View Full Version : Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border
1,200 for the entire border, are you serious. He half asses things better than anybody. Hopefully they'll have ammunition and a real roe this time:rolleyes: so they don't have retreat when being fired upon.
I have an idea how to use what's rest of the stimulus. Ask for volunteers for any prior service vets, I am sure there are plenty that are unemployed, start a new unit that's a cross between the Border Patrol and National Guard...a little bit of training and getting reacclimated to the system and voila we can really secure our borders.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_guard_border
Wow 1200 must be an election year. Heck I'll take that job.
Question I have always had if we were actually serious is, why not mine fields? Seriously, they are inexpensive, last a long time, etc, etc. allows a small number of troops to to deny access to large areas of land, etc.
And I don't mean the type placed cause maximum damage due to being intentionally hidden, I mean the set up with fences, and huge signs saying "warning, mine field in place, do not cross this area" and so forth.
I know, I know, drug smuggler ignores signs, goes over/through fence, and converts to red mist, and there is an international out rage and all that.
Seems if we are serious about denying passage (North Korea, et al) it can be done, but it appears we really are not all that serious.
Just sayin'
Is the 1200 just for Arizona? Lets form a new entity for each state on the border, BORDER POLICE
Should have been 160,000.
Nathan_Bell
05-25-10, 19:44
If they were all engineering units and he was going to give them materials, 1200 would make a heck of an impression dealing with the Mexican incursions. Too bad it isn't going to happen that way.
If they were all engineering units and he was going to give them materials, 1200 would make a heck of an impression dealing with the Mexican incursions. Too bad it isn't going to happen that way.
ok, so will a dog & pony show backfire on the admin?? seems like a gamble with the exposure??
would they really send 1200 to az to multi-task the bp's??
Seriously, this could get interresting in many ways.
What do you expect the National Guard to do at the border? They cannot patrol the border, posse comitatus applies. They cannot enter onto private lands to patrol the border, that falls to CBP-BP only. National Parks? Even CBP-BP's access and movement is restricted there.
What the National Guard can do is take over non-patrol/non-law enforcement functions and free up Agents to work the line. The National Guard can send engineer units for fence repair and maintenance, mechanics for fleet service, graders for road repair, etc.
For the most part, these National Guard deployments to the border are purely symbolic, like moving the fleet into the Med when Libya acts up.
I'm a rancher here in New Mexico, and have fellow rancher friends with properties along the border in the Animas and Peloncillo Mountains in this State and Arizona. It's rugged country with little access for ground vehicles. Just in that area alone you would need at least a battalion of ground pounders, to join some of the horseback mounted Border Patrol. 1200 soldiers for the entire border is a joke.
What is not being discussed are the Mexican Army units that have been absorbed by these cartels and now run coordinated efforts with the coyote human smugglers, acting as decoys while the drug runners drive across private land bringing in the contraband. We've sat at night on desolate hillsides watching all the activity. Border Patrol would be involved with a group of 30-50 illegals in one area while a pickup truck full of narcotics cuts through the barbed wire on private land, the occupants sometimes firing a shot or two at a ranch hand while heading for the nearest county road.
Even the Bush administration was not really serious about this. We used to watch National Guard units back in 2006 driving around the back country, carrying unloaded M4s. If it came to a shootout, I'm sure the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Department would have to come to their rescue. It was a sad and discouraging waste of military manpower.
Time to get serious about this and put some well armed assets on the border. Unfortunately, Chairman Obama has a whole different agenda for the United States.
OH58D
arizonaranchman
05-25-10, 21:21
They've never taken the border seriously. It's nothing more than a token effort basically.
Declare a National Emergency and put the MILITARY on the border. This is an invasion and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
Too little too late.
Numbersusa.com
Sign up to send free faxes to your elected officials.
http://www.gembapantarei.com/drop%20in%20bucket.jpg
1,200 for the entire border, are you serious. H
It is worse than that! They national guard troops will not be alllowed to engage in any 'law enforcement activities' such as repelling foreign invaders!!! They will drive trucks and stuff instead.
1200 soldiers for the entire border is a joke.
This
Instead of the NG and a budget of $500 million, lets use that $500 to hire the unemployed to build out the fence.
It's a token gesture, no more. As Charles Krauthammer said tonight, the Guard comes, and the Guard goes; and nothing changes.
Obama, being the arrogant twit that he is, will try to massage the situation and find himself with a tiger by the tail. This whole situation is going to get out of control, and it will not be good. :eek:
"Interesting times", indeed.
Is this in addition to whatever former President Bush sent to the border? For that matter, how many troops did President Bush send to the border?
No, what sux is that the minute our boys begin to defend themselves from a foriegn threat (gun fight in the desert) their going to get strung up by the very people sending them there!
OBAMA
One Big Ass Mistake America
Politics folks...just the lates play in the greatest show on earth...
BHO meets with Republican leaders to "openly" discuss idea after forcing via votes body lines and now wants to play oneway comprimise...didnt bother to mention to them that he would do this right after the meeting.
F' it. We know what it is all about...who the **** does he think he is kidding...
I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to "secure" his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC's and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn't secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren't going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.
I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to "secure" his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC's and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn't secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren't going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.
So what your saying is take more of my hard earned tax money and fix someone elses country? I dont even like fixing the countries that we have already volunteered to fix now your saying dig deeper into my pocket and fix another one??? Yep, thats the solution! Now, your right that we dont have troops to just spare to this particular issue but come on, if we're going to fo fix the issue we shoudl just take the country and call it ours. Or theirs again.... However you want to look at it!
What is cheaper in the long run; keeping them there, or sending them back?
variablebinary
05-26-10, 00:20
What do you expect the National Guard to do at the border? They cannot patrol the border, posse comitatus applies
The Posse Comitatus Act doesnt apply absolutely to the National Guard.
It would only be applicable in certain situations.
It absolutely does if used in a law enforcement capacity and under federal control.
variablebinary
05-26-10, 00:35
It absolutely does if used in a law enforcement capacity.
No, that is not the case.
The National Guard is not subject to prohibitions on civilian law enforcement.
If the President called the Guard, the federal government is paying them, and they are effecting federal policy, all of which are true in the instant matter, then posse comitatus absolutely applies, there is no getting around that. Look at any Guard deployment to the border since 1999 (as far as my history on the border goes) and you can see by their roles that the restrictions of posse comitatus had a huge role in defining what the Guard could/couldn't, can/cannot do.
kalikraven
05-26-10, 00:40
I'm sorry, I thought protecting the country from invaders was part of the militarys job. The police sure arnt doing it.
"I'm sorry, I thought protecting the country from invaders was part of the military's job. The police sure aren't doing it. "
Familiar with the revenue services and who patrolled our nations maritime frontiers for 250 years? A clue, it wasn't the Navy and it wasn't/isn't a naval/military problem.
Is the problem on the southern border a Mexican military problem, with Mexican troops acting at the behest of the Mexican government to effect Mexican government policy or is it a social/criminal problem involving a social/economic breakdown within Mexican society and Mexican criminal organizations exploiting said situation?
Posse Comitatus does not apply to repelling an invasion of the United States. It does, however, apply to using federal troops against U.S. citizens, which the National Guard would not be doing by shooting illegal aliens climbing the fence and coming north.
Question I have always had if we were actually serious is, why not mine fields? Seriously, they are inexpensive, last a long time, etc, etc. allows a small number of troops to to deny access to large areas of land, etc.
And I don't mean the type placed cause maximum damage due to being intentionally hidden, I mean the set up with fences, and huge signs saying "warning, mine field in place, do not cross this area" and so forth.
I know, I know, drug smuggler ignores signs, goes over/through fence, and converts to red mist, and there is an international out rage and all that.
Seems if we are serious about denying passage (North Korea, et al) it can be done, but it appears we really are not all that serious.
Just sayin'
mine fields are kinda passe...
there are a number of smart active denial systems on the market now. both lethal and non-lethal.
I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to "secure" his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC's and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn't secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren't going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.
good post.
I'm sorry, I thought protecting the country from invaders was part of the militarys job. The police sure arnt doing it.
Yes, because drug cartels are a national entity.
A lot of posturing going on this thread, along with the typical wholesale discarding of federal laws and even the vaunted Constitution, when it doesn't serve an agenda.
Don't get me wrong, this troop deployment is certainly not the solution. (A fence isn't either, they just dig under it or just climb over it.) Sure, a substantially larger one may work, but at that point you might as well be declaring martial law.
Here's an incredibly unpopular idea (at least for staunch conservatives): Legalize marijuana. Much of the southern border drug trade is marijuana. What do you think the cartels will be left doing once that trade dries up? Meth is made cheaper here, and cocaine is a rich mans drug.
Just look at these figures:
2008 Arizona Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 1,905.8 kgs.
Heroin: 152.8 kgs.
Methamphetamine: 263.4 kgs
Marijuana: 351,992.4 kgs.
Hashish: 6.4 kgs
MDMA: 0.0 kgs/47 du
Meth Lab Incidents: 10 (DEA, state, and local)
2008 Texas Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 9,487.6 kgs.
Heroin: 141.6kgs.
Methamphetamine: 783.6 kgs.
Marijuana: 570,793.1 kgs.
Hashish: 0.5 kgs.
MDMA: 0.0 kgs./69,341 du
Meth Lab Incidents: 112 (DEA, state, and local)
Straight from the DEA web site. We're dealing with a situation right now that has some parallels to 1920's Prohibition. A banned substance of questionable harm has fostered an armed group of criminals dealing in it's distribution.
(Just to clear things up, no, I am not a pot head. Stupid waste of money, but the same could really be said of alcohol.)
I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to "secure" his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC's and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn't secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren't going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.
good post.
Sure, all the way up to the last line. Here's another set of suggestions for the border ills:
Create a viable system for people who want to move here and become Americans (not live here, take what they can get, and fly their own flag) to do that.
Convince our elected officials that this country does have borders, and it's not only acceptable but it's their obligation to control who enters them.
Cut off the free handouts - free health care, free education, free food programs, etc., - to people who are not authorized to be in the country.
Enforce current employment laws.
Decline the "celebrate diversity" and the "citizen of the world" mentality being pushed on us. We can still be respectful of cultural differences but lets celebrate what we have in common that makes us American.
Then if Mexico or any other country wants to remain in the last century, with high unemployment rates, a corrupt government, and a low standard of living that is thier business to handle. This country has enough issues of it's own to fix before it can take on anymore of someone else's problems.
Yeah, taking up the burden of modernizing and "fixing" Mexico is something that is not our responsibility, nor is it feasible politically or financially.
mine fields are kinda passe...
there are a number of smart active denial systems on the market now. both lethal and non-lethal.
Passe but effective. We are all about making sure to use something really expensive where cheap would work just fine. But sure, if there's effective area denial systems that would work well in place of a mine that was cost effective, be they lethal or non lethal, great, employ them. Obviously, not gonna happen for PC political reasons but how else to control large areas using minimal manpower that's effective?
I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to "secure" his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC's and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn't secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren't going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.
orly?
What exactly is Mexico doing with the several miles of land spanning our border other than allowing smugglers to get a running start? We negotiate a deal to 'buy' the land just across the border and if they don't agree... we take it. Just saying...
orly?
What exactly is Mexico doing with the several miles of land spanning our border other than allowing smugglers to get a running start? We negotiate a deal to 'buy' the land just across the border and if they don't agree... we take it. Just saying...
Who's invading who now? :rolleyes:
If the President called the Guard, the federal government is paying them, and they are effecting federal policy, all of which are true in the instant matter, then posse comitatus absolutely applies, there is no getting around that. Look at any Guard deployment to the border since 1999 (as far as my history on the border goes) and you can see by their roles that the restrictions of posse comitatus had a huge role in defining what the Guard could/couldn't, can/cannot do.
It doesn't apply if the unit(s) are not on federal orders. If left under the control of the state, LE operations can be conducted.
Passe but effective. We are all about making sure to use something really expensive where cheap would work just fine. But sure, if there's effective area denial systems that would work well in place of a mine that was cost effective, be they lethal or non lethal, great, employ them. Obviously, not gonna happen for PC political reasons but how else to control large areas using minimal manpower that's effective?
Very true.
Posse Comitatus does not apply to repelling an invasion of the United States. It does, however, apply to using federal troops against U.S. citizens, which the National Guard would not be doing by shooting illegal aliens climbing the fence and coming north.
I dont think that shooting civves off of the fence is something our troops would be willing to do unilaterally. Not to mention it's a criminal act.
I would refuse any order ot kill civilians outright, nor would I permit my soldiers to do it.
I dont know if anyone cares...... but on a lighter note..... all this means is that the days of the "$25 all night lap dance" at a special spot in my heart just 10 mins north of the Aventura Spa Palace are coming to an end!
In case you care! :(
It doesn't apply if the unit(s) are not on federal orders. If left under the control of the state, LE operations can be conducted.
+1, we have a RAID unit on the big island that flies OH-58A's around with local LE looking for pot.
Question I have always had if we were actually serious is, why not mine fields? Seriously, they are inexpensive, last a long time, etc, etc. allows a small number of troops to to deny access to large areas of land, etc.
And I don't mean the type placed cause maximum damage due to being intentionally hidden, I mean the set up with fences, and huge signs saying "warning, mine field in place, do not cross this area" and so forth.
I know, I know, drug smuggler ignores signs, goes over/through fence, and converts to red mist, and there is an international out rage and all that.
Seems if we are serious about denying passage (North Korea, et al) it can be done, but it appears we really are not all that serious.
Just sayin'
There are mines on the border between Iraq and Iran, when I was there the black market on mines was roughly $100-200. People had learned to find them, render them safe, and convert them to either command initiated or back to original activation method (pressure, magnetic field, etc) and use them against us.
Those were hidden mines.
Mine fields, fences, wire, etc only serve to deter or slow people down until a responding force can get on site and run through an ROE escalation. In my opinion, no responsible force would/should use land mines where direct observation of the area is not possible by at least a small force with back up on call. Not because of the chance of an innocent getting injured but by the likelihood that your own weapon would be used against you down the road.
Entering/approaching a land mine area should constitute a use of force after appropriate warning with audible and visual cues.
RogerinTPA
05-26-10, 15:27
I doubt they will have ammo (not even for self-defense) or arrest powers. They will probably static outpost to spot for BP and local LEOs. Which means it's all BS if they can't go on the hunt conducting roving patrols, with live ammo.
Contract Border Patrol. Make it a force protection issue and contract it out like facilities all around the US. Give the force specific powers and protocols with guidelines on when BP needs notification/involvement. I know more than a few companies that could fill the position in 90 days or so.
It doesn't apply if the unit(s) are not on federal orders. If left under the control of the state, LE operations can be conducted.
That was my understanding, If activated by the Governor of their state P.C. does not apply, only when activated by the Federal Government. Which I don't understand why AZ hasn't activated their NG unless they are currently oconus.
Posse Comitatus does not apply to repelling an invasion of the United States. It does, however, apply to using federal troops against U.S. citizens, which the National Guard would not be doing by shooting illegal aliens climbing the fence and coming north.
That was also what I thought.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
I dont think that shooting civves off of the fence is something our troops would be willing to do unilaterally. Not to mention it's a criminal act.
I would refuse any order ot kill civilians outright, nor would I permit my soldiers to do it.
If the ROE say to shoot civvies off the fence if they are coming north except through a border checkpoint, it would NOT be a criminal act. I am sure that there are plenty of other tasks for soldiers who do not like that work.
That was my understanding, If activated by the Governor of their state P.C. does not apply, only when activated by the Federal Government. Which I don't understand why AZ hasn't activated their NG
Your understanding is correct, but AZ like many states has a big budget deficit, so AZ would prefer for the feds to pay the cost of calling up the NG. But that puts the NG under fed control, which means PC applies (but not to repelling foreign invaders).
So... if a Prez activates the NG to put down another Rodney King riot, then that would violate PC. But if Guv Arnold activates the NG for the same purpose, there is no violation of PC.
Maybe someone should ask the folks who live on the border what they want. I have spent plenty of time with fellow ranchers in Hidalgo County, NM and Cochise County, AZ. They just want the fence cutting, cattle killing and gunfire aimed in their direction to stop. None of these people want thousands of unarmed US troops running around the countryside. Most would prefer local Sheriff's deputies or State Police giving support to the Border Patrol.
In 2006 we did see a decrease in border crossing in areas manned by Guard units. Of course the crossings were moved to other areas.
Anyone consider creating SWAT type units with heavy firepower within the US Border Patrol to handle these cartel crossings? There have been instances in the past few years in Hudspeth County, TX where County deputies and Border Patrol were outgunned at attemped border crossings by SUVs loaded with contraband. I see nothing wrong with Border Patrol humvees mounting a 50 cal. or INS agents toting a SAW.
This would solve the problem of Posse Comitatus by not involving the military, but arming up in firepower and manpower the US Border Patrol. Could be a nice civil service career for ex spec ops personnel looking to utilize their skills Stateside.
OH58D
"Anyone consider creating SWAT type units with heavy firepower within the US Border Patrol to handle these cartel crossings?"
It is called BORTAC and has been around since 1984.
"I see nothing wrong with Border Patrol humvees mounting a 50 cal. or INS agents toting a SAW."
First off, there hasn't been an INS since 2003. Second, there are a couple of SCOTUS rulings you should read, One is Graham v. Connor. the other is Tennessee v. Garner. Use of force will be objectively reasonable.
The war on drugs has been a total failure in the US. So if people can can sell drugs basically any where they want there will be someone to supply them. Cut off Mexico, the Canada supply will make up for it. If there is easy money to be made people will try and get it.
There are so many ways to get drugs and money over the border, it doesnt matter how high you build the fence or how deep you bury it, they will find a way around it.
"Anyone consider creating SWAT type units with heavy firepower within the US Border Patrol to handle these cartel crossings?"
It is called BORTAC and has been around since 1984.
Great....so why not beef up "BORTAC" and let them do the heavy lifting on the border? Let them make it difficult for these criminals invading the US with contraband. Give us citizens in the border States a break and make our government do their job.
Most of these scratch ankle cattle operations here in New Mexico and Arizona only carry small side arms or lever action Winchester 94s. No match for the weapons these narco-terrorists use.
Certainly you are not concerned about using overwhelming firepower against criminal elements invading the United States and terrorizing or killing citizens? When it comes to defending your home and family against foreign devils using your land as a narcotics highway, while they are taking shots at you, to Hell with previous legal rulings regarding reasonable use of force.
Give these cartels the same kind of extreme violence they have been inflicting on their own citizens in Mexico. Make them think twice about the risks involved before they set foot on U.S. soil.
OH58D
Seems easier to just have a drug buying station at every border crossing, and resell it on the other side with a nice tax on it.
I doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime, the anti-people will spare no cost when it comes to spending our tax dollars.
variablebinary
05-27-10, 04:47
"I see nothing wrong with Border Patrol humvees mounting a 50 cal. or INS agents toting a SAW."
First off, there hasn't been an INS since 2003. Second, there are a couple of SCOTUS rulings you should read, One is Graham v. Connor. the other is Tennessee v. Garner. Use of force will be objectively reasonable.
Objective and reasonable take on a new meaning when you are facing Kalashnikovs
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/CopyofCartelHitteam.jpg
I doubt they will have ammo (not even for self-defense) or arrest powers. They will probably static outpost to spot for BP and local LEOs. Which means it's all BS if they can't go on the hunt conducting roving patrols, with live ammo.
Very dangereous to be out there with no weapon/ammo. Not a good idea. OBAMA.
ForTehNguyen
05-27-10, 09:19
ignores Texas like usual:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Troops-to-TexasMexico-Border-No-Answer.html
then issue terror alert for Texas-Mexico border:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/26/terror-alert-mexican-border/
:rolleyes:
Again, the Guard will NOT be patrolling the border. No patrol=no weapons.
Again, the PRESIDENT sent them, that means the FEDERAL Government is paying for the mission, that means posse comitatus APPLIES, period.
Ma duece on a BP Hummer? You don't catch dope loads running between the ports-of-entry from the top Humvees, you catch them on foot, the old fashioned way. Backpack loads are run with 4-6 packers, a guide, and a water carrier. The biggest backpack load I ever saw was a group of 22.
Contract out patrol? Can't happen. The authority to enter onto private lands for the purpose of patrolling the border is set into law. There is no mechanism for delegation.
AK's being carried by mules is a rare occurrence. Just because a mule is carrying one does mean you can drop him. Just because a Mexican is carrying an AK doesn't mean that a crime is being committed. I cut my LE teeth in the Border Patrol. We would frequently encounter hunters, ranchers, target shooters, carrying AK's, AR's, FAL's you name it and someone had one. Are you advocating just taking the shot?
Anyone remember the Marine OP that shot and killed a 17 yo ranch kid dead about 15 years ago? Google "Esequiel Hernandez Jr." You may want to read up.
Patrolling the Border is a law enforcement mission. Until Mexican military units DIRECTED by military command from Mexico City starts crossing the frontier in a coordinated manner it will remain that way. Previous incursions, whether accidental or not do not rise to that level. I have personally seen Mexican army units on the border, up close. Just like our army deployed, they are not from the area. Unlike our army, the vast majority of Mexican army soldiers are semi-literate conscripts who can't understand a map and compass, let alone operate a GPS. The border fence? Most places it is nothing more three strand cattle wire with a marker every mile. We used to cross over several fences just like it while patrolling, I am sure I may have accidentally crossed into Mexico once or twice.
Maybe actually seeing the border and spending some time in a border town might change your perspective a bit.
Just because a Mexican is carrying an AK doesn't mean that a crime is being committed.
Are you saying illegals can have a firearm on their person and not break the law??
You make the assumption that every Mexican walking around near the line is illegal, not the case.
You make the assumption that every Mexican walking around near the line is illegal, not the case.
I don't assume anything, I walk among them.
I never call U.S. citizens that may be of hispanic / latino decent "Mexicans"...especially in a topic such as this as it is cause for confusion.
Now my good compadres who deserve a good razzing get called much worse. ;)
My guard unit had this mission in 2007. (I had to leave early due to a death in my family) they were issued weapons and did have a roe to use force but it was very limited. it pretty much was if surrounded with no means of retreat you can fight back but that is it. What we were supposed to be doing was freeing up agents from mundane tasks so they could make contact and apprehend illegals. Which brings a bigger question- why do we have so many LE officers doing what I will call non contact jobs? If we got every officer off a desk, from behind a computer screen and had non le do these jobs it would help a lot I think. My guys did both computer and eyes on recon as well as support functions like vehicle repair and manning radios etc. If we had this stuff manned and managed right from the beginning we would not need the guard (or other forces help) on the border.
By the way posse comitatus does not apply if the activated forces are under the control of the local governor. Also guard forces can be activated under various titles of order authority-I can't remember which is which but the 2 most common orders are titles 10 and 32. under one the guard can be used for le under the other no. Just fine line semantics BS.
Yes, because drug cartels are a national entity.
A lot of posturing going on this thread, along with the typical wholesale discarding of federal laws and even the vaunted Constitution, when it doesn't serve an agenda.
Don't get me wrong, this troop deployment is certainly not the solution. (A fence isn't either, they just dig under it or just climb over it.) Sure, a substantially larger one may work, but at that point you might as well be declaring martial law.
Here's an incredibly unpopular idea (at least for staunch conservatives): Legalize marijuana. Much of the southern border drug trade is marijuana. What do you think the cartels will be left doing once that trade dries up? Meth is made cheaper here, and cocaine is a rich mans drug.
Just look at these figures:
Straight from the DEA web site. We're dealing with a situation right now that has some parallels to 1920's Prohibition. A banned substance of questionable harm has fostered an armed group of criminals dealing in it's distribution.
(Just to clear things up, no, I am not a pot head. Stupid waste of money, but the same could really be said of alcohol.)
Im on board with this idea... The taxes collected on the sale of pot alone could help a lot of finacialy ailing states and the Fed Gov. But god forbid we allow the people to get high. They can drink themselves into oblivian, but a little herb is EVIL!
Anyway, being totally ignorant to the law in the situation I would have to say that a military solution to the border problem is the only solution. There is no way we should send out money to Mexico to fix their sh*t. That idea falls under the same line of thinking that gets murderes off because their daddies did not love them. Where is personal responsibility? Just because you are disadvantaged does not mean you have to break the law.
My parents and I waited for 3+ years to be allowed to move to the US from the Soviet Union. We did not hop a plane, come here, sneak under the velvet rope and pretend like all is good. We filled out paperwork, took medical exams, went to interviews at the embacy and waited. If we fallwed the rules, so to must the Mexicans.
And guess what? If we tried to cross the border into the Soviet Union from an outside country we would either be shot, blow up on a land mine, or be mawled by a german Sheaphard. It worked there, it works in North Korea, why would it not work here?
On a side note, what options do the land owners have in AZ, NM and TX who's lands bornder Mexico? Can they take matter into their own hands and stop someone?
Say I am a rancher in AZ, and I decide that I will patrol my land along the border every night with my AR in tow. If I bust out the night vision goggles and see a Jeep with armed Mexicans trying to drive across my land with what I may think is a large amount of drugs in the back can I "take them out" for trespassing on my land?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0513d49acfc29bc63d3ee39de8bd3b71.dc1&show_article=1
US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws, the State Department said Wednesday.
The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, "It's not about immigration."
He said the move was "fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods -- drugs, guns, people."
He said the extra troops would be used to free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border.
Nearly 13 million Mexicans live in the United States, more than half of them illegally.
"We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it," Crowley said.
Obama's announcement came less than a week after a state visit to Washington by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who asked for greater US backing for a bloody three-year-old war on drug cartels.
Drug violence has claimed the lives of nearly 23,000 people over the past three years.
Obama is only doing this so he can say that he is doing something. I saw a report that said this works out to 1 Guardsman per 1.7 miles along the Border.
For anyone who has actually been down there. Sending anyone unarmed, is a very bad idea.
Like everything else with this administration, this will be spun into something it is not. 1,200 UNARMED troops will have as much effect on the UA's coming in as the stimulous package had on the 9.9% unemployment rate. MHO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.