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

[quade 4]

Quote

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.

Technically, uh, no . . .

It's called the (fill in the state name here) National Guard and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution for a number of reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Misternatural 0]

As was said on the news hour tonight during the Sheilds and Gigot segment;"Bush needs to deploy the national guard to stop the conservative republicans from fleeing away from the white house"... "its a purely political move."

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Guest]

Quote

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.

That's not enough.

Workplace enforcement and stiff penalties for people and companies who hire illegals (and pay them under the table) should be prosecuted under Federal money-laundering statutes. They should be put in prison right next to the illegals they've hired (i.e., no more "catch-and-release" for illegals). I'll gladly pay more for my lettuce if it means fewer illegals hanging around in front of Home Depot.

They should be hiring citizens, not illegals.

Furthermore, the lawful immigration process should be improved, so that people who obey the law aren't waiting decades.

I think top priority should be given to those who bring something to our country besides more mouths to feed as well. Those with higher education should get a fast-track in the work visa process, with citizenship as an option AFTER they've made a contribution more worthwhile than cleaning swimming pools or operating a leaf-blower.

Edit to add: There should also be federal caps on how much money that resident aliens are allowed to export to their home country. Put strong limits on that, and it not only keeps the money in our economy, it provides are powerful dis-incentive to come here in the first place.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I think top priority should be given to those who bring something to our country besides more mouths to feed as well.

Heck.. with the military not meeting their recruitment goals.... we could always have an Army just like Rome did in its later days....composed more and more of non Romans.

We still need to have more troops for Syria and Iran. This might just fill in the gaps.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

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

Nah. Diebold will be making the draft lottery machines. Their kids will be fine. Mine will be on their way to New Zealand.

[billvon 3,132]

Agree with most of that, but not this:

>There should also be federal caps on how much money that
>resident aliens are allowed to export to their home country.

If that was in place 100 years ago, I wouldn't be here today. Many immigrants work to bring their families over as well, and we should not try to stop that.

Besides, the US should not be in the business of deciding what people do with their legally earned money. They take enough of it as it is.

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

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 it has to be donestretched 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.

bad idea...if for no other reason than 'a door can swing both ways'

using the military to keep people from coming into the us also means we are using the military to keep people from leaving. (imo the NG isn't going to sit there and focus on entry only - they're also going to look @ exit)

remember when it wasn't neccessary to have a passport to travel to Mexico, or a US Territory? (i.e. USVI) those days are long gone. what will the other changes be once we've fully established a 'strong military presence' at our borders?

the idea, itself, is good - adding manpower and resources. using the national guard - i think i'll have to fall in line with a bill a bit here - it should be a 'surge' action, not an 'everday' action. i do believe that any solution to illegal immigrants must be focused on entry and exit but i don't believe that the NG and a 'triple-layer' fence are the answers we need...

On the border fence, the Senate by an 83-16 vote backed fences on 370 miles (595 km) of the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) border, focusing on areas where there is a high volume of illegal crossings. About 70 miles (112 km) already exist, although some of the fence is in disrepair, and the Department of Homeland Security already has plans to build the rest.

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-05-17T202621Z_01_N17299988_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-1.XML

imho, this is what we'll end up with: http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2006-01/21632986.jpg

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[rehmwa 2]

having the guard shore up as a regular duty

ok, the brother in law just returned after 2 years in Iraq. Now there's a chance that he'll have to ship out to Arizona or Texas to support border patrols, too? (i don't know, 3 month tours?)

The guard should be called upon by the governor of that particular state to deal with emergencies. Not just issues of understaffing of another organization's mission.

Good idea to beef up border security, but let the Fed's pay for it, not ditch off the costs to the States.

It's not just the border states anymore that have this issue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants