lane was there--which no one who had never been in that lane could possibly have seen to be aware of it--he couldn't get there.

I don't think anyone could have crossed those 6 lanes of traffic and gotten to the other side.

5.  Within 15 feet of the point where he entered the highway, the concrete barriers began--they prevent anyone from changing lanes.  There is no way to cross all those lanes of traffic in 15 feet, and after that, he was enclosed by baricades.  (He was still in the U.S. at this point.)
6.  The lanes face the OLD Mexican border crossing, now enclosed in fencing. At that point, cars are actually on Mexican soil.
7.  The cars turn right, and the lanes narrow to 4 lanes.  (All cars have been on Mexican soil since before the right turn and the narrowing of the lanes to 4 lanes.)
8.  They proceed on a straight lane, as the video shows, with high walls on each side.
9.  INTERESTINGLY, the video shows signs saying there is a declarations lane.
10.  The 4 lanes "come out" in a large open area.  Cars will turn left to go through Mexican customs.  (There is no way back where you came from.)
11.  At that point, the driver sees 22 customs lanes to his left:  Today, 15 stations were available, with a green arrow over each; 6 were closed with a red X over each; a bus was in the final lane, the one to the far right.
12.  I was stunned to see that every station had a sign hanging from the top crossing bar saying "Nothing to Declare."  THERE WAS NO LANE MARKED DECLARATIONS.  The signs were painted and, obviously, fixed in place; they aren't something that can be changed from day to day.  They are permanent.  The far right lane, which in the OLD crossing was a declarations lane is now, in the new crossing, marked "BUSES."  The sign the video shows means nothing.  There is NO declarations lane.

I took pictures, but I don't know how to post them.

At each station, there is a light which directs the driver:  in red, stop; in green, advance, and the same thing in Spanish.  The driver pulls into the area between the two  baricade gate arms.  Another light comes on telling the driver he will be inspected or he won't.

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea where I would go to declare liquor or a t.v., etc.  There was absolutely no indication of what to do.  At the old station, there were two declarations lanes, and I had glanced at the little office off to the right and just assumed--what mistakes we make when we assume--it was the declarations spot.  It isn't; it's for buses only.  *CLEARLY, THE MARINE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO THROUGH THE NO DECLARATIONS LANE--THERE AREN'T ANY OTHERS*.


----------



## CarolF (Jul 1, 2014)

*Something to Declare (maybe liquor or a t.v.)*

The Declaration Lanes may have been closed for quite a while, the right lane now leads to Declaration Parking.  

1) Follow the road signs (Something to Declare) and stay in the right lane as you go into the final sharp/ south bend... 

2) Go to the right of the metal dividers and into Declaration Parking (on the right)

3) Park your car in the parking lot and lock it.  Walk into the huge building. 

4) Complete your Customs Declaration form and payments inside the building (open 24/7) 

In the event that you took a wrong turn whilst driving (I'm sure you will be carefully reading the road signs trying to work out how to get back to the US) the right hand lane (Something to Declare) will lead you to the Declaration Parking Lot.  Follow the access instructions above and advise the staff that you got lost, do not wish to enter Mexico and wish to return to the US.


----------



## ilene13 (Jul 1, 2014)

I have a question-- how come you know so much about the border if you are in Australia?


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 1, 2014)

ilene13 said:


> I have a question-- how come you know so much about the border if you are in Australia?



That's a very good question.

She is getting her "info" from youtube videos while Pat was actually there.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 1, 2014)

PStreet1 said:


> I did, indeed, cross the border today, and I paid VERY close attention.



Pat, you've done an outstanding job so far and you've helped to answer a lot of our questions.  We're still a little fuzzy about the gun aspect.  Next time you go down, would you mind trying to sneak a few rifles and a couple of ammo packs through there?


----------



## CarolF (Jul 1, 2014)

ilene13 said:


> I have a question-- how come you know so much about the border if you are in Australia?



 Thank you for asking.  I'm a mother and keep a close watch on some very adventurous young men who get to hone their survival skills whilst travelling in our region.  Young people have no difficulty quickly and easily working out all sorts of issues.


----------



## klpca (Jul 1, 2014)

CarolF said:


> Thank you for asking.  I'm a mother and keep a close watch on some very adventurous young men who get to hone their survival skills whilst travelling in our region.  Young people have no difficulty quickly and easily working out all sorts of issues.



Not in Mexico. It's a different set of rules down there, especially along the border. All of us who live here keep that in mind, especially when traveling in Tijuana. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's inherently dangerous, but you play by their rules, written and unwritten when you travel in Mexico. I'm a mother too, and all of my kids have traveled the world, but they know our house rules about Tijuana - which is in our backyard. I strongly prefer that they not go - especially to go to the clubs - and IF they go no driving, and don't screw up. The authorities in Mexico don't care what your reason is if you get yourself on the wrong side of the law. They lock you up and talk about it later. As this poor guy is finding out. 

Carol, you make the border crossing seem so simple. You may find that in reality, it's quite a bit more confusing than you would think. Even if you figure out what to do while you are in a moving car, there's the concrete barriers to deal with. And there are wall to wall cars. There's no ability to maneuver once you are in the lanes.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 1, 2014)

Yes, that explanation makes it seem simmple:  it isn't.

Read the step by step from yesterday.  

I'm telling you there is no metal baracade; there is no sign, and the office which opens to the lane VERY clearly marked "BUSES" says nothing about declarations.  There is no parking lot there.  There is the very large open area that leads to the 22 booths for going "officially" into Mexico.  There is definitely no place to park.  You would be in the way of others heading for the booths, and there is absolutely nothing about the "BUSES" lane that would make anyone think it is where non-buses or individuals would go. 

As I said, we make that crossing twice a week, or more.  Why do you think someone doing it for the first time woulc know more about it than we do?  Why do you think someone doing it for the first time would see some sign other than the ones that are over each lane?

And most important, why do you seem to believe that someone else could find some way to get back to the U.S. after entering that highway when there isn't a way to get back?  1.  that entrance is directly opposite the sign 6 lanes away saying there is a return to the U.S. possible from that lane--6 lanes away.  2.  That entrance is 15 feet from where the concrete barriers begin which prevent ANY lane change.  

Why do you think anyone could cross 6 lanes of traffic in 15 feet?  (AND AT THE TIME HE WAS ARRESTED, IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO EVEN SEE THE SIGN FROM WHERE HE ENTERED THE HIGHWAY:  IT WAS SMALL, SHOULDER HEIGHT, AND ANY VIEW WAS BLOCKED BY CARS IN THE 6 LANES HE COULDN'T GET ACROSS.)

Once he entered Mexico, there would be no way not to be in a high state of anxiety.  He certainly knew he had a problem.  He was, no doubt, looking for anything that would give him an opportunity to explain and return.  WHY DO YOU THINK AUSTRALIAN YOUTH IS SOOOOOO MUCH MORE RESOURCEFUL THAN AMERICAN YOUTH?  I don't believe EVEN AN AUSTRALIAN YOUTH could have managed anything any better.

As Siesta said, many posts ago, looking back on it, he'd have been far better off to drive into a baracade and wait for an American police officer and take the ticket----but he didn't know that then.  He assumed there was some rational way out of it--and the Mexican border people were, according to reports, going to let that happen, but an officer with more rank took charge.

Basically, you know nothing about the situation except what you are getting from videos.  I'm telling you what the driving conditions actually are--but of course, if they contradict what you want to believe, that wouldn't matter to you.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 1, 2014)

Well, back to the original premise of the thread. BillO is taking credit for the raid on some Mexican drug/human smuggler and the freeing of umpteen kids who were poised to scamper across the U.S. border. Here: http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_rei...prompted_a_raid_on_human_traffickers_06302014

Jim


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 1, 2014)

IMO, Juan was correct:  there is a growing American voice about our southern border.  Also, imo, Bill tends to assume he has more power than he does--though I freely admit he has a huge audience and that audience amounts to many voices that agree with him.  

Now, how many of those voices that agree with him actually boycotted Mexico as tourists is an entirely different matter.  And that doesn't even take into account the fact that any boycott would take considerable time to have any effect--though I suspect Bill would say "It was the threat that did it."


----------



## Fern Modena (Jul 1, 2014)

Pat, you may cross the border twice a week, or even more, but how often do you do so from a starting point of inside the parking lot on the US side of the border?  I think he must have not been paying any sort of attention, or was out of it or something, because you don't hear about that happening every day (people leaving the parking lot on the US side of the border and ending up accidentally in Mexico), do you?  I'll admit I haven't parked and walked across in years, but isn't the "normal move" from the parking lot NORTH, ie, further into the US?

Was the man assigned to a base in the area? If he was, they are told about the "rules" and being careful when crossing the border.

What is done, is done. I hope for his family's sake he can get home soon.

Fern


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 1, 2014)

Fern, from that parking lot, San Diego proper is, of course, north.  You would assume that would be a left turn.  However, in this case, making a left turn brings the car around to the freeway and causes the car to enter the highway going south--to Mexico.  Unfortunately, that ramp is south of the last exit that would allow an exit that would keep the car/driver on U.S. soil.  

That one left turn--which seems normal to go back to San Diego--forces a commitment to go to Mexico, one that cannot be escaped.

You're right:  I wouldn't make the left, but if I didn't know better, it would seem logical.  Couple that with the fact that it was at night, and the result is what it is:  he entered Mexico when he didn't intend to.

(And crossing the border accidentally is fairly common--because there is no way not to if you miss the last U.S. exit.  For most people, it isn't an issue because they don't have any items that would be an issue.  The majority of them aren't even stopped because a pretty low %age of the cars crossing are inspected.  If they enter and don't mean to, whether they are inspected or not, they go into Tijuana and enter the line to cross into the U.S.  The whole process would be time-consuming and annoying, but wouldn't have legal consequences.  Even not having a passport and finding yourself in Mexico is not a problem:  you don't need one to go into Mexico, and even though the U.S., according to printed regulations requires that a passport be shown, people still regularly cross with only a driver's license.  If you are a U.S. citizen, they have to re-admit you.  They don't have to make it easy, and it can be time-comsuming, but they have to let you in.)


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 1, 2014)

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but next month (August) we will be bringing out grands (3 teen sisters and a teen boy) to San Diego while their parents are on Honeymoon to Barcelona. We have lodging at Olde Town S.D. and will give the kids each a day to plan thee activities. I'm wondering about parking on the U.S. side and walking into Tijuana. Everyone has passports, and we'll have letters from their parents authorizing them to be with us. Is this wise? maybe a little 'out there'?, or totally nutz? We are familiar with Mexico, though not Tijuana for meny years, and the kids are all multi cultural and bilingual.

This thread has been interesting and instructional. I'm just wondering if we'd all have a fun adventure, or if the risk of something unpleasant happening should outweigh the 'adventure' part.

Jim


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 1, 2014)

There really isn't a risk of something happening.  It will strike you as many other areas of Mexico have struck you I'm sure.  The difference will be that Tijuana is a big city and has big city problems, but tourist areas are pretty much like tourist areas everywhere:  lots of vendors, street food, etc.

We live 30 miles south of Tijuana in Rosarito Beach--it has beach to offer and typical Mexican shopping, as well as lots of good restaurants.  If you decide you'd like information on Rosarito, I'd be happy to make recomendations.  : )

Be sure to get a notarized letter from the parents authorizing you to make medical decisions if any should be needed--for the U.S. or Mexico, it's a good thing to have.  Also, be sure the letter from the parents saying you have permission to take them into Mexico is notarized; the last thing you want is to be accused of kidnapping.


----------



## CarolF (Jul 2, 2014)

klpca said:


> Carol, you make the border crossing seem so simple. You may find that in reality, it's quite a bit more confusing than you would think.



I did have a giggle at the instructions too.  They were provided by one of your lads.  We "met" years ago whilst he was serving in Afghanistan and playing WOW online with DS.  I got to chat while I cooked.  We're still in  contact, I asked if the drive is stressful and he said "no", we both laughed.  I dare not further discuss the location of the Customs and Immigration office .

Travelling kids are a worry aren't they.  Crossing the Thai Malay Kelantan border is one of my current concerns - daily bombs/shootings, Muslim insurgents, a military with wide-ranging powers of search and arrest and then there is the very strict  Islamic Law to further complicate matters.  While you are thinking about the Cartels I'm thinking about the Russian Mafia.  As you say, we all need to play by their rules, written and unwritten.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 2, 2014)

There is absolutely nothing stressful about the drive--unless you are crossing the border when you don't intend to and know you have guns in the car and they are prohibited in Mexico.  That would make it stressful even for "one of our lads" that didn't see it as stressful when he made the crossing.  I give new visitors directions for crossing on a routine basis; they don't find it stressful either, but their intention is to cross the border and they don't have weapons in the car.

Just out of idle curiosity, when did "the lad" cross the border last?


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 2, 2014)

PStreet1 said:


> There is absolutely nothing stressful about the drive--unless you are crossing the border when you don't intend to and know you have guns in the car and they are prohibited in Mexico.  That would make it stressful even for "one of our lads" that didn't see it as stressful when he made the crossing.  I give new visitors directions for crossing on a routine basis; they don't find it stressful either, but their intention is to cross the border and they don't have weapons in the car.
> 
> Just out of idle curiosity, when did "the lad" cross the border last?



Pat, you're fighting a losing battle here.  She is using old information and youtube instead of facts.  The rest of us now know how this happened thanks to you and california-bighorn.


----------



## myoakley (Jul 2, 2014)

Pat, I admire your patience in explaining over and over again the situation which Sgt. Tamooressi encountered, and I thank you for making it clear to anyone without an agenda that this poor young man is blameless and is being detained unjustly.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 2, 2014)

myoakley said:


> Pat, I admire your patience in explaining over and over again the situation which Sgt. Tamooressi encountered, and I thank you for making it clear to anyone without an agenda that this poor young man is blameless and is being detained unjustly.



LOL - I'm not sure how much of Carol's issues are just to stir the pot or otherwise.  I look at it this way, if it wasn't for Carol's questions, we wouldn't be getting all the information that Pat chose to provide.  No harm, no foul.

Anyway, yes, Pat's information has definitely convinced me that our government really should act in the matter.  I'm not sure if O'Reilly leading the charge is a good thing or a bad thing in getting the administration to act.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 2, 2014)

My son-in-law is in the Air Force and when they were stationed in AZ, they were forbidden to go into Mexico. Is that not the case for CA servicemen? The other question I have is why he had 3 guns in the car? I come from an area where legal gun possession is very common and even during hunting season, I don't know anyone who carried 3 guns around.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 2, 2014)

It seems to me that whether he should/should not have had the guns is an entirely different question.  The fact is they are legal in the U.S. and all were purchased legally.  He knew they couldn't go into Mexico.

I have some vague memory of reading/hearing that he was moving and that all of his possessions were in the car---but I have no certainty about that.

I don't know what the rules are for military service people here, but no news story has ever stated that, as a military person, he was violating some instruction against being in Mexico.


----------



## CarolF (Jul 3, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> LOL - I'm not sure how much of Carol's issues are just to stir the pot or otherwise.  I look at it this way, if it wasn't for Carol's questions, we wouldn't be getting all the information that Pat chose to provide.  No harm, no foul.



Ace, there must be cultural difference at play, I thought I was having a very normal conversation and asking sensible questions.  Maybe people don't know that I'm not American and have different ways and values.   

To those people who continue to suggest that I have a "gun agenda", I think you have an over-inflated sense of self importance.   No-one else is interested in USA gun laws, no-one else cares about you or what you do or don't do, you are a curiosity maybe, but most definitely irrelevant to anyone else.  I can also say that I bitterly resent Australian/English statistics being abused by Americans with an "agenda", very annoying.  Like Jim, I do work out the safety aspect of a location before I visit, surely there is nothing too weird about that.  That's all, rant over.



Pat H said:


> The other question I have is why he had 3 guns in the car? I come from an area where legal gun possession is very common and even during hunting season, I don't know anyone who carried 3 guns around.



According to his mother (reportedly) he had been unable to find accommodation - he was homeless and living in his car.  Very sad and also very common for people with a mental illness.  I see people with mental illness/psychosis regularly (through my work) and this young lads story has truly captured my interest.  

Pat, I have no interest in your road construction scenario, I think the "being in Mexico" not "the US" after the old section is just a mischief making media distraction.  As I said earlier, I don't care how he got to Mexico but he shouldn't have been in the "Nothing to Declare" area with guns.  I also think it irrelevant that they said they would help him get back to the US, that was a ploy, he was heavily armed and they needed to calmly get the guns off him.  What I do think important is the absence of Customs and Immigration signage and I'm perplexed that no-one here has mentioned this as being important.  I'd take those photos of yours to the media.  Have you ever seen a border entry that doesn't have a Declaration section?  I haven't.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 3, 2014)

CarolF said:


> Ace, there must be cultural difference at play, I thought I was having a very normal conversation and asking sensible questions. Maybe people don't know that I'm not American and have different ways and values.


 
I just read through this thread and, given that I have known several Australians, I'm quite sure this is not a cultural difference.  There are a number of terms that come to mind, but "cultural difference" is not one of them.

Big up to PStreet1 and california-bighorn on the great information.  This is a very regrettable situation that I hope can be resolved in the Sgt.'s favor soon.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 3, 2014)

Pat, I have no interest in your road construction scenario, I think the "being in Mexico" not "the US" after the old section is just a mischief making media distraction.

That is not now, and has never been, the issue.  Obviously, after passing the old customs entrance, one is in Mexico.  You evidently choose not to get the point:  while in the U.S., for some distance before reaching the Mexican border, there is no way to avoid crossing the border.  The commitment to cross is made (and is irreversible) quite a way before reaching the Mexican border.  That is the problem.  For most people, it is only an annoyance if they miss the last U.S. exit--which is clearly marked, but for a driver in the wrong lane, it may be impossible to get to:  most people aren't transporting contraban.

The Marine's problem began with a wrong turn that took him to the highway going south, not north.  Once the turn was made, crossing the border was inescapable, and he was traveling after dark, physically and in terms of his knowledge of the border crossing, making the whole thing more difficult. 

Most people have no difficulty understanding that people make mistakes--and sometimes those mistakes, even something as simple as making a wrong turn,  have grave consequences.

As to finding the declarations area, again, the point is that all the lanes--which are the obvious way to get through customs--are clearly marked "nothing to declare," and there is no indication when one is in the large open area before the booths where one should go; there is no parking at that point.  For anything--other than guns, apparently--there is no problem with going through the "nothing to declare" lanes and pulling into an inspection station.  They direct you to where to pay.  The duty is no different whether you have previously declared the item voluntarily or whether they "catch you" with a random check.  Guns, obviously, can be--and in this case, were--a different issue.

I also think it irrelevant that they said they would help him get back to the US, that was a ploy, he was heavily armed and they needed to calmly get the guns off him.

Nonsense.  The guns were in back.  They weren't "on him."  He told them he had them.  He would not have been accessing the guns at the time.  You can't believe they allowed him to walk to the back and pick up a gun and point it at them.  When we've been searched, we are told to remain in the vehicle, and open the back.  They move suitcases/open suitcases/look in boxes/sacks of groceries/etc.  When they are finished, they tell the driver to proceed or they tell the driver to pay duty, etc.  That border crossing has many armed miliary men present; it isn't remotely credible that they made an exception for him and allowed him to get out of the car and go to the back and get a gun.  They weren't needing to "calmly get the guns off him."


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 3, 2014)

Ok Pat, that's enough. Stop trying to logically hammer the point home. The nail is firmly affixed no matter what non-linear arguments to the contrary are raised. I really do not understand how, without additional facts or evidence not previously presented, a rational human being can continue to debate the case you have laid out with a straight face.


----------



## CarolF (Jul 3, 2014)

PStreet1 said:


> I also think it irrelevant that they said they would help him get back to the US, that was a ploy, he was heavily armed and they needed to calmly get the guns off him.
> 
> Nonsense.  The guns were in back.  They weren't "on him."  He told them he had them.  He would not have been accessing the guns at the time.  You can't believe they allowed him to walk to the back and pick up a gun and point it at them.  When we've been searched, we are told to remain in the vehicle, and open the back.  They move suitcases/open suitcases/look in boxes/sacks of groceries/etc.  When they are finished, they tell the driver to proceed or they tell the driver to pay duty, etc.  That border crossing has many armed miliary men present; it isn't remotely credible that they made an exception for him and allowed him to get out of the car and go to the back and get a gun.  They weren't needing to "calmly get the guns off him."




I have not, at any stage, seen it reported that the guns were in the back.  I  understood, all along, that all 3 guns were fully loaded and within reach.  One was wrapped in clothing next to him on the seat.  That is why I haven't been able to see why the Mexicans should let him go under those circumstances.  They would be sending a man with 3 loaded weapons in his lap (so to speak) and 400 rounds of ammunition back onto the streets of America.

Edited to add:

This is what I thought had happened -



> Tahmooressi entered Mexico with a 5.56mm rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a .45-caliber pistol, as well as more than 400 rounds of ammunition. The chief Mexican customs officer at the San Ysidro crossing told Vice that the guns, all loaded, were "just wrapped up in his belongings" rather than locked away and unloaded as required by California law. Vice also reported that "the rifle was found behind the driver’s seat, the shotgun on the passenger seat, and the pistol was in the driver-side door pocket, along with several cartridges."



http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-marine-jailed-in-mexico-20140605-column.html


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 4, 2014)

CarolF said:


> I have not, at any stage, seen it reported that the guns were in the back. I understood, all along, that all 3 guns were fully loaded and within reach. One was wrapped in clothing next to him on the seat. That is why I haven't been able to see why the Mexicans should let him go under those circumstances. They would be sending a man with 3 loaded weapons in his lap (so to speak) and 400 rounds of ammunition back onto the streets of America.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> ...



 Mexican authorities do not arrest a person because they are concerned what he will do in America, they arrest a person for breaking the law within their borders.  I presume that you, shall we say, misspoke.

 As for the article, let's assume that one or two of the guns were wrapped in belongings and/or within reach.  He technically violated Mexican law regardless of where the guns were located, but the point made by these "partisans" is that the guns were legal in the U.S. and he only ended up in Mexico by accident. Unless it is clearly demonstrated that he was not there by accident, then those who press for the U.S. to negotiate his release have valid arguments.


----------



## CarolF (Jul 4, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> Mexican authorities do not arrest a person because they are concerned what he will do in America, they arrest a person for breaking the law within their borders.  I presume that you, shall we say, misspoke.
> 
> As for the article, let's assume that one or two of the guns were wrapped in belongings and/or within reach.  He technically violated Mexican law regardless of where the guns were located, but the point made by these "partisans" is that the guns were legal in the U.S. and he only ended up in Mexico by accident. Unless it is clearly demonstrated that he was not there by accident, then those who press for the U.S. to negotiate his release have valid arguments.



I have not considered such ideas before and it is a such a foreign concept that I'm unable to comprehend it at the moment.  I will need to put a great deal of thought into it.  

Thank you for ending my torture.  I did participate in the discussion in good faith and was unable to see what must be blatantly obvious to everyone else.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 6, 2014)

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcaria...05-column.html  There are so many problems with that opinion piece that they are beyond dealing with.  The author clearly understands very little about that border crossing, and her attitude about being imprisoned in Mexico also shows she knows nothing about what that would entail.  No one has ever tried to say that he didn't enter Mexico with guns nor has anyone maintained that entering Mexico with guns isn't illegal.  All that has been said is that it was an understandable mistake (for anyone who knows the area) and that this is a case where leniency would be appropriate.

In negotiating with Mexico, there is also the issue of reciprocity.

Mexican soldiers enter the U.S. and have fired on citizens and our border patrol.  The U.S. has not detained them, and their crimes are much more egregious, yet Mexico is not willing to reciprocate in the case of a soldier who did no damage with his guns and simply wanted to turn around and go back where he came from.

Tucson's Channel 4 report of Mexican soldiers crossing into the U.S. and attacking our border patrol and citizens.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdbDDfTutZQ#t=85


----------



## Bucky (Nov 2, 2014)

pammex said:


> The Mexican law on guns is very very clear.  He broke the law.  Why boycott anything in Mexico for his actions.  To expect anyone government, timeshare companies etc. to do anything about this is not right.  You break the law you pay the price, no matter where you are!



You don't have a clue of what's going through the mind of a person being treated for PTSD!


----------



## Helene4 (Nov 2, 2014)

joewillie12 said:


> Thanks Pat for taking the time to explain the road scenerio. Sounds like me driving in NYC  seeing my exit but not a chance of getting off and winding up in Staten Island .  Unfortunatly the guy is still guilty even though it was a mistake or accident.



(Although Staten Islanders will deny it.....they ARE  part of NYC):hysterical:


----------

