Sic Semper Tyrannis

Joaquin Castro's infamy

"Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) is under fire for tweeting out a list of donors to President Donald Trump. Why the maneuver is so controversial isn’t entirely clear: It’s all information that was already public.

The Texas Democrat and brother to 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro on Monday tweeted a list of 44 San Antonio donors who contributed the maximum amount under federal law to Trump in 2019. “Sad to see so many San Antonians as of 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump,” he wrote, calling out a couple of the city’s better-known donors by their Twitter handles. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”"  vox

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

ILLEGAL immigrants who cross a border into the US ARE "invaders."  What Joaquin Castro has demonstrated with this assault on the political opinions of Americans is that  he has no respect for those he disagrees with.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/7/20758533/joaquin-castro-tweet-trump-donors-texas-san-antonio

What does "humanitarian crisis" mean for the Democrats?"

The Democrats in the US Congress claim they support "Border Security."  Apparently they believe that the public will accept the idea that they support the US government's right to limit immigration however it chooses to do so.  Their unwillingness to reinforce the CBP on the border and to change the Asylum Law to make treatment of Central Americans equal to that of all others, including Mexicans, makes that assertion an absurdity.

The truth IMO is that with few exception. the national Democrats seek the collapse of US government control of immigration and an inundation of illegal immigrants that they hope will give them permanent voting majorities in elections across the country. 

The tactic used in California of illegally voting illegal immigrants through control of local election boards and devices like "motor voter" registrations was shown to be effective in HC's popular vote win in California.  This is why California resisted so strongly the proposal for an audit of the election after 2016.

The Democrats have become a minority and left Globalist Party hostile to the traditional American structure of government and to the people who built this country, and I don't mean by laying bricks when the WH was built.

The behavior and statements of the Democrats demonstrate that what they really want in the SW is a collapse of US government authority.

Seeking agreement with them is futile.  pl

A joint resolution about the national emergency at the border may have a vote on 26 February

By Robert Willmann

The declaration of a national emergency at the border by president Trump on 15 February was published in the Federal Register on 20 February [1].  On 22 February, Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from San Antonio, Texas, introduced a joint resolution pursuant to the National Emergencies Act to terminate the national emergency [2]--

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46/text?r=5

The resolution was set up to start with 225 co-sponsors, to show that it will pass.  With 435 members in the House of Representatives, 225 votes can pass it.  The only sponsor in that group from the Republican Party is Justin Amash, from the third district of Michigan.

The calendar of the House Clerk shows that the resolution may be taken up this week, "pursuant to a rule".  The calendar of the majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer (Dem., Maryland), puts it on 26 February, and gun control and background check bills are up this week as well; Hoyer has them for 27 February--

https://www.majorityleader.gov/content/weekly-leader-friday-february-22-2019

After a vote in the House, the resolution will go to the Senate for consideration.

Joaquin and Julian Castro are twin brothers from San Antonio.  Joaquin was elected to the Texas House of Representatives, and then in 2012 ran and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he is on three committees:  Education and Labor, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs, as vice chairman.  He is also chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  Julian was elected mayor of San Antonio.  President Barack Obama appointed him to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Julian started that job in July 2014.  He announced as a candidate of the Democratic Party for president in January 2019.  Joaquin is his campaign chairman [3]. 

[1]  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-20/pdf/2019-03011.pdf

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/20/2019-03011/declaring-a-national-emergency-concerning-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states

[2]  https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hjres46/BILLS-116hjres46ih.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46/all-info?r=5

[3]  https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/21/can-congressman-joaquin-castro-promote-his-brother-president/

 

"Pentagon chief: Broader approach to border security needed" - TTG

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Saturday after visiting the U.S.-Mexico border that the government needs a broader, more effective approach to border control. He suggested the Pentagon might contribute with its expertise in surveillance and monitoring. "How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issue," Shanahan said in an interview while flying back to Washington. Considering how the military could reinforce efforts to block drug smuggling and other illegal activity comes as the Pentagon weighs diverting billions of dollars for President Donald Trump's border wall.

Shanahan said he was not volunteering the Pentagon to take over any part of border control, which is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. But he said his visit led him to question whether there should be a "wholesale redesign" of the way border control is done by the federal government. Shanahan said the Pentagon is willing to continue supporting the DHS but wants to see a longer-term solution.  (Associated Press)

———————

Well, well, well. This Shanahan may be on to something. Maybe he can get everybody to get off their high horses and talk about a real solution. The idea of a defense in depth may be as applicable to the border as it is to the battlefield. How about long range sensing far into the Mexican side that is fully shared with Mexican authorities? Address the problem jointly rather than establishing a hostile border.

Whatever they come up with, they better learn from an earlier effort to secure the border through a purely technological solution. In a Christian Science Monitor article from 2011, the fate of the “virtual fence” or Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet) was discussed. “After $1 billion spent, the US has 53 miles of 'virtual fence' in Arizona. The high-tech project is too costly to extend along the whole US-Mexico border, the Homeland Security chief said Friday.” Wow! Spending $1 billion for 53 miles was too expensive, but $5.7 billion for 215 miles is now fine. And much of that new barrier will be vulnerable to shovels and angle grinders. Go figure. No matter what the final solution is, it will be expensive. The CS Monitor article does cover some good lessons learned. I hope all in our government would take the time to RTFA.

TTG

https://www.apnews.com/6c730d79184f424b90cdb39b62d61a4f

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0115/US-cancels-virtual-fence-along-Mexican-border.-What-s-Plan-B

The proclamation of a national emergency is to be in the Federal Register. Can money be moved without a national emergency?

By Robert Willmann

Even though the chatter in mass media and by various members of Congress is consumed with the declaration of a national emergency, we can pause and look to see if we can find it.  Title 50, U.S. Code, sections 1621 and 31 tell us--

"Section 1621.  Declaration of National Emergency by President; Publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation

"(a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

...

"Section 1631.  Declaration of national emergency by executive order; authority; publication in Federal Register; transmittal to Congress

"When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress."

President Trump put a "proclamation" on the White House Internet website on 15 February, but it did not appear in that day's Federal Register, or in the document prepared so far for 19 February, after the legal holiday on 18 February [1]--

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-southern-border-united-states/

Calling the action a proclamation rather than an executive order is a little curious, since it would be cleaner to title it an executive order, as the section of the law says, but the title does not affect its validity, especially since it references the National Emergencies Act and contains the words, "hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States ...."

 

Look for the fine print about two separate things: 1- border control and barriers, and 2 - general immigration law

By Robert Willmann

As president Trump is speaking about the U.S. southern border and a national emergency, here is the law that was passed yesterday when probably no one had read all of it, certainly not the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, whose position is that in a "democracy", you have to pass a law before you can find out what is in it--

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/files/immigration-116hjres31enr.pdf

And this was the recorded vote--

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll087.xml

I have to tend to some other things right now, but if you look at this new law, it is useful to think not only about a border wall and border control, which has been the subject of all the talk and political posturing, but also about language in this new legislation about other parts of the immigration law.  Changes or additions to the existing immigration law separate and apart from border control can have a greater effect on not controlling legal and illegal immigration than features of a border wall would.

Also, after a national emergency is declared, and if court action follows, the legal debate will be largely about "statutory construction" -- the interplay of two or more laws about a particular subject -- and the interpretation of words in different sections of different federal laws and words in the U.S. Constitution.

Update:  The National Emergencies Act--

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter34&edition=prelim

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-34

Update 2:  Regarding the thought above that changes or additions to immigration law separate and apart from the effects of a border wall can be significant, I am trying to emphasize that changes to general immigration law can lead to less control over legal and illegal immigration, and can cause more problems with illegal immigration, than border control itself, even when border control is quite effective.

 

Aid for Central America - been there, done that. - Re-posted 26 November 2018

 

I just listened to Geraldo Rivera slobber with emotion on "The Five" over the unwillingness of the US Government to allow one and all Latinos to immigrate to the US.  One and all!  I remember Rivera as the man who said tearily that he cared about 9/11  because he was from New York City.  And early in the Afghan War he once broadcast from the field while cowering behind a tank claiming that battle noise that was audible was an action nearby.  In fact the fight he referred to was 400 miles away.  He later admitted that.  Among his blubber points tonight  about tear gassed babies he mentioned that the US should try to help the Central American countries.  In fact the US has been in the business of promoting development in CA since the Kennedy Administration. I know I was there then, been there did that.  Hardly any of this ever works in CA because the latifundistas and other gente decente won't have it.   They like their grip on power and the abject dependency of the peones and campesinos.  A Jordanian general officer whom I once escorted to Ft. Bliss, Texas visited Ciudad Juarez and then told me that we Americans had a duty to conquer the s-----le  countries south of us and rule them justly.  I laughed and told him that we had tried similar things several times.  pl

**********

"The Alliance for Progress"

" The program was signed at an inter-American conference at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in August 1961. The charter called for:

• an annual increase of 2.5% in per capita income,
• the establishment of democratic governments,
• the elimination of adult illiteracy by 1970
• price stability, to avoid inflation or deflation
• more equitable income distribution, land reform, and
• economic and social planning.^[3][4]

First, the plan called for Latin American countries to pledge a capital investment of $80 billion over 10 years. The United States agreed to supply or guarantee $20 billion within one decade.^[4]

Second, Latin American delegates required the participating countries to draw up comprehensive plans for national development. These plans were then to be submitted for approval by an inter-American board of experts.

Third, tax codes had to be changed to demand "more from those who have most" and land reform was to be implemented.^[3]

 

Blood on the Border?

 "Trump has the legal authority to determine that its deployment is necessary. For a start, there should be very little legal controversy in the military's employment to defend the border against an unlawful incursion by foreign nationals. The defense of territory and persons, after all, is the primary responsibility of the Department of Defense. But while there are noted precedent exclusions to Posse Comitatus that allow the military to support civilian authorities in matters relating to national disasters and counterterrorism etc., there are other authorities also relevant here — specifically, the provisions under federal law as vested under Title 10, Chapter 13 of the U.S. code. "  Washington Examiner

-----------

As I have previously written, the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to use of troops, Regular Army, USMC or National Guard in  situations involving defense of the borders of the United States.

The Posse Comitatus Act was the product of the end of military occupation of the former Confederate States of America.  When Southern congressmen regained their seats in Washington they insisted on the passage of a law that would prevent future use of federal troops as an occupation army.  Their anger over the occupation was such that they also prevented the appropriation of funds for the purpose of paying the commissioned officers of the US Army for two consecutive years in the 1870s. 

Defense of the frontier is not enforcement of civil law.

This could easily become a human catastrophe in the event of an attempt on the part of migrants to force their way across the border.  In such an event the migrants may push the women and children out in front to screen the men. If they then attack CBP and Border Patrol police the troops supporting the police will probably fire on them.   pl 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/yes-trump-really-has-authority-to-use-military-force-at-the-border

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Barbed wire obstacles I have known.

I am somewhat bemused by today;'s TV images of newly arrived soldiers stringing triple concertina wire at the border.  This is not much of an obstacle.  It is the kind of thing you put up in a newly occupied defensive  position.  The coils of wire are connected to each other and should be staked down but this is still not much of an obstacle.  It would normally be covered by fire from small arms, mortars and nasty things like Claymore Mines.  It is better than nothing to have out in front of you, but not much better.  Since this obstacle on the border WOULD NOT be covered by fire the barrier would be easy to defeat.  A few foot wide planks thrown forward onto the wire can be run across.  Alternatively, a few caravaners thrown forward onto the wire could serve the same purpose as the rest run across on their backs (joke).  Actually not much of a joke, they teach the troops to do that in the army if they unexpectedly run into such a flimsy obstacle when moving forward.

The little picture above shows what a serious barbed wire obstacle looks like  Two double apron barbed wire fences with the intervening space filled up with two or three concertina coils.  All of this staked down and covered with fire and filled with mines.  Now, that would make your eyes water if you had to get through it.  We used to wire our permanent positions in with obstacles like this plus berms in VN.  pl

The governors and the National Guard by PL

(editorial comment)

In full disclosure I should say that I was a National Guardsman long ago when in high school in Maine.  My school friends decided to join the local rifle company of the 103rd Infantry Regiment and asked me to join with them.  I did that and the following  years were for me a strongly formative experience of community service in which we spent as much time in disaster relief work as we did in training for combat.  When I left the state to go to college I was discharged from the Maine Army National Guard.   I was a sergeant (E-5) 60 mm mortar squad leader .  I have a deep sympathy for the citizen-soldiers of the Guard.

 The National Guard is a portion of each state or territory's constitutionally created militia, a portion concerning which there are formal agreements between the federal military forces and the states.  Under those agreements the federal government recognizes the commissions of National Guard officers, provides equipment, money for training time and a variety of other benefits.  In return the units of the National Guard are trained to as close an approximation of Regular Army and Air Force standards as the time available will allow in a part time force.

The states and the federal government share control of the Guard.  When the Guard is not in federal service, the governor of each state is the commander in chief of the state's National Guard. 

There is a US federal law called the Posse Comitatus Act.  This 19th Century law forbids the use of federal military forces for law enforcement in the US.  There is a legislated "carve-out" that allows for participation in drug smuggling interdiction.

The National Guard when NOT in federal service is exempt from that law because they are not federal troops.  Title 32 of the US Code makes it clear that the National Guard  can be used for any legitimate state governmental function when ordered to do so by the state's governor.  That would include law enforcement.

We are now told in the media that the National Guardsmen going to the border cannot be used for law enforcement and will function as a logistical, reconnaissance  and administrative backup for  the US Border Patrol.  That may be so but it is not necessarily so.  The US Secretary of Homeland Security has several time said that there are no present plans to use the Guard for law enforcement, but, pilgrims, that could easily change.  pl

Send the California NG to the border ...

 

"Federal law prohibits the use of active-duty service members for law enforcement inside the U.S., unless specifically authorized by Congress. But over the past 12 years, presidents have twice sent National Guard troops to the border to bolster security and assist with surveillance and other support.

Nielsen said the effort would be similar to a 2006 operation in which President George W. Bush deployed troops to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel with non-law enforcement duties while additional border agents were hired and trained. President Barack Obama also sent about 1,200 troops in 2010 to beef up efforts against drug smuggling and illegal immigration.

Nielsen said her department had developed a list of locations where it would like assistance on things like aerial surveillance and other support, and was discussing with the governors how to facilitate the plans. She declined to say how many personnel would be needed or how much the operation would cost, but she insisted, “It will be as many as is needed to fill the gaps that we have today.”"  realclearpolitics

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

 

(159th Infantry Regiment CANG)

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the US of federal armed forces in internal law enforcement operations in the US.  There is an exception to this prohibition in the Insurrection Act for the obvious reason that insurrection would by definition be internal to the US. 

The US National Guard is that portion of each states' militia that is committed to the reinforcement of federal forces if that is needed.  The states and the federal government share responsibility for the National Guard. 

When the units of the National Guard are not in federal service they are state troops and as such are not prohibited from law enforcement duty under Posse Comitatus.   For that reason alone they are suitable forces with which to reinforce the US Border Patrol.  There is a provision in law under which the federal government can fund NG operations in crisis support even though these forces have not been called into federal service.

The governors of the border states (except California) have indicated their agreement with the use of their National Guardsmen in the border mission.

I suggest that the resolve of the Government of California to resist federal immigration law should be tested by telling the governor of California that if necessary some or all of the National Guard of California will be called into federal service for this mission.  we would then learn how far the Sacramento Nullification clique are willing to go.

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any state or territory, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any state. This is another statutory exception to the PCA."  wiki on US National Guard

There appears to be ample presidential authority for a federal mobilization of the California National Guard with or without Sacramento's concurrence.  pl  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/05/trump_signs_proclamation_directing_troops_to_secure_border_136720.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

 

What should Gringos want in our relations with Mexico? - Republished from November 2012

(Given DJT's announced intention to

use US troops (perhaps NG) on the border

IMO the CinC should  decide what ROE will be.  pl

----------

According to the author of the cited article American citizens of Mexican descent want a path to citizenship for those of their ethnic community who are presently residing illegally in the US.  At the same time they find it acceptable that there be fairly onerous conditions placed on the "path" to citizenship.

"Latino voters are very comfortable with requirements regarding old or outstanding taxes, criminal background checks, continuous residence in the US and the learning of English. The community is more or less evenly divided on a provision for directly fining people, and a majority oppose touch-back provisions that requires undocumented residents of the US to return to nations of origin to complete the paperwork process."  Beyondchron

I can see all that as a reasonable set of aspirations so long as it is combined with a continuing major effort to halt illegal immigration across our borders.

It is at that point that I part company with people like Congressman Gutierrez of Illinois who baldly insists that deportation of illegal residents of the US must stop.  Living in the US without citizenship or a proper visa is a violation of US law.  Was Gutierrez not sworn to uphold US law? 

The president elect of Mexico has recently been in Washington talking about Mexico's hopes and requirements with regard to the US.

Americans should start talking about our demands and desires with regard to Mexico.  The Mexican-American lobby operation in the US is seeking to create an ambiance in which only Mexico and Mexican-Americans in the US have "rights."  In fact this relationship between the two countries must be one of reciprocity.

What should we want from Mexico in return for the "immigration reform" that it wants here?

- We should insist on the right to reside permanently anywhere in Mexico that we choose after emigrating there legally.  There should be a clear path to Mexican citizenship that mirrors provisions in US law.  This path should not include a necessary renunciation of US citizenship.  US law does not require that for naturalization.

- We should insist on the right to own real property in Mexico on the same basis as Mexican citizens.  This should apply to personal as well as commercial property. 

- We should insist that net profits after taxes of American owned businesses in Mexico should be fully repatriatable.

- We should demand a joint US/Mexican judicial tribunal that tries drug traffickers and condemns the guilty to execution or imprisonment. 

pl 

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/What_Latinos_Want_in_an_Immigration_Reform_Bill_10744.html

“Build WALL through M!” - TTG

"(20 July 2012) By RUSTY DENNEN - THE FREE LANCE-STAR   Civil War soldiers in Union blue transformed the Stafford County landscape nearly 150 years ago during their yearlong stay—cutting trees and roads and setting up vast camps, a harbor and fortifications.

This week, troops in Army green were at work at a 41-acre site where some of their Civil War counterparts once stayed. Due largely to those efforts, the area’s newest Civil War park could open as early as this fall on the rolling swath of woodland off Mount Hope Church Road. About 80 soldiers with the Powhatan-based 180th Engineer Company, 276th Engineer Battalion, 91st Troop Command are clearing trees and brush and building roads in a two-week project that began Sunday. The Guard and a local nonprofit, Friends of Stafford County Civil War Sites, which is overseeing the project, on Thursday showed progress at the tract to county officials and Bill Howell, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Much of the effort was focused on Howard Avenue, one of the park’s new internal roads. Gen. Oliver Otis Howard commanded the mostly German troops who served here. His 11th Corps soldiers were among 135,000 Union troops who regrouped in Stafford after the December 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg.

“We’re combat construction, anything to do with roads, clearing brush, ditching,” said Capt. Jesse Kopczynski of the 180th Engineer Company. “The main focus is to train our guys for their combat mission.” The troops get valuable experience on heavy equipment in a real-world setting, “and we’re doing something for the community,” he said. The National Guard is doing the work—at no cost to the county or FSCWS—under its Innovative Readiness Training program. IRT allows soldiers to work on worthy civilian projects approved by the National Guard Bureau.

The 203rd Red Horse Squadron of the Virginia Air National Guard, based in Virginia Beach, will pave the roads and shoulders once the engineers finish work later this month." Read the rest of the article here.

*****************************  

I resurrected this old story about how our Stafford Civil War park was constructed to show how Trump’s “Build WALL through M!” could be implemented. This goes beyond the idea of just letting the Corps of Engineers oversee the project. He could run with the idea that securing our southern border is a matter of national defense and go beyond a massive Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program for the National Guard and Reserve engineering units. Imagine a well resourced III Corps with the manpower of several combat brigades and engineering brigades (if those even exist) managing a nationwide IRT program. In our military’s past, soldiers often constructed roads and forts as a normal part of their mission. It would require a modification in the MTOE of the combat brigades, but that’s done all the time. It would also require a change in today’s attitude from warrior back to soldier, a change I think is long overdue. And I’d rather see our troops spending our wealth (or debt) here that spending it on overseas military adventures. 

TTG

Saudi Arabia grants Lebanese Army $3 billion - Daily Star

"Saudi Arabia has granted the Lebanese Army $3 billion in military equipment to be bought from France, President Michel Sleiman said Sunday. "The kingdom has decided, following ongoing contacts, to offer exceptional and admirable support to the Lebanese Army of $3 billion which would allow [the military] to buy newer and more modern weapons," Sleiman said in a televised speech, describing the grant as the largest in the history of Lebanon and its Army. "The Saudi grant will allow France to equip the Army, and I hope Paris will swiftly carry out this initiative,” he said. "After decades of unsuccessful efforts with no tangible results, I was able through contacts with the Saudi King Abdallah to provide the Lebanese Army with this exceptional grant," Sleiman added."  Daily Star

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

The Saudis are usually more subtle than this.  They (like the Israelis) are upset with the US for not obeying.  In both cases the disobedience has to do with Syria and Iran.  The US has wisely declined to destroy the present Syrian government.  This task would be easily and bloodily accomplished if a decision were made to do so.  the US armed forces are designed for that kind of destruction as opposed to pacification of god awful places like Afghanistan.  In the case of Iran both Saudi Arabia and Israel yearn for an Obama Administration decision to wreck Iran's nuclear program and economy generally.  An Iran reduced to a Morgenthau model state would be pleasing to them.  The US has thus far declined these tasks.

Therefore the US must be punished like an errant child.  The grant of $3 billion to  Lebanon for the purpose of buying French military equipment and training should be seen in that context. It has been suggested in Lebanon that the acquisition of ths equipmentwill counter the military power of Hizbullah in Lebanon.  I find that amusing.  the Lebanese Army has never shown any apetite for fighting anyone and the thought of a Lebanese Army/Hizbullah confrontation is funny.

In much the same way Bibi has apparently declared that he demands Pollard's release as a condition for any future "progress" with Kerry over the Palestinians.

Expect more of this as various little countries seek to demonstrate their domination of American policy.  pl  

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2013/Dec-29/242579-sleiman-saudi-arabia-grants-lebanese-army-3-billion.ashx#axzz2otsCv9pm

Immigration Bill passes out of Senate Committee

 

 "Rubio said in a statement that the committee “made real improvements to the bill” but that more work needs to be done. “We have an historic opportunity to end today’s de facto amnesty and modernize our immigration system to meet our 21st century needs,” Rubio said. “I remain optimistic that the Senate, by improving the bill through an open and deliberative floor debate, will seize this opportunity.” On Tuesday, the panel defeated multiple attempts to alter the pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants living illegally in the country. The high-tech visa agreement hammered out by Schumer and Hatch was one of the last remaining pieces of unfinished business and was added to the underlying bill by a voice vote Tuesday afternoon. Schumer spent days working with Hatch, hoping that a deal could persuade the Utah senator to back the bill and boost the bipartisan momentum. “Many things that are there I like, some things I don’t like,” Schumer said."  politico

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

If the border can be protected from further illegal immigration, and the process of "pathing" is sufficiently onerous so that it cannot be said to be amnesty, then it may pass.  pl 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/senate-immigration-bill-gang-of-eight-91644.html

DHS tells Border Patrol Agents to run away and hide if they encounter an active shooter.

Fox News reports:

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.

“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’" union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."

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

I found this report disturbing, but not the least bit surprising. It's typical of a half baked edict put out by bureaucrats in a far away headquarters who don't have a clue what is happening on the front line. Border Patrol Local 2544 feels the same. This blanket guidance to armed law enforcement officers does not make sense. Is it an over reaction to civilian casualties, or the fear of civilian casualties, in a police shootout? Possibly. Intended or not, it is surely a slap in the face to a dedicated group of law enforcement officers tasked with the impossible mission of actually defending our borders.

Several times I have commented on how I think we should guard our borders. Take a sizeable chunk of resources out of the DoD and apply it to this mission. There are two ways this could be done. The first way is to deploy something like twelve (just a SWAG on my part) infantry combat brigade teams to the border and defend the border as a military mission. This way is fraught with problems... legal problems, coordination problems and public perception problems. A better way is to create a twelve brigade size Border Patrol force to augment the existing Border Patrol. This way the Border Patrol can guard the borders rather than just patrol the borders.

I would create brigades consisting of three to six squadrons loosely based on the Army's RSTA squadron concept.  They should be called surveillance, search and rescue (SSR) squadrons to emphasize their law enforcement function and identity rather than being pure military organizations. The brigade should also have an aviation squadron with one or more transport helicopter troops and a mix of manned and unmanned arial surveillance assets. The brigade would also have a headquarters and support squadron to provide supply, maintenance, transportation and intelligence support for the SSR squadrons. 

Each SSR squadron would have a mix of troops. Some on foot, some mounted on light patrol vehicles and even a horse mounted troop or two. Each troop needs enough organic support to conduct extended field operations out in the boonies. Something similar to what a light infantry company might have. I would definitely like to see a mess team with each troop. It's an unbelievably effective morale booster in the field.

To support Border Patrol operations along coastal areas and in ports, one or more SSB squadrons need to be organized as maritime squadrons equipped with appropriate harbor patrol and coastal patrol craft.  The entire force needs to be supported by a training brigade perhaps based on a part of Fort Hood deeded to the Border Patrol.

What say the members of this committee of correspondence?

TTG 

 

 

COIN in Mexico?

 
I take it as a given that the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures will end in the not too distant future.  Financial starvation of the US Government in the context of a declining economy and federal deficits, the intractability of these multi=player civil wars, and American inability to engage with cultures markedly different from our own, all these things will bring our overseas engagements to an end or nearly to an end. 

At the same time, the political pressures brought on within the US by immigration (legal or not) and drug smuggling across the US border with Mexico are growing steadily.

Someone here suggested the application of the COIN doctrine in Mexico.  COIN is armed nation building.  Do we want to do that?  pl

Happy Feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe

"more than 28,000 lives since President Felipe Calderon intensified a crackdown on cartels when he took office in late 2006."  Yahoonews

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

Some time ago I made the comment that Mexico is a failed state.  Some objected to that.  Just as a matter of "keeping up" I would like to know if opinion still favors the notion that all is well south of the border.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_drug_war_mexico

 

 

"Obama signs $600M border security bill into law" Google News

 Actually, why quote this?  This is all a lot of political c---p.  

My view:

1- National ID cards like the one I carry and always have.  I do not feel oppressed.

2- A federal law which makes it a felony to knowingly hire illegals

3- Fund a barrier system all across the Mexican border that will make it as difficult as possible to cross the border the border illegally.

4- Once that has been done, enable a program for the eventual, penalized progress of present illegal residents toward legalization. In the absence of a secure border any program like this is merely encouragement of more illegal immigration. Many on the left are merely scofflaws concerningi US law.

My preference is really for a merger of the two countries but Mexican irredentism and nationalism make that impossible.  pl 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcleiR1IASV53QPzaSsB8LhaCjgwD9HIQBJG2

"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