National Guard on the Border?

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,307
14,716
146
While I think he's trying to close the barn door after all the cows got out, so to speak, here's Bushie doing some posturing on the border control issue. Personally, I don't think it will ever happen, as it will piss off way too many in his power base who depend on the illegals, but this Democrat thinks it's way overdue...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060513/ap_on_go_pr_wh/border_defense_15
WASHINGTON - President Bush, trying to build momentum for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, is considering plans to shore up the Mexican border with National Guard troops paid for by the federal government, according to senior administration officials.

One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high.

The officials insisted on anonymity since no decision has been announced.

The president was expected to reveal his plans in an address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. It will be the first time he has used the Oval Office for a domestic policy speech ? a gesture intended to underscore the importance he places on the divisive immigration issue.

The key questions Friday were exactly how many National Guard troops might be deployed, for how long and at what cost to taxpayers ? as well as the problem of possible disruption of upcoming deployments to Iraq and elsewhere overseas.

Using those troops for border security is "maybe not the right way to go," said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican former movie star, though he agreed the federal government is obliged to secure the borders.

"Not to use our National Guard, soldiers that are coming back from Iraq, for instance, and they have spent a year and a half over there and now they're coming back," he said. "I think that we should let them go to work, back to work again."

Texas Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes and Solomon Ortiz ? both senior members of the Armed Services Committee ? sent a letter to Bush urging him to consider a number of issues before deploying the troops, including whether another mission is in the best interest of "our over-stretched military."

As discussions among the White House, the Pentagon and the states continued on how the military could be used to secure the southern border, defense officials said states want the federal government to pick up what will be a significant tab for the increased security. Officials had no estimates on that cost.

Bush's speech Monday night is intended to build support for broad immigration overhaul by taking substantive steps to secure the border.

"We need to beef up those (border) operations and the cost will be substantial," Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said in an interview. "People are just not going to accept comprehensive immigration reform unless they are assured the government is going to secure the border. People have lost confidence in the federal government because they simply haven't addressed this in a dramatic and effective way."

Paul McHale, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, asked officials earlier this week to offer options for the use of military resources and troops ? particularly the National Guard ? along the border with Mexico, according to defense officials familiar with the discussions.

Cornyn said state officials are also looking for more unmanned aircraft, ground sensors, surveillance cameras and military training to help with border patrols.

Defense officials said the National Guard may be used only until significant additions to the existing civilian border patrols can be fully funded and completed.

Currently there are about 100 National Guard troops involved in counter-drug operations, including some along the border, said Guard Bureau spokesman Jack Harrison. He said there are also between 10-15 Guard members ? mostly engineers ? helping border patrol agents with vehicle and heavy equipment support.

The discussions this week underscored the importance of the border and immigrations issues, yet were tentative enough to reflect worries about drawing the nation's armed forces into a politically sensitive domestic role.

Southern lawmakers met with White House strategist Karl Rove earlier in the week for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control. And on Capitol Hill, the Senate is poised to pass legislation this month that would call for additional border security, a new guest worker program and provisions opening the way to eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Currently, the military plays a very limited role along the borders, but some active duty forces have been used in the past to help battle drug traffickers.

The National Guard is generally under the control of the state governors, but Guard units can be federalized by the president, such as those sent to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Active duty military may not be used for law enforcement unless the president authorizes it.

In addition, under federal law, in certain circumstances the states can maintain control of their Guard units but arrange to have the costs picked up by the federal government. That allows the Guard to continue to perform law enforcement activities.

Officials wrangled over the use of the active military during Hurricane Katrina, with some suggesting that troops be used for law enforcement to quell violence and looters in New Orleans. There were also suggestions that Bush federalize the National Guard there, but state officials opposed that proposal. In the end, neither move was made.

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
I'll believe it when I see it, although I think there should be more like 100,000 troops down there.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I predict a huge boom in Mexican whorehouse business--and better cultural exchange and understanding.--and lest I forget---the US armed forces has always been number one in the drug importation business--even if we are only calling on the reserves. This country stands four square for free enterprise system.
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Will believe it when the troops are actually there, and stay at the border to guard any intrusion.

Besides illegals keep pouring in, there have been enough corrupted Mexican army/drug cartels attacking US citizens and border guards already.



 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
National Guard. Weekend Soldiers ... What? Are we only going to guard the boarder on the weekends?

Aren't most of the troops in Iraq? Who will be fighting the wars??? Should be an interesting speech for boosh as Monday rolls around. I doubt he will have anything useful to say as if he ever had anything to say that made any sense?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,838
8,430
136
if implemented, i wonder what this policy would do for the sagging nat'l guard recruiting and retention situation.

might improve with the notion that the guard units whose home states are situated along the "front lines" with mexico would get to defend their hometowns (which, IIRC is supposed to be their primary function) and be permanently exempt from overseas duty.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: ericlp
National Guard. Weekend Soldiers ... What? Are we only going to guard the boarder on the weekends?

Aren't most of the troops in Iraq? Who will be fighting the wars??? Should be an interesting speech for boosh as Monday rolls around. I doubt he will have anything useful to say as if he ever had anything to say that made any sense?
do you really still believe that the National Guard and Reserves are "only" weekend warriors? truly?

Originally posted by: tweaker2
might improve with the notion that the guard units whose home states are situated along the "front lines" with mexico would get to defend their hometowns (which, IIRC is supposed to be their primary function) and be permanently exempt from overseas duty.
nothing will ever make them "permanently exempt from overseas duty."

I feel that this is a great mission for Guard troops, and I know many that would love to help out along the border for 4-6month tours. i also feel that we need 10,000 or more to have any hope of locking them down properly...

 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,838
8,430
136
nothing will ever make them "permanently exempt from overseas duty."

yeah, it was just a pipe dream of mine. i just retired from the air guard last year. part of the reason was risking the chance that i could leave my wife a widow with two young ones to raise if i got sent to the middle east one more time.

i recently spoke with a few young army guard fellas from an army guard unit that i was in before i transferred to the air guard in the late 80's . they had just returned from iraq with some stories that i had similar experiences with in 'nam and saudi and was thinking of them when i posted that remark.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,837
10,139
136
Bush has already personally promised Vicente Fox that the National Guard on the border will only be a temporary dog and pony show while he gets approval for their amnesty bill.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,838
8,430
136
Bush has already personally promised Vicente Fox that the National Guard on the border will only be a temporary dog and pony show while he gets approval for their amnesty bill.
now that there has got the ring of plausibility to it. well, except for the part where i assume you joked about vicente fox. i thought about that as soon as i read the news. as you mentioned, i agree that bush will likely keep the troops out there for only as long as to shut up and shut down his detractors during his drive to keep the citizens from revolting against him and the revolting illegal immigrants (no pun intended - sort'a). :D he'll probably keep the troops out there till after the '06 elections for added measure. then it's back to open borders to keep his business buddies filling the republican campaign coffers with marshmallow money. typical, but i hope i'm wrong.
 

astrosfan90

Golden Member
Mar 17, 2005
1,156
0
0
I think Congress needs to get their act together on this and quit stalling. The House has been bouncing around some good legislation, let's get it inked into official law already and move from there.
 

fitzov

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2004
2,477
0
0
Originally posted by: astrosfan90
I think Congress needs to get their act together on this and quit stalling. The House has been bouncing around some good legislation, let's get it inked into official law already and move from there.

this is an executive branch function (i.e. governors, el presidente). all that is required is an order.
 

JacobJ

Banned
Mar 20, 2003
1,140
0
0
We must protect ourselves from the poor, the lazy, the incompetent. Too bad we're not actually a christian country.

Sigh.
 

phantom309

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2002
2,065
1
0
Originally posted by: JacobJ
We must protect ourselves from the poor, the lazy, the incompetent. Too bad we're not actually a christian country.

Sigh.

They already have their own devoutly Christian country.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Securing our borders is a start. Now implement a national job database tied to Soc Sec numbers that fines any employer trying to submit a dupe more than once (warning the first time). Then issue guest worker permits to the illegals already here, and then they have to go back to their home country or give them the chance to renew their permit for X years (then they go back home). Voila, problem solved.
 

astrosfan90

Golden Member
Mar 17, 2005
1,156
0
0
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: astrosfan90
I think Congress needs to get their act together on this and quit stalling. The House has been bouncing around some good legislation, let's get it inked into official law already and move from there.

this is an executive branch function (i.e. governors, el presidente). all that is required is an order.

Right, I'm referring to the immigration legislation that's being worked on. I'd rather focus on a solution to the problem rather than stacking troops on the borders. The latter seems like throwing money at the problem instead of thinking about how to solve it.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,208
4,889
136
If they don't really seal the border for good this time I believe that serious trouble lays ahead for this country. We cannot be the welfare system for all the 3rd world countries south of us nor can we continue to absorb hords of illegals.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: astrosfan90
I think Congress needs to get their act together on this and quit stalling. The House has been bouncing around some good legislation, let's get it inked into official law already and move from there.

this is an executive branch function (i.e. governors, el presidente). all that is required is an order.

Right, I'm referring to the immigration legislation that's being worked on. I'd rather focus on a solution to the problem rather than stacking troops on the borders. The latter seems like throwing money at the problem instead of thinking about how to solve it.
Securing the borders is a good idea, even if it cuts the current rate by 50%. Do you know how many illegals (Hispanics specifically) are flooding our borders every year? Anywhere from 1 to 1.5 million. Text

We cannot allow this rate to continue, you have to cut off the border immediately before even considering a plan that could take years to develop (and by doing nothing until then, 2 million+ more are in the country).
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Interesting stat of the day

In 2000, when Clinton was president, 1900 business' were prosecuted for hiring illegals.

In 2004, 3 business' were prosecuted for hiring illegals.

This tells you everything you need to know. The speech tonite is going to be window dressing. The republicans will be hurt with the closing of the border.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
The guy sitting across from me is in the NG, he just got back a few weeks ago from active duty along the border. His main complaint was not just that we don't have enough people manning the border, but that the border patrol currently there is crippled from doing anything. The amount of hampering that's been placed on them by the PC thugs makes them downright useless. You are not allowed to shoot anyone crossing the border, you are not even allowed to engage your weapon unless you are in a life threatening situation. If someone gets hurt falling off the fence, you have to take them to the hospital - ok not too bad, human compassion and all of that. But you are NOT allowed to wait for them to be released from the hospital to round them up for deportation. The Mexican military actively aids the border jumpers, maybe not by official decree but they can easily be paid off. With so little risk associated with jumping the border (no one can really stop you, hell they even put water fountains up for you in the desert), hell why not cross it?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
I think shooting people that cross the border is a bit extreme. This isn't communist Russia.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
Originally posted by: JacobJ
We must protect ourselves from the poor, the lazy, the incompetent. Too bad we're not actually a christian country.

Sigh.

2 out of those 3 cover the dumbya administration pretty accurately. Is it me or does this immigration issue seem to be more of a smoke screen to cover the blunders of the past 6 years?
Illegal immigration is a serious issue, however, there are many, many more serious issues that need to be dealt with, and won't be.

yer doin' a heckava job bushie.
I'm taking bets that his 'approval' rating will dip at least 2 points after tonights posturing.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: Triumph
The guy sitting across from me is in the NG, he just got back a few weeks ago from active duty along the border. His main complaint was not just that we don't have enough people manning the border, but that the border patrol currently there is crippled from doing anything. The amount of hampering that's been placed on them by the PC thugs makes them downright useless. You are not allowed to shoot anyone crossing the border, you are not even allowed to engage your weapon unless you are in a life threatening situation. If someone gets hurt falling off the fence, you have to take them to the hospital - ok not too bad, human compassion and all of that. But you are NOT allowed to wait for them to be released from the hospital to round them up for deportation. The Mexican military actively aids the border jumpers, maybe not by official decree but they can easily be paid off. With so little risk associated with jumping the border (no one can really stop you, hell they even put water fountains up for you in the desert), hell why not cross it?


Yeah - lets just hang oput by the border and shoot some 'Cans'

We'll start shooting the mexi - CANS, then maybe we can shoot some ameri - CANS.



 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I think shooting people that cross the border is a bit extreme. This isn't communist Russia.

I will give you that, I'm not really advocating shooting on sight. But you are not even allowed to draw your weapon. You can only yell, "Stop!" and hope that they do. I mean, cops on the street have more leeway than that. If a cop wants you to stop, he draws his gun. But you *can't* do that against people who are borderline invading your country.

I liken this whole debate to a home invasion. It's the same thing, simply on a smaller scale. What if I came into your home, set up shop, demanded that you recognize myself as a member of your home, and insist that you aren't allowed to stop me from bringing more of my friends into your house?