I agree with you Old Vet. But in this kinder, gentler nation I have little faith that there will be little power or bullets given to the soldiers once in place at the border.
Second:Address the problems. Illigal immigration-change the laws so there is no birther rights. Deport illegal immigrants. Narcotics-legalize them. How many people on this forum would take cocaine if it was legal? Just curious. As far as harming our country and our youth and health care issues that arise from it. Aww alchohol seems tobe doing just fine and legal drugs. Just like gun laws. Banning drugs only means they are gotten illegaly.
If the country does not address the problem then the border will have to be manned with DOD troops forever. That is not a solution.
And the "Domestic" again. That means internal enemies trying to overthrow the government. Illegal immigrants, terrorists, and drug dealers are not overthrowing our government.
If you think the gov of Mexico isn;t doing anything to help then define them as a threat. Heck, if you believe that narcotics and illegal immigration is a threat, I suggest to you then they are a bigger threat than Iraq ever was. So use a military solution and invade mexicao, make a 5 mile buffer zone and man it with troops. Why not,,,,if you thought Iraq was a threat and worth having thousand of people killed for, then I am all for a military solution. And again, show me where it is DOD's job to protect the border and not DHS.
The whole problem is that the cause is not being addressed...... This is a sabre rattling exercise, nothing more.
For years there has been NO interior enforcement of our immigration laws. When you fine employers for hiring illegals, seize assets that were bought with their money, businesses, cars, trucks, homes you will see a change. When an illegal cannot get a job, cannot get free health care, education, welfare they will go home and the Border Patrol will be bored. It is a federal offense (Section 8 USC 1326) to knowingly hire an illegal alien. There is not a US Attorney that will take a case.
If the shining light over the border goes out they will stop coming. The Mexican GOV does not want those people home, they are the ones who would revolt. The Mexican GOV even prints a guide book to help them safely cross the border.
9/11 was facilitated because Americans allow illegal aliens to work and live amongst us, when will we learn that an underground sub culture that we ignore is not good for us as a county? Conservative estimates put 12 - 15 MILLION illegal aliens in the US. We must deal with the cause of this massive immigration, desperate people will continue to come here and die by the thousands doing so because we hire them as maids, and gardeners, and roofers.
Fine, if we need them for those jobs, give them a permit so they can legally work and pay taxes. Amnesty IS NOT the answer.
The military should not have been called out for this. Makes me pretty uncomfortable and I'll tell you why. A bad presidence is being set, and it is arguably illegal. Also, it is not like the politicians are actually going to do what needs doing. If the foolish administration, congress, doj, and administrative idiots in the dea and border patrol would allow agents to shoot to kill for any violent offense at the border, this issue would quickly die out.
Those who don't have the stomach to lead and do what needs doing to protect America should go cower in the corner and let the real men and women of the agencies get the job done.
This has been a good thread with a lot of good comments and some very good push and pull. Many folks are beating me to the punch on some responses as well! :smile:
I do stand by my original statement: Federal troops should not be deployed in this situation, on state land, doing nothing but border patrol. The troops deployed for this should be the National Guard troops that belong to the governor of the state with the shared border. There are so many things wrong with deploying and using Federal troops like this it's hard to know where to begin, but suffice to say it absolutely is a political issue. This is just an administration ploy to look like they're doing something and to look like they're all powerful and wise. They're bending to the recent battle cry's that our beloved media is playing to, battle cry's to use our troops to protect our country. It's just a lot of huff and puff to deploy federal troops here, and it's also very wrong: any governor with federal troops deployed in their state should politely ask the federal government to get them the hell out.
If we were under attack from any organized foreign entity, and there were actual battles taking place on those borders, I'd feel differently, but the active military has no business playing cop within our borders. That's a dangerous affront to our freedom.
On a, slightly aside, note: more than half of all troops that were deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc. were either Guard or Reserve troops. The Reserve were an extension of the federal active duty troops, but the Guard were sent to these locations via an official request from the federal administration to the state administration -- a proper use of the reverse of what we are talking about here, the use of the Guard outside of our borders.
This issue is about a lot more than just "who cares who goes as long as the job gets done." Remember: those federal troops are deployed within our borders in support of what is essentially a police action. Think about that for a minute.
Ok, this morning I went back and read the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 just to be sure before posting this...
The act does NOT prohibit the use of AD Army forces for LE purposes on US soil... it only requires that the authorization for such orders come either from the US Constitution OR Congress. Now, I don't know if the current orders in question came from either source, so I won't comment on that - perhaps Spencer can enlighten us on the details when he's not crawling around in the mud.
PERSONAL OPINION: As a ARNG NCO, I believe it should have been NG troops. It is the "militia's" responsibility AND Posse Comitatus does not apply to the ARNG forces, so no Constitutional or Congressional authorization would be required. That being said, the problem lies with the 15 different agencies charged with protecting the homeland... it needs to be consolidated.
As for the comment above about "foreign and domestic" in the oath of enlistment... the actual line is "I will defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". And keep in mind that AD, reserve and NG forces all have that in their enlistment oaths. I hope that helps clear up some of this.
Sending troops to the border is feel good stuff. US troops will never be allowed to "guard" the border: They are gofers for the Homeland Insecurity Dep't.
Having taken said oath several times over the course of a 30 year military career, I can tell you what my frame of reference, based on what I was taught about that oath, refers to when the term "foreign and domestic" comes up: it is exactly as OpJ says above. I will protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, in other words any threat to our established form of government, whether it be foreign entities or citizens that are prepared to give up their citizenship in attempt to overthrow our government.
It's not about simply defending US soil, it's about protecting our established government. This is not a finger-pointing post, either, it's simply an explanation as to the what that phrase means.
I had to interact with the FBI and US Marshalls after 9/11 and we had to jump through hoops to get permission for one permission to interface. And none of it had to do with Posse Commitatas.