In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
way-to-go Mr. President
jbjm04
Member Posts: 263 ✭✭✭
WASHINGTON - President Bush will call for thousands of National Guard troops to be deployed along the Mexico border in support of patrols aimed at keeping out illegal immigrants, White House officials said Sunday on the eve of an Oval Office address announcing the plan.
White House aides worked into the night Sunday to iron out details of the proposal and allay concerns among lawmakers that using troops to man the border would further burden an overextended military.
Two White House officials said Bush would propose using troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources. The troops would play a supportive role to Border Patrol agents, who would maintain primary responsibility for physically guarding the border.
The officials spoke on a condition of anonymity before the address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. The officials would not say how many troops Bush wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than an estimate of as many as 10,000 being discussed at the Pentagon.
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, would not confirm that using National Guard troops was the plan but said it was one of the options the president was considering. But he described the same scenario.
"It's not about militarization of the border," Hadley said on CNN's "Late Edition." "It's about assisting the civilian border patrol in doing their job, providing intelligence, providing support, logistics support and training and these sorts of things."
Bush's National Guard plan is aimed at winning support for broader immigration reform from conservatives in Congress. Bush's main goal is to allow foreigners to get temporary work permits to take low-paying jobs - an idea favored by the business community. But many conservatives want a tougher approach on illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country.
About 100 National Guard troops are serving on the border to assist with counter-drug operations, heavy equipment support and other functions.
"I think what it would be is simply expanding the kind of thing that has already been done in the past in order to provide a bit of a stopgap as the Border Patrol build up their capacity to deal with this challenge," Hadley said.
Bush gave the same message to Mexican President Vicente Fox, who called Sunday to express concern about what he called the possibility of a "militarized" border between the two nations. Bush assured Fox that any military support would be administrative and logistical and would come from the National Guard and not the Army, according to a news release from Fox's office.
Criticism of the National Guard plan came Sunday from Democrats, but also an important Republican negotiator in the immigration debate - Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska. He said National Guard troops cannot secure the border over the long term and that he does not think it is wise even in the short term.
"We've got National Guard members on their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq," Hagel said. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times. And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send up to or down to protect borders? That's not their role."
Hagel said the bill under debate in the Senate that he helped write would double the 12,000-strong Border Patrol force over the next five years. "That's the way to fix it, not further stretching the National Guard," he said on ABC's "This Week."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said there may be a need for troops to fill in while the Border Patrol is bolstered. But he did not seem confident that the National Guard could take on the extra duty.
"We have stretched these men and women so thin, so thin, because of the bad mistakes done by the civilians in the military here, that I wonder how they're going to be able to do it," Biden said, also on ABC.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he supported using the National Guard on the Mexican border. He said lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard, whose members have served for years in Iraq and went to the Gulf Coast after last summer's hurricanes, could take on border patrol duty are "whining" and "moaning."
"We've got to secure our borders," Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We hear it from the American people. We've got millions of people coming across that border. First and foremost, secure the border, whatever it takes. Everything else we've done has failed. We've got to face that. And so we need to bring in, I believe, the National Guard."
Frist said the full Senate planned to begin debating the immigration bill Monday and that it would take up to two weeks to pass.
Senators would have to resolve any differences with the House version of the bill, which did not address the guest worker issue but increases penalties for illegal immigration activities and funds a 700-mile border fence.
The statement from Fox's office and another from the White House said the two presidents agreed that immigration reform be comprehensive - meaning that it go beyond the tough punitive measures that some conservatives are promoting to stem the flow of immigrants.
White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said Bush made clear to Fox that "the United States considered Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border capabilities on a temporary basis by the National Guard."
White House aides worked into the night Sunday to iron out details of the proposal and allay concerns among lawmakers that using troops to man the border would further burden an overextended military.
Two White House officials said Bush would propose using troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources. The troops would play a supportive role to Border Patrol agents, who would maintain primary responsibility for physically guarding the border.
The officials spoke on a condition of anonymity before the address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. The officials would not say how many troops Bush wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than an estimate of as many as 10,000 being discussed at the Pentagon.
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, would not confirm that using National Guard troops was the plan but said it was one of the options the president was considering. But he described the same scenario.
"It's not about militarization of the border," Hadley said on CNN's "Late Edition." "It's about assisting the civilian border patrol in doing their job, providing intelligence, providing support, logistics support and training and these sorts of things."
Bush's National Guard plan is aimed at winning support for broader immigration reform from conservatives in Congress. Bush's main goal is to allow foreigners to get temporary work permits to take low-paying jobs - an idea favored by the business community. But many conservatives want a tougher approach on illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country.
About 100 National Guard troops are serving on the border to assist with counter-drug operations, heavy equipment support and other functions.
"I think what it would be is simply expanding the kind of thing that has already been done in the past in order to provide a bit of a stopgap as the Border Patrol build up their capacity to deal with this challenge," Hadley said.
Bush gave the same message to Mexican President Vicente Fox, who called Sunday to express concern about what he called the possibility of a "militarized" border between the two nations. Bush assured Fox that any military support would be administrative and logistical and would come from the National Guard and not the Army, according to a news release from Fox's office.
Criticism of the National Guard plan came Sunday from Democrats, but also an important Republican negotiator in the immigration debate - Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska. He said National Guard troops cannot secure the border over the long term and that he does not think it is wise even in the short term.
"We've got National Guard members on their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq," Hagel said. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times. And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send up to or down to protect borders? That's not their role."
Hagel said the bill under debate in the Senate that he helped write would double the 12,000-strong Border Patrol force over the next five years. "That's the way to fix it, not further stretching the National Guard," he said on ABC's "This Week."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said there may be a need for troops to fill in while the Border Patrol is bolstered. But he did not seem confident that the National Guard could take on the extra duty.
"We have stretched these men and women so thin, so thin, because of the bad mistakes done by the civilians in the military here, that I wonder how they're going to be able to do it," Biden said, also on ABC.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he supported using the National Guard on the Mexican border. He said lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard, whose members have served for years in Iraq and went to the Gulf Coast after last summer's hurricanes, could take on border patrol duty are "whining" and "moaning."
"We've got to secure our borders," Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We hear it from the American people. We've got millions of people coming across that border. First and foremost, secure the border, whatever it takes. Everything else we've done has failed. We've got to face that. And so we need to bring in, I believe, the National Guard."
Frist said the full Senate planned to begin debating the immigration bill Monday and that it would take up to two weeks to pass.
Senators would have to resolve any differences with the House version of the bill, which did not address the guest worker issue but increases penalties for illegal immigration activities and funds a 700-mile border fence.
The statement from Fox's office and another from the White House said the two presidents agreed that immigration reform be comprehensive - meaning that it go beyond the tough punitive measures that some conservatives are promoting to stem the flow of immigrants.
White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said Bush made clear to Fox that "the United States considered Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border capabilities on a temporary basis by the National Guard."
Comments
will they have live ammo?
According to the minute men, who seem to be keeping on top of the situation:
Troops on the Border: Reality versus Spin
By U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood
Earlier this year Arizona Governor Janet Napalitano announced a "state of emergency" for the Arizona border due to the flood of illegal immigration, and ordered her National Guard to the border with Mexico.
The "deployment" consisted of about 170 Guardsmen, who were assigned to help inspect cargo shipments coming through legal entry points, which does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration one whit. But even if they had been assigned to real border patrol duty, that's less that one soldier for every 2 miles of Arizona's border with Mexico.
The "deployment" was simply a public relations stunt to persuade the public that a governor who has supported defacto open borders and illegal immigrant rights her entire political career is suddenly tough on illegal immigration.
This Monday night, President Bush is expected to deliver a speech on immigration reform, and multiple media leaks indicate it may include a plan to use troops on the border with Mexico.
That proposal has already been actively lobbied for by multiple members of Congress, and garners somewhere between 60 and 90 percent approval in public opinion polls - a real crowd pleaser.
But will the proposal be real, or just spin?
The truth will lie in the proposed numbers, and whether the plan is for a short-term demonstration project or a long-term strategy for truly securing our southern border.
A real plan has already been proposed, with full details and research data included in last year's Immigration Reform Caucus special report, "Results and Implications of the Minutemen Project."
Under that plan, the southern border can be virtually closed except at legal points of entry within a one-month period - at the longest. The flood of illegal immigration that has plagued America since the last amnesty plan in 1986 will be over.
It will initially take 36,000 troops. At the start, they should be National Guard personnel drawn nationally. There isn't enough National Guard in the border states alone to do the job without hindering combat readiness, so the forces will need to be pulled from other states as well under current National Guard Bureau assistance regulations.
36,000 troops will provide an average of three two-man teams per border mile for the entire 1,951-mile border with Mexico, working eight-hour shifts. Once in place on the ground, the deployment will need to be increased to 48,000 troops, to provide necessary manpower for time-off, sick leave, and long-term support services.
From the day the first National Guard boot hits the desert sand, we will need to expend all efforts to replace them as soon as possible through use of every other available resource. Our Guard is stressed to the max with missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; they can't be left on duty in the desert long-term. The first goal should be to return every initial deployed Guardsman back home in 90 days.
Immediate replacements should be called up from our Civil Air Patrol, State Defense Forces, and Coast Guard Auxiliary. We should also consider initiating a permanent, volunteer U.S. Border Patrol Auxiliary, with the same support functions as the Civil Air Patrol to the U.S. Air Force, or the Coast Guard Auxiliary to the Coast Guard proper.
As these personnel come online, the corresponding number of National Guard troops can be discharged. The President will need to make a bully pulpit call to rejuvenate our State Defense Forces, the reserve to the National Guard, for this mission. We have unfortunately allowed these state-level military reserves to drop from WWII levels of 175,000 troops to just 15,000 today, so this in fact would be a big help in America's overall homeland security, not just in securing our borders.
These military auxiliary forces should in turn be replaced as rapidly as possible by federal troops returning from overseas duty, with an estimated 70,000 on the way now as a result of BRAC. Seems we've had no problems securing half the borders of the world, we just can't find a way to secure our own.
Within a year, we should have replaced all our initially-deployed National Guard and military auxiliary forces, and have the border under fulltime federal control with an estimated 50,000 DOD troops in the field in addition to our current Border Patrol.
America's nightmare on the border would be over, permanently, starting within a week of an Executive Order by the President, with no new laws required.
If President Bush signed that order Monday night, our border would be secure for the first time in decades by Memorial Day at the latest. Mr. Fox and La Raza wouldn't like it - but the American people sure would.
Estimated costs are around $2.5 billion per year - a bargain, compared to what our immigration disaster is already costing American taxpayers.
Once the border is secure, we can began installing the new infrastructure and technology that will allow us to permanently secure the nation - fencing, lighting, sensors, roads, cameras, ultra-light aerial observation vehicles.
We will have the time to train and deploy as many new Border Patrol agents as necessary for permanent security with the new infrastructure in place.
That shouldn't take the two years the Border Patrol is currently taking. There's no reason we can't have a 90-day Border Patrol boot camp like we do for our U.S. Marines. True, we might not be able to get them fluent in Spanish in 90 days, but I don't recall us requiring our Marines be fluent in Arabic before sending them off to Iraq.
Some estimate the permanent expanded number of Border Patrol agents needed with the infrastructure and technology in place at 25,000. But the beauty of having the border secure up front is that we can take our time in determining that number, and get it right. The same luxury applies to our infrastructure decisions.
We can probably expect those improvements to take 2-5 years to get in place. During that timeframe, troop levels can be gradually reduced as new infrastructure is completed and new Border Patrol officers are placed in the field. Within 5 years, we will have a rebuilt, properly manned, and rejuvenated Border Patrol with the tools they need to get the job done.
That's the formula for using American troops to successfully, immediately, and permanently secure our border.
With that kind of action, the President would have House Members sitting up and paying attention to any suggestion on improving our legal guest worker programs, and in dealing with illegals aliens already in the country.
But there's another troop formula, ala Janet Napalitano, designed to win public opinion points without really changing anything, to hoodwink the House into going along with the Senate's grotesque amnesty plan, and to leave the southern border open to new waves of illegal aliens in order to drive down American wages for employers and Wall Street.
That formula calls for a few thousand National Guard to be deployed to the border on a short-term temporary basis, with a generic mission to "assist the Border Patrol". It would call for new technology and infrastructure, with no commitment to time certain or specifics. It would call for an increased Border Patrol, to the tune of maybe 1500 a year, with two years of training before being allowed to enter the field.
And that formula would allow waves of millions of new illegal immigrants, lured by promises of amnesty from the President and the Senate, to continue swarming across our southern border in record numbers for years to come.
We will all be waiting Monday night to discover which plan the President has in mind for America.
---
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Inc.
6501 Greenway Parkway
Suite 103-640
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
(520) 829-3112
http://www.minutemanhq.com
Pete
Why the hell do we want Mexico to think of the U.S.A. as their friend? What has Mexico done for "us" that we should consider them a friend/ally, etc?
AND, why not militarize the border?! That IS what it's gonna take to stop the flow of invaders, I'll guarantee it!
I pray to God I'm wrong but, I'd bet ANY mobilization of troops will be symbolic in nature and the R.O.E. for those poor guys/women will be some kind of ridiculous!
Criticism of the National Guard plan came Sunday from Democrats, but also an important Republican negotiator in the immigration debate - Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska. He said National Guard troops cannot secure the border over the long term and that he does not think it is wise even in the short term.
"We've got National Guard members on their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq," Hagel said. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times. And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send up to or down to protect borders? That's not their role."It seems to me, protecting our borders is more of a National Guard "roll" than serving in IRAC ...
... but that's just my opinion.
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
"...the United States considered Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border,..."
Why the hell do we want Mexico to think of the U.S.A. as their friend What has Mexico done for "us" that we should consider them a friend/ally, etc?
AND, why not militarize the border?! That IS what it's gonna take to stop the flow of invaders, I'll guarantee it!
I pray to God I'm wrong but, I'd bet ANY mobilization of troops will be symbolic in nature and the R.O.E. for those poor guys/women will be some kind of ridiculous!
Supplying us with 15% of our imported oil, which means 1.85 million barrels of crude oil a day heading north from Mexico, makes them at least a "pal" if not a friend. We could tell them to quit selling us their dirty old oil any time we are ready to pay $5 per gallon for gasoline.
Sending tens of millions of their rabble over the border sure as hell takes 'friend' out of the question.
quote: Originally posted by jbjm04
Criticism of the National Guard plan came Sunday from Democrats, but also an important Republican negotiator in the immigration debate - Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska. He said National Guard troops cannot secure the border over the long term and that he does not think it is wise even in the short term.
"We've got National Guard members on their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq," Hagel said. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times. And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send up to or down to protect borders? That's not their role."It seems to me, protecting our borders is more of a National Guard "roll" than serving in IRAC ...
... but that's just my opinion.
I've been thinking about posting the same sentiment. How could anything be more important for the National Guard to be doing THAN GUARDING THE NATION!??! I've been simply amazed from the beginning about their call to foreign military service. These sincere (if they are) moves toward protecting the border are years and years overdue. We need to get all the National Guard home and employed at the tasks they were origionally perceived of for, and get a couple or four million of our selfish, hedonistic American young people into military service because WE'RE FIXIN' TO GET STOMPED IF WE DON'T! When are these people going to wake up? Will it be in time?
We'll see...
Kinda hard to deter the profit incentive with a few thousand soldiers
along a 1500 mile border.
We'll see, indeed![:D]
Why do I have the terrible feeling that it would take the smugglers less time to tear these things down that it would take us to put them in place? I still like the idea of building a real wall like the Great Wall of China using local materials & hand labor. If people convicted of illegal entry were forced to work on the wall for say 90 days that would do a great deal to reduce the problem. The wall itself might not stop them but the idea of working on it might.
Why don't you go start another war and land on another aircraft carrier while you're at it?[:(!]
This is nothing more than a desperate PR move by a spineless little twerp who thinks that half-measures and spin will solve his problems long enough to forestall a Democratic takeover in 2006 and the impeachment to follow.[:(!]
I hardly see the GOP maintaining their grip on Congress. It's not that the Democrats are doing so well themselves, but rather that the GOP is doing worse.
I think a protest vote will toss them out.
Bush opposes the Minutemen project, he called them "vigilanties."
Bush opposes singing the National Anthem in Spanish, and yet he did JUST THAT during his Presidential campaign to stump for the Hispanic vote.
He is a liar and a hypocrite. How about building a wall along the entire border? Why is Bush opposing this? Why do the Minutemen have to build the wall themselves with the help of the landowners, why isn't our government doing it? Why did it take Bush FOUR YEARS after the 9/11 attacks to FINALLY take some small action to protect our unprotected border?
It won't be enough to do bababooey and the rules for them, once deployed, will be pathetic. However, it will fool enough of the public to allow for the second, and real, part of his "plan" to come to pass. That would be to legalize the 12-20 million illegal, low skilled, mainly useless to America, aliens already here.
The hidden part of the "plan" will be that each "illegal made legal", will be authorized to bring 3-6 family members per, into the US. Oh joy, 30-50 million new residents/soon to be citizens, who have ZERO allegaince to the Constitution of this nation.
What a great and profound need America has for that, what with our current 300 million population (sarcastic bull bababooey intended).
Can you say "loss of American culture" and the "continued voting out/acceptance of the loss of Constitutional principals"?????
Welcome to the threshold of the new world.[:(!]
[V]barto[V]
Yeah, way to go Mr. Bush! Close to five years after 9-11 and you're finally attempting to do something for border security!
Why don't you go start another war and land on another aircraft carrier while you're at it?[:(!]
This is nothing more than a desperate PR move by a spineless little twerp who thinks that half-measures and spin will solve his problems long enough to forestall a Democratic takeover in 2006 and the impeachment to follow.[:(!]X-ring. But so far, according to Bush, it's just a temporary measure (say, tell November 15 or so?). [;)]
That is a big question, "jimkane"
I agree that its more of the proper role for the National Guard than Iraq. If we are so short of troops lets bring back a short term draft! It would be good for some of the young drugies bouncing off the walls out there to get a dose of what "freedom" is all about.
Then, once the tide begins to ebb, the Border Patrol / INS can re-deploy to the interior and begin removing the illegals that are in place. As with any flood, the first step is stop the influx, followed immediately by a thorough clean-up.
Brad Steele
NG are not going to be patroling, just sitting@border stations.
this half measure makes me mad!
I sincerely hope you are wrong.