Rafters get citation in Mexico

[homerboy2u]

...the places I typically hang out.

You mean "allegedly hang out," as we're still waiting for trip reports with pictures, right Homero?

 Hey Presidio!!!......I will answer all the questions that were adressed to me  and i will also comment on the opinions posted by the folks who were kind enough to answer my questions,but you owe me...you said give me sometime and still NO pictures of your "alleged" trip report.

 I must say i have learned alot from your posts so far,but a promise is a promise,no mattter what way you see it. I will hold my end.....

[presidio]

I wonder what these issues would be like if they indeed created a international park between mexico and u.s. that included BB and the Maderas El Carmen range area as has been talked about before as noted near the bottom of http://www.bigbendchat.com/portal/forum/whats-happening/room-to-roam-t2374.0.html;msg23624   international park rangers?

Well, in that instance there might actually have been some international agreement for rules and enforcement, but more likely, each country would enforce the rules on its respective lands as is the case now. The interesting question would be whether officers from one country would have legal standing to prosecute a violator whose act occurred in the other country. However, much is possible under treaty agreements.

[presidio]

...the places I typically hang out.

You mean "allegedly hang out," as we're still waiting for trip reports with pictures, right Homero?

 Hey Presidio!!!......I will answer all the questions that were adressed to me  and i will also comment on the opinions posted by the folks who were kind enough to answer my questions,but you owe me...you said give me sometime and still NO pictures of your "alleged" trip report.

 I must say i have learned alot from your posts so far,but a promise is a promise,no mattter what way you see it. I will hold my end.....

Homero, all this legal wrangling is taking valuable time away from recreation. However, it's important for folks to understand how all this works (or doesn't when things go wrong) so they can be forewarned and forearmed.

"An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy…" attributed to Thomas Jefferson (but regardless, it is the principle that matters).

[presidio]

Since I quoted Thomas Jefferson, one by Benito Juбrez seems applicable as well to this situation...


'Entre los individuos como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz'.

[homerboy2u]

'Entre los individuos como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz'.

 You beat me to the punch,Presidio...... ..It is a phrase used by many countries all over the world and was first pronounced by President Benito Juarez: Between individuals and between nations,RESPECT for the rights of others is PEACE....etched in stone for ever.


 Please allow me to pick up on this subject tomorrow...i had a tough day at work today.

[homerboy2u]

Homero,

If you enter the US legally, you have to follow US laws/ regulations.  At Lejitas, there is a self permitting stop at the Warnock Center for river runners and other back country users, I'm not sure if farther down your way there are places to self permit. 

If you put your boat in the Rio at a put-in without a notice that you need a permit, I'd say that you would be warned if a ranger came upon you camping on the US side. 

If I went to San Elena, MX, by law, I would have to go to a port of entry as you did to legally enter the US.  If I'm in a canoe and have a river permit, I can move back and forth between the two banks of the Rio for as long as my permit lasts.  I still can't legally enter Santa Elena, MX.

 Thank you Lorax for replying,but this is not exactly what i asked: I now know,stated by Presidio,some posts afterwards yours that you can exit the country legally.

 To extend the OFFICIAL word on the Mexican side from your last paragraph: If anyone of you should go to Santa Elena,Ojo Caliente,Boquillas del Carmen,La Linda or Ejido Muzquiz (small villages along the Big Bend National Park) you are not entering Mexican territory ILLEGALLY. All foreigners can enter mexican territory and spend 72 hours freely.Should you want to stay for a longer period (we too have dumb rules) any one as foreigners have to go back,in this case, to the middle of the river cross international waters and return for another extension of your right to stay (72 hours). This is applicable to all Federal and point of entry lands along the Mexican Border.
 
  THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE LANDS AND RANCHES along the course of the river. In this case to have permission by the owners is suffice.

  Should you want to stay for a longer period of time,you can request a permit that is issued at any OFFICIAL point of entry to the country,customs, and is extended for 6 months.With this you can reside any where in the country you like. This can be renewed as many times as you please.

 There are other permits,forms and extensions for other cases,but those can be adressed a part.

YOU ARE ,however, IN BIG TROUBLE if you should return to U.S. soil and caught. $ 5,000.00 dlls in fines and jail time.

Homero will have to address the specifics of Mexican immigration law

 I hope i did...

[homerboy2u]

Quote from: Lorax on January 15, 2009, 04:00:19 pm
The Wild and Scenic River Designation carries across the border. Rangers patrol the W & S River to enforce regulations.  US and Mexico co-operate on very few things but the maps show the area designated as wild and scenic on both sides. That's why the Park writes permits.


I think not

Please cite your source.

Quote
from http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-rio-grande-texas.html

Designated Reach: November 10, 1978. The segment on the United States side of the river from river mile 842.3 above Mariscal Canyon downstream to river mile 651.1 at the Terrell-Val Verde County line.


And as ammended in June 2008

Quote
To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to modify the boundary of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Extension Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. RIO GRANDE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

Paragraph (17) of section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended to read as follows:

`(17) RIO GRANDE, TEXAS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The segment on the United States side of the river from the west boundary of Big Bend National Park, located at approximately river mile 902.2, downstream to the river mile 651.1 at the Terrell-Val Verde County line; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior.

`(B) MAP- The segment described in subparagraph (A) is depicted on the map relating to the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River titled `Proposed Wild & Scenic River Addition', numbered 192/80,001, and dated March 1, 2007.

`(C) BOUNDARY- The Secretary shall, within two years after the date of enactment of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Extension Act of 2008, take such action with respect to the segment referred to in this paragraph as is provided for under subsection (b). The action required by subsection (b) shall be undertaken by the Secretary, after consultation with the United States Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and appropriate officials of the State of Texas and its political subdivisions. The development plan required by subsection (b) shall be construed to be a general management plan only for the United States side of the river and shall include, but not be limited to, the establishment of a detailed boundary which shall include an average of not more than 160 acres per mile.

`(D) TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be in conflict with--

`(i) the commitments or agreements of the United States made by or in pursuance of the treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding the utilization of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed at Washington, February 1944 (59 Stat. 1219), or

`(ii) the treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding maintenance of the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the international boundary between the United States and Mexico, signed November 23, 1970.'.

The NPS has no jurisdiction beyond the international boundary, clearly defined as the middle of the deepest channel. I believe I'd see the LE Ranger in court.

[/quote]

CORRECT!!!!...Mexico has no treaty to establish any international Law enforcement with NPS,FBI, or any of the U.S. agencies to enter ARMED in to the country.

 Should this be the other way around you would NOT have read this on the story:

But can American park rangers actually give a ticket to someone for conduct in Mexico?

Not a chance, according to Mexican Consul official Fernando Valdes in Del Rio.

“We don't know about this incident, but generally U.S. authorities should not even cross into Mexico in any official capacity and perform acts of authority, even in hot pursuit,” he said.

“This is very serious. The officers should be advised by their superiors that this is against the law,” he said.

[homerboy2u]

Look at the tone of many of the posts. There seems to be agreement the citations shouldn't have occurred, but in the next breath it's...well they agreed to the conditions. You cannot have it both ways. Take the park/fire/river out of the equation and substitute any other real crime and the absurdity of this becomes apparent.

 You are correct Presidio, i was one of them who answer that way,but as a foreigner,i have less rights than you as a national. I can be expelled from the U.S.No questions asked. So i need to be more careful of what i do in U.S.soil .

 That applies,for now, to river rafting from the U.S. side and requesting a permitt at a NPS office.

[homerboy2u]

...the places I typically hang out.

You mean "allegedly hang out," as we're still waiting for trip reports with pictures, right Homero?

 Hey Presidio!!!......I will answer all the questions that were adressed to me  and i will also comment on the opinions posted by the folks who were kind enough to answer my questions,but you owe me...you said give me sometime and still NO pictures of your "alleged" trip report.

 I must say i have learned alot from your posts so far,but a promise is a promise,no mattter what way you see it. I will hold my end.....

 When ever you are ready,Presidio...your pictures please.

[presidio]

Homero,

If you enter the US legally, you have to follow US laws/ regulations.  At Lejitas, there is a self permitting stop at the Warnock Center for river runners and other back country users, I'm not sure if farther down your way there are places to self permit. 

If you put your boat in the Rio at a put-in without a notice that you need a permit, I'd say that you would be warned if a ranger came upon you camping on the US side.

If I went to San Elena, MX, by law, I would have to go to a port of entry as you did to legally enter the US.  If I'm in a canoe and have a river permit, I can move back and forth between the two banks of the Rio for as long as my permit lasts..

But here is a rub you (Lorax) did not consider. Remember, the NPS does not control the entire river despite their fervent wishes. If you transport a boat to Mexico and then put in to float the canyons, there is no parallel requirement to have a permit as long as you don't camp on the US side.

Has this ever happened? Possibly, but probably not.

What would happen when you are 'checked' for a permit? Well, I think it 'might' depend on whether you were a US citizen or another nationality (you could be other than a Mexican national). But in the end, I think the NPS would issue you a citation because they can't wrap their heads around the fact that their rules only go to the international boundary. This is another situation where enterprising individuals with scrupulous photo documentation could demonstrate they are not subject to the park rules.

Would you win this in court? In this example, that's a big question. It clearly is an area where you REALLY would want an attorney to represent you, because the heart of the case would depend more on interpretation of law rather than the apparently simple facts. The NPS would argue, no doubt, that you did what you did in order to circumvent the park rules. That might be true, but the law issue is that you are not required to have a permit from Mexico to be on the river. Because, again, if the rule does not apply to you where you stand, it matters not what your motivation was.

All foreigners can enter mexican territory and spend 72 hours freely.Should you want to stay for a longer period (we too have dumb rules) any one as foreigners have to go back,in this case, to the middle of the river cross international waters and return for another extension of your right to stay (72 hours). This is applicable to all Federal and point of entry lands along the Mexican Border.
 
  THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE LANDS AND RANCHES along the course of the river. In this case to have permission by the owners is suffice.

Homero, I don't know that is dumb, actually. Seems to be a practical way of dealing with issues along the border without tying up lots of labor resources.

[presidio]

You are correct Presidio, i was one of them who answer that way,but as a foreigner,i have less rights than you as a national. I can be expelled from the U.S.No questions asked. So i need to be more careful of what i do in U.S.soil .

Actually, when you are legally on US soil, your rights are not any different in the judicial arena than a citizen. Even illegal entrants are afforded the same protections though it usually is much simpler to just deport them rather than run through the other process (since that is a recognized and viable resolution tool). So, while a non-citizen can be deported and a citizen can't, there's really no other difference.

That applies,for now, to river rafting from the U.S. side and requesting a permitt at a NPS office.

Yep, but your comment 'rafting from the US side' touches on my prior post about putting in from the Mexican side. You would not need a permit in that instance but could expect a lot of grief from the NPS in the absence of one.

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Here is what Presidio and I have in common - neither one of us is an attorney.  That being said, I believe Presidio is chasing the wrong argument here.  This has nothing at all to do with international law, or where a ranger has jurisdiction.  It does, however, have everything to do with contract law.

There is no disputing that the NPS has the authority to control access to the river from the US side.  They do this by issuing a permit.  The terms by which they issue the permit are (apparently) written on the permit document.  The permitee then agrees to the terms by signing the document.  At this point a contract has been created.  NPS has agreed to allow you on the river and you have agreed to abide by the terms of the permit (contract).  Contracts are legaly binding...end of story.

Do US law enforcement authorities have jurisdiction in Mexico?  No, but it doesn't matter in this situation.  What does matter is that one party of the contract busted Mr. Bowden (the other party) violating the terms of a legal contract. 

If memory serves correct, the news article that we are talking about here made no mention of the ranger actually crossing the river and I doubt he did.  More likely the ranger saw the fire on the other side of the river and made an inquiry to the Bowden party by shouting across the river.  In the process the ranger learned all he needed to issue the citation for violating the permit (contract) agreed to by both parties. 

Edit:  One more thing...the ticket issued to Mr. Bowden and party is probably not for a criminal violation.  It is more likely an offered settlement on violating the contract - a civil violation.

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Here's an interesting side note.  The US government, as do all governmental entities, has what is called sovereign immunity.  This means that a citizen can not sue the government.  But, when the government files a civil suit against a citizen, the government must give up its right to sovereign immunity.  This means Mr. Bowden and party could file a counter suit against the park service, which could, presumably, involve the fact that NPS has set stupid rules as terms for a permit.  I do hope Mr. Bowden exercises his rights.

[presidio]

This has nothing at all to do with international law, or where a ranger has jurisdiction.  It does, however, have everything to do with contract law.

There is no disputing that the NPS has the authority to control access to the river from the US side.  They do this by issuing a permit.  The terms by which they issue the permit are (apparently) written on the permit document.  The permitee then agrees to the terms by signing the document.  At this point a contract has been created.  NPS has agreed to allow you on the river and you have agreed to abide by the terms of the permit (contract).  Contracts are legaly binding...end of story.

But it does have everything to do with international law. The 'contract' as you call it is invalid beyond the jurisdiction of the issuing agency. You cannot be compelled (bound by contract) to do anything where the capability to enforce the contract does not exist. The NPS cannot enforce anything in Mexico. It is not even an abrogation of the 'contract' since the 'contract' is null and void outside the park.

Do US law enforcement authorities have jurisdiction in Mexico?  No, but it doesn't matter in this situation.

Oh, but it does. 

More likely the ranger saw the fire on the other side of the river and made an inquiry to the Bowden party by shouting across the river.  In the process the ranger learned all he needed to issue the citation for violating the permit (contract) agreed to by both parties. 

It doesn't matter whether the ranger crossed the river or not (if he did, then it is even more egregious an act). It also does not matter what he observed occurring in Mexico or what the 'suspects' even admitted to doing in Mexico. There is no jurisdiction, period. You cannot enforce something you have no control over.

Edit:  One more thing...the ticket issued to Mr. Bowden and party is probably not for a criminal violation.  It is more likely an offered settlement on violating the contract - a civil violation.

Respectfully, you are very wrong on this supposition. All violations of park rules (when they are enforceable by the violation actually occurring in the park) are criminal violations. It most likely is a petty offense, akin to a traffic ticket as the NPS generally lacks misdemeanor authority but, regardless of authority level, it still is a criminal violation.

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Suppose I rent a car in the US.  As part of the rental agreement there is a provision that I do not drive the rented car into Mexico.  I break the agreement and drive the car into Mexico anyway and somehow the car rental agency discovers what I did.  Does the car rental agency have grounds to keep my deposit, even though the violation of the agreement happened in a foreign country?