"Obama to Send 1,200 Guard Troops to Mexico Border" - NY Times

 "Homeland Security officials said that the troops would provide support to law enforcement officers already working along the border by helping observe and monitor traffic between official crossing points, and would help analyze trafficking patterns in hopes of intercepting illegal drug shipments. They performed similar tasks in an earlier deployment along the border from 2006 to 2008, when they also assisted with road and fence construction. The troops have not been involved directly in intercepting border crossers."  Archibold

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am on record here as favoring a political solution to the problem of illegal immigration to the US from or through Mexico.  What I favor is a separation of residential and economic rights from those of citizenship so that people of both nationalities could live anywhere in the two countries and could own businesses and property anywhere as well.  At the same time people who wanted to acquire citizenship and the vote would have to follow whatever the law was in the country in question.  I know that this is a solution for the angels, not for humans.  President Calderon's egregious and arrogant remarks in the US confirm me in that opinion. 

What we are left with instead is a choice in the US as to whether or not we are serious in trying to control our borders and immigration.  Drug smugglers are another and different matter.  There is no question as to what to do about and to them.  

So, Obama is going to send Guard troops to the border to do intelligence analysis and labor? Construction companies are not available to build fences?  Citizen soldiers of the National Guard will sit on outposts "trail watching" perhaps alone or perhaps with the Border Patrol? Will they be armed?  Will they have the deputized power of arrest?  Posse Comitatus? Somehow I doubt that this would apply to state (or federal) troops augmenting law enforcement if they are properly deputized.

This is a dilemma.  If you do not arm the troops and authorize them to use at least some force then their blood will be on your head when they run into armed border crossers.  If you do authorize them to use force then the Mexicans' blood will be your responsibility.

The border situation was likely to come to this.  Life is largely a series of choices made between bad options.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/us/26border.html

Comments

[Tyler]

Colonel,

Last time the NG came down here, they had no ammo (except for one magazine in one M16 at each OP in case of "emergencies").

There was a pretty well publicized case (down here at least) of some suspected Zetas bounding and flanking one of the OPs, at which point the NG soldiers in question ran away. They were given medals in a closed ceremony by then Governor Napalitano for their valor.

Ugh.

Anyway, hopefully the NG will be used to improve the roads down here and build a fence or something. Otherwise its more of a headache then its worth.

As an aside, you shouldn't differentiate between drug and human smugglers. The human smugglers are just as despicable as the drug smugglers. They're more than willing to lie to a pregnant woman from Michoacan and tell her that Phoenix is "right over those hills" before leaving her and 30 other people in the desert to die once he has their money.

[Grimgrin]

The immigration debate is interesting because it's such an easy problem to solve technically. I'm sure any of the regular posters here could sketch out a combination of enforcement policies, border defenses and other technical measures that would stop illegal migration cold, provide enough agricultural labor and probably a path to citizenship for established, otherwise law abiding, employed illegal immigrants.

The interesting issue for me is why have proposed solutions to the problem increasingly come from outside the mainstream, and why are the mainstream proposals all transparently hollow and ineffectual?

I find the standard response of 'Big Business wants it that way', is incredibly shallow and unsatisfying. Agribusiness would probably be perfectly happy with a 'bracero' program, as would any other major employer in need of inexpensive workers. I have some speculation in that direction, but nothing with any rigor.

I suppose it's a fundamental question on a lot of issues not just immigration, why is a status quo that's so unacceptable to so many people defended so vigorously?

[Paul Escobar]

"Life is largely a series of choices made between bad options."

There have been many ways of saying it, but this must be the best.

[HJFJR]

Pat whether National Guard troops have "police" powers will depend on whether they are brought on active duty in a "Title 32" or Title 10" status. Under T32 they are considered state militia and posse comitatus does not apply to their actions whereas in Title 10 they are considerate Federal Forces and fall under the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 as amended. My guess is they will be in a T32 and under the control of their respective state chain of commands.

[R Whitman]

To cover the border 24/7 you need 4 shifts of people. That means at any one time you add 240 people to cover 2000 miles of border. This is going to solve our illegal immagrant and drug proble.

I thought August was the silly season or is this left over from April Folls Day??

[jonst]

Calderon WAS an arrogant buffoon, wasn't he?

[Allen Thomson]

At first look, this seems to be a reactivation of Operation Jump Start, which had a nominal 6,000 National Guard troops on the border from 2006 to 2008.

http://www.ng.mil/features/southwestborder/default.aspx

http://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2006/12/121106-OJS_success.aspx

http://www.asisonline.org/newsroom/051506operationjumpstart.pdf

[mac nayeri]

Hi Colonel...

U raise good questions....

I think this is largely a political move that attempts to allay the concerns of the "secure the border first" opponents of immigration reform...if i'm right, then the push for reform is about to begin in earnest....

it couldn't come any sooner for some of my clients who are the spouses of US military servicemen, who have enough on their plates in Iraq, Afghanistan than have to worry the mothers of their kids are about to be deported....

unrelated to this issue: we get the decision on the Yemeni case on 06-18-2010.

[Patrick Lang]

Mac Nayeri

I don't quite understand how the spouse of a US soldier can be deported while he is away. If he is in the US forces then he is a legal person in the US. How can his wife or husband be illegal?

All - Mac Nayeri is an immigration attorney in AZ. I helped him with the case he mentioned. pl

[Patrick Lang]

jonst

Re Calderon. I expected better from him. pl

[Patrick Lang]

Rwhitman

Some missing zeros? pl

[Patrick Lang]

Hank

OK. You are probably right about 32 vs 10 for the Guard. It will eventually be necessary to use the Regular Army (I am old fashioned). What then? pl

[R Whitman]

Allowance for sick and supervision

[Patrick Lang]

R Whitman

Those seem like acceptable numbers. How did you figure this? pl

[graywolf]

The whole immigration (and by extension border security) is tied to political demographics, specifically the Democrat party.
The Democrats want open borders because they believe this will provide a new wave of Democrat voters; thus their ferocious fighting against any sort of voter ID.
National security, rule of law?
Not when it conflicts with the goals of the demcong.

[R Whitman]

My first full time job after military service 50+ years ago was at a manufacturing plant.

I was taught that if you wanted to cover an operation 24/7 you needed to determine the staffing required for a one shift 40 hr operation and multiply by 5. With 168 hrs/wk, 160 are covered by 4 shifts. The fifth covers the 8 hr overtime requirement, sick people, vacation and personal days, and management supervision.

I suspect, but do not know, that law enforcement staffing is not much different.

[Cynthia]

Law enforcement is second only to the illegal drug trade when it comes to profiting from keeping drugs illegal. And just like the war on terror is a cash cow for the military-industrial complex, the war on drugs is a cash cow for the police/prison-industrial complex. So of course those who are making a killing in the law enforcement industry are against legalizing drugs. Their mission is to perpetuate the myth that legalizing drugs will lead to more crime and violence in order to convince the public to keep tax dollars flowing to the war on drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for legalizing all forms of illegal activities, but I do think that illegal activities, which are classified as victimless crimes, should be legalized. At the top of the list of victimless crimes are adult drug use and prostitution between consenting adults . And now that the growth in the underground economy is far outstripping the growth in the economy that's above ground, it's high time for nations across the globe to legalize victimless crimes and collect taxes on them in order to fund a growing need for public services and facilities. If we delay in doing this, nations will soon become so hollowed out that they too will become victims of crimes committed by very wealthy and powerful criminals in the underground economy that lack any ties, much less any loyalties, to any nation on earth. Nils Gilman goes into much more detail about the enormous rise of the underground economy and how it's hollowing out nations across the globe:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3173247273890946684#

[lina]

graywolf,

There was a repcong and a rep-prez from 2000-2008. Why didn't they fix this problem?

[jerseycityjoan]

I cannot help but wonder what future generations will think about our passivity and foolishness re the massive influx of people we've taken in since the 1970s.

Somewhere around 2050 we'll need water, gas and infrastructure for about 400 million, instead of the 300 million people we have today. Most of the additional 100 million will be immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.

We don't have enough jobs for the people we have now. As far as I know, no one has plan to deal with all these extra people. I believe the Census Bureau's "high" population figure (they do a low-medium-high estimate) for our country is over 1 billion people in 100 years or so.

We've got to stop the influx plus get over our reluctance to stop granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Lots of other First World countries have changed their citizenship laws in recent years, we can too. We can't keep making eternal promises to strangers who should not be here.

It's about time we start blaming the ruling class of Mexico for what goes on down there, too. They get a free pass all the time, I don't know why. Mexico itself is not a poor country. Let their rich start taking responsibility for change.

[Howler]

R Whitman

The DoD/OPM manning standard for a 24/7 guard post was a bit more specific: 4.8. I suspect it's close to the same in the civilian world.

[Hank Foresman]

Pat,

If you put Active Forces or even Reserve Component forces in Title 10 status, unless Congress changes the Posse Comitatus Act they cannot be used in a police role. I doubt if they would do that!

If on the other hand you determine we are being invaded then you can use the Active Forces to repel the invansion.

[Cynthia]

Granting US citizenship to illegals would be a great way to expand the tax base in America, thereby providing us with the necessary funds to pay for better public services for all Americans. As it now stands, the only people who benefit by keeping illegals illegal are wealthy individuals and corporations who hire them to do work at below market wages. And they sure as hell will never provide them with health and retirement benefits. So whenever any of our hard-working illegals ever get hurt on the job or ever get sick for whatever reason, we the taxpayers get stuck with their health-care bills. This is just another example of the wealthy in America having the best of socialism and capitalism all rolled into one, enabling them to get away with privatizing their profits, while socializing their losses.

[Tyler]

Cynthia,

So you are willing to accept adding millions of people to the US with little to no connection to this country in the name of a spurious "greater tax base", while further grinding out own lower class into the dirt?

Sorry, I have to disagree. We should just deport them all. Untie the Border Patrol's hands, take "interior operations" from ICE and give it back to the BP and let them cut through illegal communities and call it a day.

[Cynthia]

Tyler,

I blame NAFTA for our immigration problem. NAFTA enabled American corporations to move into Mexico and undercut its small business owners, especially its small farmers, leading to massive unemployment throughout Mexico. Free trade agreements only work with minimal disruption between countries whose wage rates are roughly equivalent to each other. This is why our free trade agreement with Canada didn't lead to a flood of illegal immigrants coming across our northern border.

[Fred]

Cynthia,

I'm beginning to believe it is less 'Free Trade' than free trade in finance that is more to blame for the last financial decline, though you are certainly correct on the wage differential - excluding, of course, executive salaries. Just what is the China price for a CEO? I don't see too many of them getting pay cuts even if they bankrupt the firm.