Use of National Guard to "Secure U.S. Borders"

[lawrocket 3]

I don't think it's a good idea. While I don't know the effect of Posse Comitatus on the legality of calling up NG for border patrol duty. It seems somewhat fishy.

I do believe that there are other issues that affect the wisdom of doing this.

One of the first issues is the fact the the NG is already stretched pretty thin. There are plenty of problems with deployment, retention, etc. due to the conflict in Iraq. This would stretch it even thinner.

A second would be the responsible authoriy. Posse Comitatus does not affect a governor's ability to use the troops. But, the protection of the borders is a federal job for which the states shouldn't participate and are not even allowed to participate. Proposition 187, anybody?

A third problem is, "Where would these troops come from?" We've got only four states where it seems this would be necessary: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would those states be the only ones to provide NG support? Or, would al NG units be possibly called up?

It seems to me that further short-sightedness causes a possible response like this. It's ridiculous to think that this could be categorized as a present emergency when the problem has been well known for the last 30 years.

I think this is a bad idea. Instead, why don't the administration and Congress simply take some money from other programs and put it into the border patrol? A good 100 billion over the next 2 or 3 years could probably do wonders.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,435]

I don't think it's a bad idea to meet the needs of an unexpected local emergency - like a hurricane, or a dam break, or even a flood of immigrants. That being said, it's a very bad idea as a way to stop a chronic problem. It's one of those quick-fix feel-good solutions that does nothing to address the problem in the long term.

If we want to increase our border security, hire more border patrol agents. That's what we have them for. If we have a sudden increase in people coming across the Rio Grande, then calling up the national guard until you get the border patrol in place might make sense. But this problem has been going on for decades, and it's a pretty constant problem. We should support the people who are trained to do this, rather than bringing in national guard troops who have already been stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[narcimund 0]

Reasons it's a GOOD idea (from the administration's perspective):

* Establishes a new precedent in military action within the borders of the US

* Loads the entire financial burden on the states

* Continues federal control of the state militia

* Militarizes modern civilian life

* Reinforces widespread crisis mentality

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[idrankwhat 0]

Don't forget Josh Bolton's five point plan to help Bush recover from his public image problem. This show of force and his address to the nation on this issue is step one of the five.
1 DEPLOY GUNS AND BADGES;
2 MAKE WALL STREET HAPPY;
3 BRAG MORE;
4 RECLAIM SECURITY CREDIBILITY;
5 COURT THE PRESS.

Right now I see it as just playing politics. Let's see what the consensus is after the elections this fall. This troop deployment may go the way of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

[Gene03 0]

What Narcimund said.
Doesn't Posse Comitatus mean "Power of the County"?

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[lawrocket 3]

Personally, if I were POTUS, I would have an entirely different solution to the problem of illegal immigration. In FY 2006, the US is to send $27 million to Mexico in foreign aid. It really isn't that much, compared to what the US gives so many other coutries. But I think Mexico is also in the top ten economies.

I think $22 million is requested for FY 2007. What if that money was diverted from aid to Mexico and diverted to the Border Patrol?

While we're at it, how about diverting the $35 million from Nicaragua, $41 million from Honduras, $50 million from Guatemala, and $25 million from El Salvador for foreign aid and directing it to the border patrol?

Something tells me that the borders would be more difficult to cross. An extra $150 million would help the border patrol, but they'd have less and less work to do. Perhaps then the Border Patrol could be cut back, and a large portion of the money returned to the foreign countries for aid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Personally, if I were POTUS, I would have an entirely different solution to the problem of illegal immigration. In FY 2006, the US is to send $27 million to Mexico in foreign aid. It really isn't that much, compared to what the US gives so many other coutries. But I think Mexico is also in the top ten economies.

I think $22 million is requested for FY 2007. What if that money was diverted from aid to Mexico and diverted to the Border Patrol?

While we're at it, how about diverting the $35 million from Nicaragua, $41 million from Honduras, $50 million from Guatemala, and $25 million from El Salvador for foreign aid and directing it to the border patrol?

Something tells me that the borders would be more difficult to cross. An extra $150 million would help the border patrol, but they'd have less and less work to do. Perhaps then the Border Patrol could be cut back, and a large portion of the money returned to the foreign countries for aid.

JC just as you and I learned in the military, when it hits them in the wallet they pay attention.

[billvon 2,435]

>I think $22 million is requested for FY 2007. What if that money was
>diverted from aid to Mexico and diverted to the Border Patrol?

Would have two effects.

1) Mexico's economy would worsen just a little bit. More illegal immigrants would come over.

2) We could build 4.2 miles of fence, or hire enough border patrol agents to cover about 30 new patrols. That means coverage of about 150 miles of the border. (The border is 1950 miles long.)

While that solution may "feel right" I think it would have the opposite effect as intended. To really cut down on border crossings, the cost would be in the 10-20 billion range initially, with a permanent increase of about 2 billion a year. If that's important to us, then we do it. If not, then we won't stop it (although we may slow it down a bit.) We've tried half measures before; we can see where they've gotten us so far.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Doesn't Posse Comitatus mean "Power of the County"?

Yep. In old common law, it is the entire population of a County above the age of 15, whom the Sheriff can summon to assist in caputring felons, maintaining peace, etc.

In the US, the Posse Comitatus Act was enacted in 1878. As a federal law, it was intended to prevent the United States Military from acting as a police power - mainly to prevent them from supervising confederate state elections during Reconstruction.

States can still use NG to do things. It only prevents the POTUS from using the military, with some exceptions...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>I think $22 million is requested for FY 2007. What if that money was
>diverted from aid to Mexico and diverted to the Border Patrol?

Would have two effects.

1) Mexico's economy would worsen just a little bit. More illegal immigrants would come over.

2) We could build 4.2 miles of fence, or hire enough border patrol agents to cover about 30 new patrols. That means coverage of about 150 miles of the border. (The border is 1950 miles long.)

While that solution may "feel right" I think it would have the opposite effect as intended. To really cut down on border crossings, the cost would be in the 10-20 billion range initially, with a permanent increase of about 2 billion a year. If that's important to us, then we do it. If not, then we won't stop it (although we may slow it down a bit.) We've tried half measures before; we can see where they've gotten us so far.

Snipers are cheap

[billvon 2,435]

>Snipers are cheap

For both sides, unfortunately - which is why I hope it doesn't come to that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

>I think $22 million is requested for FY 2007. What if that money was
>diverted from aid to Mexico and diverted to the Border Patrol?

Would have two effects.

1) Mexico's economy would worsen just a little bit. More illegal immigrants would come over.

2) We could build 4.2 miles of fence, or hire enough border patrol agents to cover about 30 new patrols. That means coverage of about 150 miles of the border. (The border is 1950 miles long.)

While that solution may "feel right" I think it would have the opposite effect as intended. To really cut down on border crossings, the cost would be in the 10-20 billion range initially, with a permanent increase of about 2 billion a year. If that's important to us, then we do it. If not, then we won't stop it (although we may slow it down a bit.) We've tried half measures before; we can see where they've gotten us so far.

Snipers are cheap

I certainly wouldn't suggest killing anyone. Part of my outlook is my understanding that these are people looking for a better life. One of my best friends in this world is the son of illegal immigrants. Cisco has certainly changed my perspective on this.

My issue is, however, that choices must now be made. The problem has reached critical mass (I'd argue that it hit critical mass here in Cali 20 years ago, but the rest of the nation is only now starting to feel it). When you've got guys like CanuckinUsa who did it all correctly and has been forced to leave when others who did it all illegally are being proposed to be allowed to stay, issues of fairness come into play.

What's fair and good for the nation must take precedence over what's good for a displaced people. Don't punish those who by accident of birth are in their situation. But we can only give so much, and I believe it's time for a shakeup. Like a junkie in withdrawals, it'll be painful and difficult, but the future is brighter for having done it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

When they re-institute the draft after the initial attacks on Iran, the powers-that-be need a place to send their kids, who will enroll in the National Guard rather than face the draft. What better place for them than border patrol? It's ALMOST as cushy as the Texas Air Guard, but not quite.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I think $22 million is requested for FY 2007. What if that money was
>diverted from aid to Mexico and diverted to the Border Patrol?

Would have two effects.

1) Mexico's economy would worsen just a little bit. More illegal immigrants would come over.

2) We could build 4.2 miles of fence, or hire enough border patrol agents to cover about 30 new patrols. That means coverage of about 150 miles of the border. (The border is 1950 miles long.)

While that solution may "feel right" I think it would have the opposite effect as intended. To really cut down on border crossings, the cost would be in the 10-20 billion range initially, with a permanent increase of about 2 billion a year. If that's important to us, then we do it. If not, then we won't stop it (although we may slow it down a bit.) We've tried half measures before; we can see where they've gotten us so far.

Snipers are cheap

I certainly wouldn't suggest killing anyone.

Quote

Hey neither did I!

I was merely stating they are cheap, and in fact one owes me $20 still

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's ALMOST as cushy as the Texas Air Guard, but not quite.

Probably not as cushy as Oxford, though...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

It's ALMOST as cushy as the Texas Air Guard, but not quite.

Probably not as cushy as Oxford, though...

LOL, maybe, maybe not. It’s fun to think about, though.

Dubya got exempted from the draft by getting into the Guard on Daddy’s connections, and learned to fly some really neat fighter planes over the Gulf of Mexico. I wonder how many push-ups he really did? OK, maybe a few, but I’ll bet not many. And he did protect the Gulf coast against Viet Cong invasion, so let’s give the man some credit.

Clinton came from scrub-nothing and had to use his own brains and talent and drive to get that Rhoads scholarship. And I’ll bet the average Rhoads scholar has to engage a few more brain cells to get that scholarship and keep up his studies at Oxford than the average guardsman. Academically, and intellectually, it probably was more demanding than cushy. Definitely no push-ups though, and probably the only running he did was to beat closing time at the donut shop.

[mnealtx 0]

LOL... at least you saw the reference... I was going to put "and dodging the draft entirely" , but I figured that'd be TOO obvious of a clue!!

*pop* *pop* It's fun popping bubbles, isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[78RATS 0]

Is it just me or did this whole illegal immigrant "crisis" just happen to take headlines after the Republicans started getiing hammered in the press and polls?

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Is it just me or did this whole illegal immigrant "crisis" just happen to take headlines after the Republicans started getiing hammered in the press and polls?

No, it's not just you. Much the way that gay marriage, a complete non-issue, was made into the issue of the day.

Professional political operatives. You can't eat them, so ya gotta love 'em.

[Tink1717 2]

I never understood why the US is only one of a relative handful of countries that does not use the military to secure the borders. It seems to me that the job of border security is what the military is tailor made for. Posse Comitatus, in my not so humble opinion, is not an issue in border security because the border is an international boundary that, when breached constitutes an invasion. Invasion by foreigners is what defense is all about. So why not task the military with the job of defending the borders?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[billvon 2,435]

>when breached constitutes an invasion.

If it's really, honestly an invasion, then go to Congress, get a declaration of war, and destroy Mexico for attacking the US. Heck, make it part of the US, and the problem goes away! (Well, it actually gets ten times worse, but at least we will have DONE something.)

But most people don't consider it a military problem, but rather an immigration one.

>So why not task the military with the job of defending the borders?

Cause

a) they're stretched pretty thin right now

b) they're trained to (primarily) kill people and blow things up, and that's not the mission when it comes to border security

c) we have an organization trained specifically to secure our borders; they're a better match for the job.

[nerdgirl 0]

Pure speculation and pulling together thoughts from multiple replies:

Could this (border security) be the pressing political crisis of the summer/autumn to make the withdrawal or drawing down of National Guard in Iraq a politically viable option for the administration ???

marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[MC208B 0]

"We could build 4.2 miles of fence"

That's about thousand bucks a foot Bill, pretty expensive even for the feds....

[billvon 2,435]

>That's about thousand bucks a foot Bill, pretty expensive even for the feds....

It's what the Tijuana/San Diego fence cost. Perhaps Halliburton built it . . .

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

c) we have an organization trained specifically to secure our borders; they're a better match for the job.

As O'Reilly just said on the air, it's called the . . . NATIONAL GUARD.

Ponder that title for a second.

. . =(_8^(1)