GOPUSA POLL: Do you want to see National Guard troops stationed on the border between the U.S. and Mexico? [Archive]

javajoy

05-15-2006, 08:16 AM

I voted no for the following reasons. Our National Guard members have jobs and families and they need to be at the ready to defend us if needed, to help out in times of emergencies when martial law might be needed like after hurricanes or other emergency situations.

What we do have that could be much better utilized is an all volunteer military. We are already paying these people, we already have bases and posts in the Southwest, including equipment. It would be much easier to station military there to assist with controlling the border. They could easily assume a temporary duty assignment, families would not be hurt, and we would still have our guard units available in each state for emergencies.

Militarize - yes, with the National Guard - no. I agree with Arnold on this one.

Javajoy
http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

Ben_Colder

05-15-2006, 08:17 AM

I voted no because I think we should expand the Border Patrol it's their job. I would vote yes on the National Guard for a temporary solution.

WhiteTiger2005

05-15-2006, 08:24 AM

From what I have read...Bush only plans to put the small numbers of NG which will be divided up on the established checkpoints to assist the regular border patrol agents and not actually stationed to patrol the hundreds of miles of raw desert where the illegals are slipping thru.
This will be nothing more than a sham and a media snow/blow smoke job to confuse and fool the Americans who are screaming for positive action here and now!!

Cheesecake

05-15-2006, 10:44 AM

I voted YES...because that is the purpose of the National Guard, OUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE.
Whether they are defending us against an enemy, the weather, fire, etc etc. *They are there to ''come to the rescue''...and right now our Border Patrol needs rescuing........not because they are not doing their job, they cannot do their job....they are so under staffed, they cannot do the job, that is now being presented.

Before Mexico started taking the liberties of sending as many people as they can, to earn the ''remittance'', there was enough BPO's on the border.......they have been overwhelmed.

Thank heavens so far for our Minute Men, who have made this situation very obvious......it has been placed in the news so we know the circumstances.

Im also very worried about my Kids in Rural Tucson.........every afternoon, evening, morning, night, midday.......there are helicopters surveying the desert, and swooping in to catch illegal tresspassers, in local's backyards. *They start fires with their cooking out on the back 40, they gut calfs, for the innerds for supper, leaving the animal suffering til it dies.......they are running drugs etc etc etc.

Its not only in North Dakota that we worry about people coming over the border, and stealing children, to take them back, and sell these same children into slavery.

There is so much more than our liberal media is PRINTING or BROADCASTING........ .that we need to know.
Its time to bring in the big guns, and PUT A STOP TO THIS INSURGENCY NOW.

If this isnt terrorism, then NOTHING IS TERRORISM.

My Son will probably go to do this duty......he is in the Nat'l Guard in Tucson AZ. *
His Son is in the Nat'l Guard in Phoenix.

He says they are not stretched thin....and he is defending his year in Iraq 2004.....as successful. *The news on the TV this morning is political, and not statistical......... .....according to a person who was there and is probably going there...again. In the meantime, the Border is probably the next deployment.

slickwilly

05-15-2006, 01:21 PM

Voted Yes... it can't hurt, even if GW restricts them to checkpoints.

I heard the looney left is worried that those rednecks in the Gaurd might shoot at illegals...

I'm worried that they won't!

The illegals HAVE been shooting at Texans recently.

Luckyme

05-15-2006, 01:30 PM

I voted yes. We are being invaded and that is one of the responsibilites of the National Guard; to protect our homeland.

I am hoping it is only temporary until they can hire and train more BPO's.

mejustjoan

05-15-2006, 01:41 PM

I voted yes. The Border Patrol needs help and it takes 2 years from the time a person signs up to be a Border Patrol officer until they are fully trained and really ready for the "battle." The National Guard can be used in the meantime to breach that 2-year gap. Of course we need to hire thousands of Border Patrol persons, and that's probably not going to happen, so if it gets too much for the National Guard, bring home the military from all the foreign bases to protect our homeland.

This is an invasion of the worse kind. I don't care what Pres. Bush says, Mexico is not our friend!

And I know it's not just Mexicans who come across, and that's even more scary. Close and lock the borders, build a wall, guard the wall with our National Guard and/or military. Put a hold on all the monies that are transferred into Mexico from various and sundry sources. Also, send no more federal aid to them.

'nuf said!

recolli

05-15-2006, 02:21 PM

Why now?

This many years into the administration. After 9/11. After YEARS of budget cuts for border patrol. How many border control agents are in the 2007 budget? How long after the November elections will the National Guard stay there?

The public gets mad, the administration placates them with a band-aid solution. But get serious, this is not a solution for anything but sagging poll numbers.

There's still almost no punisment of employers who hire illegals:

Employers risk little in hiring illegal labor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0418/p01s01-usec.html)

Oh, and don't forget who is in charge of ICE enforcement: Julie Myers, wildly regarded to be about as qualified as you or me for that job.

Michelle Malkin: NO MORE CRONYISM: BUSH DHS NOMINEE DOESN'T DESERVE THE JOB (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003576.htm)

Wake up and smell the politics, folks...

mazztek

05-15-2006, 02:46 PM

Yes -- BUT... Make it volunteer, and offer it to other states to put some of their Guardsmen on TAD.

I had a couple of junior reservists in my unit that didn't have a job. I got them put on ADSW... Active Duty, Special Work, assisting the drill center.

All of the guard falls under the same command. I'm sure there are some unemployed or just wanting more work.

Another possibility... 49 CONUS states... all units have to do their 2 weeks a year... Guess where they could do it?

slickwilly

05-15-2006, 02:58 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Another possibility... 49 CONUS states... all units have to do their 2 weeks a year... Guess where they could do it?[/QUOTE]

I know I did my duty back in the day... guarding Fort Hood's Anderson mountain!

We also drove all over Texas (and once went to Arkansas) so I don't see why not a drive down to Brownsville. A cell phone and access to the Border patrol would be all it takes!

stan25

05-15-2006, 03:25 PM

Hell yes, put them down there on the border and if they are shot at by Mexican troops, give them orders to shoot to kill. Mexico has declared war and we have the right to defend ourselves by any means in our power. We taught them a lesson 160 years ago and it is time that we did it again. Let the left and the RINOs squawk—they are the ones that are mainly responsible for the mess we are in now.

http://img.villagephotos.co m/p/2003-10/419342/supportourtroops.jpe g http://img.villagephotos.co m/p/2003-10/419342/supportourtroops.jpe g

Der Alte

05-15-2006, 03:44 PM

I voted yes while knowing that its only part of a smoke screen to get the Hagel-Martinez bill thru the Senate. I have a much better suggestion - we have a trememdous number of trained military personnel that have recently left the service and many military retirees under 60 that would volunteer to return at their previous rank and patrol the border. A lot of them are unemployed or underemployed - just give them the authority to do the job. That coupled with appropriate sanctions against the employers of Illegals would do the job just fine.

qrayjack

05-15-2006, 07:51 PM

Of course we should put the Guard on the border. We're at war. What is the military for?

KeKe

05-15-2006, 10:15 PM

Old joke but How do you know when Bush is lying? His lips are moving.

I don't buy it. He knows he had to do something since the majority of Americans want an end to this insanity but he also doesn't want to cross his "give us cheap labor" corpoRATS. It came out that the Border Patrol was alerting the Mexican government of the whereabouts of the Minutemen, the Border Patrol agents involved in that treason should face a firing squad, but I also believe that the decision to commit treason was not the idea of the Border Patrol employees who committed such an outrageous act, I truly believe the orders came from higher up.

It saddens me that in my lifetime I have not had a legitimate president, one who put his country and its citizens first. In fact we haven't had a legitimate president since Woodrow Wilson literally gave this country away to International bankers.

Bush said it's not realistic to deport 11 million illegals? Eisenhower deported a million or two in a couple of months when he launched Operation Wetback. Plus, if employers were fined and jailed for hiring illegals, the invaders will self-deport.

Lastly, it's not politically correct but for Mr. Bush to reiterate the tired old line that this is a nation of immigrants infuriates me to no end. The Founding Fathers meant for this to be the second and/or new home for Europeans, not citizens from every third world cesspool. Give me your tired and poor, meant tired and poor Europeans. The communists who have weaseled their way into power have completely distorted the concept of what this country was supposed to be about. No founding father referred to this country as a melting pot, and if they did, they meant melting pot of Europeans.

We owe the world nothing, we can't take in every single body that can't make it in their own country. The marching through the streets waving foreign flags and disrespecting the American flag has only angered me more and now I look at them all the same, as invaders, as unwanted aliens. They've made it worse for the decent, hard-working aliens who came here, they've made even the decent ones unwanted. I can't look at a Mexican and tell if he or she loves America or is one of those who arrogantly thinks that picking fruit and cleaning dishes off of restaurant tables is "building America", and that somehow America owes them something. I want total deportation of the 20 million illegals, I don't care what country they're from. You invaded my country illegally, not take your spouse and 4.5 children and get out.

We need the military on the border with orders to shoot to kill.

l1m89

05-16-2006, 06:09 AM

No, instead lease a strip of land along the border
from the Gulf Coast to the Pacific ocean and turn
it into a military base for training Special Forces.
Guard the base aggressively with armed military
Police and High TecOps and stop listening to
the whining from “south of the border”…

Bigdog

05-16-2006, 07:14 AM

I voted yes, not because I particularly like the idea, but because I see little choice. If we don't get some se,blance of control at the borders, anything else we do is a waste of time. By all means, we must beef up the border patrol so they can handle it by themselves as quickly as possible and let the part-timers go home. I believe the BP knows how to do the job and money should be put into people more than technology.

GroovyLady

05-16-2006, 09:30 AM

thank you for this poll Terri. the comments are all very interesting.

i voted yes.

personally, i'm sick and tired of the lose/lose mentality of people. if Bush does nothing, he's blamed. if Bush does something he's blamed.

i don't think is a move to placate the public. if you want to know the real deal as to why more border patrol agents haven't been added and/or national guard units have not been dispatched; go to www.thomas.loc.gov and read every piece of legislation surrounding national security. there's politicians on both sides of the aisle who kicked out requests for increased border patrol and/or national guard units at the border since 9/12/01.

our southern border is 200 miles. right now, there's approx. 10 border patrol agents covering each of those miles in any given 12 hour period. with an additional 6,000 national guard unit that brings the number up 25 trained defense persons at the border per mile in any given 12 hour period.

the national guard can not serve in a law enforcement capacity inside state lines per the terms of the Posse Comitatus Act. if illegal aliens start a violent insurgency and attempted take over of state capitols; that's an entirely different matter.

Bush specifically said there will be targeted and coordinated events between the National Guard, Border Patrol, State and local law enforcement officials.

how'd that song go - "nowhere to run to; you got nowhere to hide..." http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Vernon

05-16-2006, 10:09 AM

YES; however, a pig by any other name is still a pig. This is nothing more than accepting illegal conduct.

In an effort to justify the position, they give an illogical and impossible premise: round them all up and send them home! Obviously this is impossible. It IS NOT impossible to empower local authorities to arrest any illegal with which they come into contact, and should be done.

The process is a joke since it will be impossible for any illegal to prove they have not committed a crime since it is a crime to be illegal in the first place, but, apparently that is o.k., just ignore the law. What a joke. **http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif*http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

GroovyLady

05-16-2006, 10:29 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The process is a joke since it will be impossible for any illegal to prove they have not committed a crime since it is a crime to be illegal in the first place, but, apparently that is o.k., just ignore the law.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand your thinking here Vernon. When border security catches people crossing the border; they will be sent back across the border (like has been done 6,000,000 times so far this year).

It's not impossible to prove someone is an illegal alien. It's impossible to deport ALL illegal aliens. A huge portion of illegal aliens are from countries across the OCEAN not the border.

Just wondering, what do you want the President to do that would please you?

arthur

05-16-2006, 10:34 AM

hey vernon : target the employers , its simple target the employers and the illegals will have to self deport . no job , no legal government aid means no paid rent or meals . no need at all for government to deport in mass . sure , grab them as you say when you pick them up for - dui - , robbery , rape , crimes , etc !! ------ go after the employers and the problem is solved , imo !!

Vernon

05-16-2006, 11:28 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Groovy Lady asked: "Just wondering, what do you want the President to do that would please you?"[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the response.

1. Lead instead of react.

2. Seal the borders.

3. Be absolutely certain that all containers (land and sea) are checked as they enter the country.

4. Hire adequate number of Border Patrol/People to do the job. This two year training before they can be put on the job is absolute nonsense. I served in Security in Spain and a few simple commands in the language is all that is needed to control the situation.

5. Anyone hiring an illegal for any reason would be fined $10,000.00 per individual, plus if it has been policy, significant jail time for aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.

6. Empower local authorities to arrest and incarcerate any illegal with whom they come in contact.

7. Provide major fines and incarceration for anyone providing false documentation of any kind.

8. Oh, did I mention, for a change, lead instead of react?

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

Fubared

05-16-2006, 11:40 AM

I vote YES! The border is already militarized -- on the Mexican side.

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

MrJLDoug

05-16-2006, 12:04 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Posted: May 15, 2006 -- 3:25 pm

----------------------------------------
Hell yes, put them down there on the border and if they are shot at by Mexican troops, give them orders to shoot to kill. Mexico has declared war and we have the right to defend ourselves by any means in our power. We taught them a lesson 160 years ago and it is time that we did it again. Let the left and the RINOs squawk—they are the ones that are mainly responsible for the mess we are in now[/QUOTE]
I agree with Stan here. I'm tired of hearing from these illegals of how we stole their land. The land wasn't stolen, we kicked their butts back in 1836 and need to do it again. Remember The Alamo. On May 1st, I heard an illegal standing on the court house gazebo declare that this land belonged to them for 500 years and they were taking it back.
Get the full military and guard units there now.....

arthur

05-16-2006, 12:59 PM

did any of you guys hear the speech by mr. bush back in 2000 . on it he spoke about how kalifornia was stolen from mexico in the 15 years before the american civil war . i'll get some more info if i can , it should be on the web somewhere . ------ i heard a recording of the speech yesterday on - kabc - radio !!

pratt65

05-16-2006, 01:03 PM

No soldier should be on that border, un armed. It is like setting them up to be murdered by smugglers, and the drug dealers.
We say build a Wall , like the Wall Berlin or Korea or china has. other wise no matter who we put there it won't stop it. And until we stop catering to there language, free medical care etc we won't stop this huge influx

pratt65

05-16-2006, 01:05 PM

WWW.WEHATEGRINGOS.CO M: GRINGO = AMERICAN

Watch this flash video, see what illegals really say in there rallys. See how they Praise the Attacks of 9/11

GroovyLady

05-16-2006, 11:15 PM

Vernon - seal the borders with what? Saran wrap?

In terms of "lead instead of react" I have no idea what you mean by this. Bush's Immigration policy has been bouncing around the beltway for awhile now.

Relative to the overall immigration rates, very few people are smuggled in on cargo containers. There was an incident out in CA at the port China manages back in the late 90's; but, nothing since then. The overwhelming majority of people entering our country illegally are driving over the Canadian border, walking/driving over the Mexico border and arriving by plane into metro urban cities.

If you review the legislation bantering over the past four years regarding immigration you'll see that border patrol has been dramatically increased over where it was in 1999. Bush's proposal calls for thousands of additional border patrol officers. However, it takes, I think as you said, two years to train people. Security in Spain is not security on the border. There's lots of people like, drug lords, Zapatistas, coyotes, who are all quite knowledgable and experienced in fighting. There's a huge drug trade and people trafficing going on the border. Oh yeah, then there's the law. Even border patrol people have to follow the law; and, they can't follow the protocols and laws if they don't know them. Hence, two years of training.

Bush said a system will be put in place for employers to verify immigration status. Right now there is nothing like that. In terms of fines; that's a scale. Big difference between a soccer mom hiring a nanny whose an illegal immigrant and a winery that hires 200 illegal immigrants.

Local authorities do have the power to arrest illegal immigrants in their day-to-day work. However, there's no sufficient detention facilities. Hence, the crazy "catch and release". Here in NYC we have a couple detention centers now and they are in use. But, we have a different problem because most illegal immigrants here arrived by plane and are from countries across the ocean. And, even if they are suppose to get deported, what do you think happens when the country they're suppose to go back to doesn't want them or threatens to kill them (and their families) if they do accept them back?

There's already laws and fines against false documentaton. It's called FRAUD.

and, i still don't know what you mean by "lead instead of react".

de Seis

05-17-2006, 06:55 AM

Looks like I'm with the majority in this poll.

The National Guard'll neet enough troops and the go ahead to use force if necessary.

This isn't about trying to figure out what to do with illegals here, it's about stopping 11 million more from coming in.

Most of them come in by foot, it's supposed to be by far the safest and easiest. Remeber that "how to cross el boder" manual the Mexican government was and is still printing up? It said nothing about water. Land, land, land.

arthur

05-17-2006, 08:37 AM

there are always lots of reasons that we can't stop the leaking . border patrol needs training is one bogus reason , still we have the 3000 [i think] man posse of sheriff joe arpaio helping to arrest and detain illegals . i wonder how much training those posse members got ? i don't know but i don't think that those volunteer posse members needed a years worth of training . -------- seal the borders , many american's think that this is a national emergency , seal the borders , ignore international law and treaties [imo] or keep playing by rules that are designed to remove our sovereignty !! -------- sufficient detention , why does arpiao have sufficient detention space and the feds don't ?? there is no lack of sufficient detention or holding space . tents and the vast desert is sufficient detention space !! ---------- concerning the ignoring of laws , international or otherwise , the usa consistently ignores laws and foreign opinion , see the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the ignoring of the immigration laws of the usa for proof that the usa ignores international law , treaties and internal american law !!

deanseigneur

05-17-2006, 10:54 AM

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif As a concerned American, I feel that 6000 National Guard troops are a minimum. I would rather see a minimum of 40-50 thousand or more Border Patrol. We are losing ground to the influx. I do not agree with illegal aliens coming into our country, but more than the Mexican or South Americans coming, I am more concerned about the terrorists from other countries who come in via Mexico and Canada. They are the greater danger.

arthur

05-17-2006, 11:24 AM

just my opinion , illegal immigrants are the - death by many million cuts - , its gonna change your society ,laws and character of the usa . look at los angeles and southern kalifornia for insight !! ------- terrorists , terrorists are no big deal [imo] compared to the invasion of millions of illegals !! guard against terrorists , fight them in their lands , guard all the borders of the usa !! ------ do it all !!!

pratt65

05-17-2006, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE]This news story was posted on the Minuteman page and also reported a few minutes ago on the news: This really takes Gaul!!
Yes, folks, you heard it here -- we're sending a bunch of unarmed targets to the border for drug dealers and coyotes to shoot at (that would be the National Guard Temp Agency) and it annoys the Mexican government. They're not only predicting that President Bush's promise of amnesty for lawbreakers will increase traffic, but that additionally that we'll get hauled into court as a result.

Thank you, President Bush.

Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols

By MARINA MONTEMAYOR, Associated Press WriterTue May 16, 5:03 PM ET

Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.

Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.

President Bush announced Monday that he would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the 2,000-mile border, but they would provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents, not catch and detain illegal immigrants.

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.

Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths. Since Washington toughened security in Texas and California in 1994, migrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have spiked. Migrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

In Ciudad Juarez, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, local representative of the Mexican government's National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border.

Sending the National Guard "will not stop the flow of migrants, to the contrary, it will probably go up," as people try to get into the U.S. in the hope that they could benefit from a possible amnesty program, Nunez said.

Juan Canche, 36, traveled more than 1,200 miles to the border from the southern town of Izamal and said nothing would stop him from trying to cross.

"Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle," said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."

Ah, yes, a guest worker program (aka The Amnesty For Lawbreakers Program) will fix everything. Apparently we all need to send President Bush our thanks for his administration's devotion to -- Mexico
http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

Terri

05-17-2006, 04:35 PM

Pratt, I have repeatedly asked you to comply with our copyright rule. It applies to EVERY article that you post.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">5. GOPUSA respects U.S. copyright laws. A small portion of copyrighted articles may be posted for the purpose of discussion. Please limit those postings to 100-150 words and provide a link to the original article. Credit the author and publication in your post. Use the title of the article as it appears at the originating site. [/QUOTE]

Please click the edit button and bring your post into line or I will have to remove it.

gfafblifr

05-17-2006, 06:10 PM

Well, I voted yes although I think the action taken is nothing more than smoke and mirrors while trying to appease. 6000 national guard troops without authority to detain will hardly affect the flow. I am and have been for some time for the use of whatever force it takes to stop the flow. In addition, I'm for enforcing the laws as they apply to employers of illegals, stopping any assistance from our government and deporting those we find as soon as we find them. As for those other than Mexicans, I'll give them a present. It's called a parachute and they can use it when they jump out over their home country.

Winghunter

05-17-2006, 08:16 PM

The Border Patrol hiring 6,000...The Guard stationed on the border...

This is like bringing home the prom queen at 2AM with a curfew of midnight.

O'Reilly had an interesting interview tonight also... It was stated that, "The National Guard will not hold, detain, arrest anyone crossing the border".

What the heck is going ON!?

arthur

05-17-2006, 08:50 PM

its a game - winghunter - , this is a ploy to get people to think that action is being taken . they are putting lipstick on a pig is all it is , imo !!

GroovyLady

05-17-2006, 08:52 PM

WHADDA-YA-MEAN the Nat'l Guard won't arrest or detain?

dang even me, a bright red Yankee living in a deep blue city sees the absurdity of this.

OK, this is whole 'nuther situation. I thought the Nat'l Guard was going to go armed and ready. hmmm, i read something today, but, i've read alot of things today and not sure where i saw it; but, the head guy at the Nat'l Guard said the President is ready to federalize the Nat'l Guard if the Governors are unwilling to participate.

Now, if the President federalizes the Nat'l Guard then the Nat'l Guard takes their orders directly from the President, right?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border[/QUOTE]

WOW! this will be most helpful making it easier for us to track. We can get some satellite shots of this group can't we?

Pendragon

05-18-2006, 01:43 AM

Hello Everyone,

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits Federal Military Units from participating in law enforcement duties.

These Federal Military Units are described as the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines.

The National Guard is exempt from this by the fact that they are designated individual State Guards that are at the disposal of the Governors.
Granted that they can be called into national service by the POTUS in times of "time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency" {TITLE 6 CHAPTER 1 SUBCHAPTER VIII Part H Sec. 466).

For those old enough to remember the one memorable instance when the Nation Guard was called for law enforcement - Kent State.

My point is, that yes, the National Guard can be called up by the Governors of the States to be used as armed law enforcement personnel to supplement the U.S. Border Patrol in a situation like this. But basically, it is the Governors responsibly to do such.

Respectfully,

Pendragon

Semper Fi

arthur

05-18-2006, 06:43 AM

from what i - hear - arizona , new mexico and kalifornia governors don't want national guard on their borders anyway !! ------- looking for a correction if i'm wrong but i swear that i've HEARD that napolitano of arizona , richardson of new mexico and scwatzenegger of kali don't want them !! that just leaves perry of texas doesn't it ?? i don't know what perry has said !!

Texas Teacher

05-18-2006, 08:53 AM

stan25

05-18-2006, 02:19 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits Federal Military Units from participating in law enforcement duties.[/QUOTE]

The borders do not fall under the Posse Comitatus Act. This a Federal responsibity, pure and simple. The Posse Comitatus Act only applies to state, Federal civilian and local law enforcement. The borders do not fall under any of these categories.

The military was responsible for the security of our borders (Northern, Southern and the coastlines) every since the founding of this country, until the United States entered the World War 1. If you want to blame someone for the current mess that we are in, blame Woodrow Wilson. He is the one that came up with the idea of leaving our borders unsecured and undefended.

http://img.villagephotos.co m/p/2003-10/419342/supportourtroops.jpe g http://img.villagephotos.co m/p/2003-10/419342/supportourtroops.jpe g

Ken Sr.

05-18-2006, 04:21 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> if Bush does nothing, he's blamed. if Bush does something he's blamed.
[/QUOTE]
That's it, the left's agenda. Well, I voted "YES" myself. It's about time!

BTW, Cheescake, Thank your son & grandson for their service. They are HEROS. God Bless them both, I pray for safety for them.

President Bush ROCKS! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

Ken Sr.

05-18-2006, 04:21 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> if Bush does nothing, he's blamed. *if Bush does something he's blamed.
[/QUOTE]
That's it, the left's agenda. *Well, I voted "YES" myself. *It's about time!

BTW, Cheescake, Thank your son & grandson for their service. *They are HEROS. *God Bless them both, I pray for safety for them. *

President Bush ROCKS! * *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

Shooterman

05-18-2006, 04:45 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> For those old enough to remember the one memorable instance when the Nation Guard was called for law enforcement - Kent State.
[/QUOTE]

Go back a few years to Ike's use, illegally, I believe, at Little Rock.

RealDeal

05-18-2006, 04:53 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">scwatzenegger of kali don't want them [Nat'l Guard] !! [/QUOTE]

I thought that too from the MSMs editing job...but what I have read and heard since then is he said...WE WANT MORE.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Der Alte

05-18-2006, 06:00 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Go back a few years to Ike's use, illegally, I believe, at Little Rock.
[/QUOTE]Not really, Shooterman, he Federalized the Guard and that made his actions legal.

Cheesecake

05-18-2006, 07:44 PM

Thank YOU Ken Sr.
******************** *****************

Now I want you guys to read this..and give me an interpretation.... http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/yikes.gif

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">

Border plan: Immigration dispute goes on
May 17, 2006
A MARY McDONALD-LEWIS comment in The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/114787770974630.xml&coll=7)

At President Bush's command, our borders to the north and south bristle with arms and men. This is ostensibly to keep immigrants out of the United States, but do not be fooled for a moment: It is equally to keep Americans in. An outrageous notion? A democracy untended is always vulnerable to the slide toward fascism, which holds as its principle tenet the separation, persecution and denial of equality of a specifically targeted class of people, based on manufactured belief systems.

This allows the government to act at will upon the least powerful, while at the same time laying the groundwork for the oppression of the entire population. So, as we turn our backs on the weakest among us, we will have only ourselves to blame when the men at the borders aim their arms at us, and there is no one left to speak or act in our defense. If this idea is yet beyond imagining, turn to any history book -- the past lies just before us.[/QUOTE]

RealDeal

05-18-2006, 07:58 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">we will have only ourselves to blame when the men at the borders aim their arms at us, and there is no one left to speak or act in our defense. If this idea is yet beyond imagining, turn to any history book -- the past lies just before us.[/QUOTE]

I have many thoughts but will stick to these two: Not many countries have had walls/fences...and they were up for their protection...Isreal? You mean Israelis can't leave...I don't think that's correct. China? they were always subjects of royal dynasties...not the same "freedom and liberty" we have here. Going from a monarchy to a dictator isn't as difficult for them, kinda the same.

But what we SHOULD worry about is our guns...because IF the day comes, where we must fear a repressive govt, our forefathers made it OUR DUTY to take them down and restore liberty and freedom.

That's what I think...

No wall/fence...we will be insuring the demise of our country to facism...

Cheesecake

05-18-2006, 08:08 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">But what we SHOULD worry about is our guns...because IF the day comes, where we must fear a repressive govt, our forefathers made it OUR DUTY to take them down and restore liberty and freedom.
[/QUOTE]

Yes.

Thanks. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

Commodore Barrett

05-18-2006, 09:23 PM

The Commodore & his Lady unto the Forum: greetings.

Re the issue of Posse Comitatus; the Commodore remembers USA v. Noriega, as a result of which Sr Noriega became a guest of the USA in the Federal Pen. In order to get Sr Noriega into Federal Custody, GHWB sent the Marines, the Navy SEALS, the 82nd, 101st, and other units. But they were sworn in as Deputy Federal Marshals! Yes, they were. As the end result, Noriega became a guest of the USA in Admin Max. The Media howled and howled, but to no avail. Noriega became a convicted felon, hearing the Federal Jury say, "We find the defendant GUILTY!" And the Judge sentenced him to the Slam, to which he went and still is. The World may WAAAAAA all they want. Let them WAAAAAAAAA.

GroovyLady

05-19-2006, 01:02 PM

re: USA v. Noreiga; why couldn't we have pulled the same routine with OBL back when he as in the Sudan?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">For those old enough to remember the one memorable instance when the Nation Guard was called for law enforcement - Kent State.[/QUOTE]

1992 Los Angeles Riots - I think that was Nat'l Guard enforcing the law on orders from the President; not the Gov.

OK, I'll go with the plan to blame Woodrow Wilson for losing America's border security. He messed up the middle-east pretty well after WWI too.