Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It's a political ploy to show how tough the Cowboy is on illegal immigration.

He's so hard that he puts military units on the border during a time of war.

Immigration reform dealing with all types of illegals happen all of the time, but I doubt any has given Bush as much a ratings jump as the mere mention of the National Guard.

Most illegals are visa overstays, but cracking on that isn't as showy.

Besides, when many think of illegal, they are thinking about people who trek the Rio.

The polls are in.

The people are appeased.

Job is done.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
I have major problems with the US government federalizing the national guard to service in domestic law enforcement.


Militarization is always unsettling, but...

We call on these guys do 'civilian duty' in floods, and earthquakes, 'civil demonstrations', and 'civil unrest'.

They are the backup to our law enforcement, in all jurisdictions.

It's what they do.

Iraq is also what they do.

The border with a live line-of-sight force until a technological replacement can be put on the job.


PEACE

Jim Chester
JWC,

With all due respect,

quote:
Militarization is always unsettling, but...

We call on these guys do 'civilian duty' in floods, and earthquakes, 'civil demonstrations', and 'civil unrest'.


You don't see a difference between the National Guard being mobilized for "civilian duty" e.g., emergency/disaster management, and federalized for law enforcement duties?

quote:
They are the backup to our law enforcement, in all jurisdictions.


Okay, but that is only somewhat true. They back up only in the case of civil unrest;but when they do so, they are under local civilian leadership, e.g., the Governor. Never are they under federal jurisdiction or control.

And, there is a good reason for that. It is to prevent the same abuses we are seeing from this imperial president. It is to prevent or forestall the rise of a dictatorship.

Federal militarization ... Domestic spy programs ... Corporate cooperation with federal agencies' direct violation of the Constitution at the direction of the chief executive ...

quote:
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
quote:
They are the backup to our law enforcement, in all jurisdictions.


Okay, but that is only somewhat true. They back up only in the case of civil unrest;but when they do so, they are under local civilian leadership, e.g., the Governor. Never are they under federal jurisdiction or control.---K4R

I agree.

Unless I heard wrong, the call was to the Governors of the involved States.

I realized that the call itself federalizes the force.

But, that's how the system workds.

When the Governor calls is the only time the Governor commands.

I have been in several such operations. some were under State command. Some were under Federal command.

I suspect federal command in this instance may be necessary, if it indeed exists, first because the border in international, and second because it is multi-State thus exceeding the authority of any one Governor.

And...it still makes me uneasy.

This is very touchy stuff.

Vincente Fox has finessed this exchange as has all of his predecessors.

Someone has to establish an international presence.


PEACE

Jim Chester
This plan is no different than the plan put in place in 1954 "Operation Wetback" to stop the illiegal immigration. The military was used during this operation and this proved to be very successful. But this doesn't address the other problems of what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are here and working and the employers who knowingly use illegal immigrant workers(the new slave). Unfortunatly, money talks in America and this situation exist because of greed.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
What do you think about Bush's proposal to send the National Guard to the Mexican border?



Too little, too late. King Georgies popularity is sinking into the tubes and this strategedy is being used to boost his ratings. "Patriotic fervor" is best used by sinking presidents, kings and potentates.

The irony is that America invaded Iraq militaristically and America was passively invaded by the border jumpers.

Allow me to throw in this little irony:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050324-121935-8473r.htm
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Diamond:
This plan is no different than the plan put in place in 1954 "Operation Wetback" to stop the illiegal immigration. The military was used during this operation and this proved to be very successful. But this doesn't address the other problems of what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are here and working and the employers who knowingly use illegal immigrant workers(the new slave). Unfortunatly, money talks in America and this situation exist because of greed.


I agree! When you get right down to it this whole think stinks of corporate self-interest and the political puppets who do their bidding in Washington! They could put a serious dent into the problem today without spending one dime more on border security. If they would agressively prosecute any businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants the problem would eventually take care of itself. Because no one is going to risk life and limb to come to a country where it will be difficult to find employment. And those that are already here will be forced to return from whence they came when they realize that they can't live comfortably anymore! The jobs are the magnet that is attracting these people. It's like laying out a spread of honey and then telling the flies that they are not allowed to indulge! Remove the honey and eventually the flies will disappear. But the US Government is not serious about resolving this problem. This whole National Guard on the border thing is just another smoke screen! The combination of business pressure and the prospect of adding a new voting block is just too much for any politician to bow to the wishes of his/her constintuency! And we should be more outraged by this because businesses mostly profit from this source of cheap labor but we taxpayers wind up subsidizing most of the social costs (medical, education, children, law enforcement, etc.). If the state governments separated the costs of supporting illegal immigrants from regular tax payments and every individual tax payer had to write a seperate check at the end of the year to cover these immigrant expenses we would all be up in arms in prostest! Imagine having to write a check on top of your normal tax payment for say an additional $350 every year to cover "immigrant support." We would be a lot more vocal about this issue. But since it all gets lumped in with our regular tax burden we accept it as status quo and go on with our lives. But the reality is that this is all costing us all a lot of money that could be better used to support our own people. For example, my niece is in her last year of college and already owes an incredible amout for student loans because the grant money is just not there like it used to be when I was in school!

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×