Tanks on the Rio Grande

Bush to Call for Guard Troops on Border

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, a White House official 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 the an overextended military.

My first reaction was “Is this even legal?” I don’t like the idea of deploying the military domestically. But none of the MSM articles nor any of the Moonbat blogs I checked have raised the question of legality. I suppose that border defense is a legitimate, wholly legal function of the military (I’m not distinguishing between the National Guard and regular forces).

Another question is, “For how long?” Is this a permanent deployment?

Update: from James Joyner: OTB - Military May Augment Border Patrol

It is a bedrock principle of American politics that the military does not get involved in domestic policing under any but the gravest of conditions. Peacetime standing armies were anathema until necessitated by the enduring Cold War. We even have a provision in the Bill of Rights precluding quartering of troops in private homes.This reluctance to politicize the military stems from the abuses seen in Europe and domestically during the Colonial era and has been reinforced time and again by observation of the developing world, where professional militaries are the only trusted institution and not infrequently assume the reins of power.

Short of an armed invasion from Mexico, it is simply bizarre to consider militarizing the border.

That was my first reaction. And James Joyner is no Moonbat.

From Diggers’ Realm: Bush To Try And Fool America Into Thinking That He Wants To Secure The Border

Apparently President Bush will have a “big” speech on immigration Monday night. Speculation is that Bush will announce the Pentagon will look at sending some token National Guard units to the border to help in “securing it”.This is a total shell game to fool the American public into thinking that he is listening to us and that he now wants the border secure. The reality is Bush and his handlers hope that this little placebo will make the American people roll over and start agreeing with his guest worker amnesty.

This idea is going the way of the $100 gas rebate. The immigration “hwaks” like Digger are skeptical. Other conservatives, like James and I, find it dangerous and bizarre (if not illegal). And tomorrow morning, the Dems will go all-out on to attack it.

Bush now seems to be in a “can’t do anything right” situation. From the Miers nomination to the Dubai ports deal to that stupid $100 gas rebate to this, it seems that every one of his proposals split the GOP (and of course, the Dems attack any proposal as a matter of partisan tactics).

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 14 May 2006 at 10:46 pm

    Bush’s border plan could include Guard…

    WASHINGTON — President Bush is expected to announce plans Monday to send thousands of National…

  2. Swap Blog » Blog Archive » National Guard on the border on 15 May 2006 at 8:55 am

    […] Simply though, weather it helps the presidents numbers or not, securing the borders is the right thing to do. This not a right vs left, conservative vs liberal issue. Secure borders are important to everyone and this issue cuts across all the lines of society. This also a issue about national sovereignty and what law means. Illegal is illegal and laws are laws. Without a border there is no definable nation, and until we have a border that is at least being restricted we can not begin to ponder actual national security. ——Update—— Das Kommisar from The Politburo Diktat has a different take on the issue though. Give his post a read here […]

Comments

  1. Rey wrote:

    I agree that this is just for show. Tony Snow probably recommended it as a first clear step in securing the border. Hopefuly it will be followed by pushing for aproval of the border wall and ordering ICE to start doing its job.
    As for legality. Many people are confused about the “posse comitatus” act. The law says that US Federal troops are not the be used for law enforcement. This was done to prevent a local sheriff or mayor from deputising troops for his local use or to collect taxes and condust enforcement functions.
    Border security falls under the “provide for the common defense” clause of the constitution. If the President Federalizes the NG troops he can use them to inform the border patrol of the locations of illegals. This has been done with active duty troops for years. Just not in a notable scale.

  2. Digger wrote:

    All we ask is that we really secure the border, then we can look at how to handle immigration.

    The temporary deployment of national guard is a lame attempt at scoring points with the majority of people in this country that are pissed off about this issue. It’s not a solution.

    I’m not one of those who wants military on the border. I want a physical wall, increased border patrol, technology and thousands of employers hauled out of their executive chairs for hiring illegals.

    After I see that and a true crackdown on illegals I’m more than willing to talk about increases in legal immigration. Until then every move this guy makes is a sham that just tries to appease with no real action.

  3. Michael wrote:

    If memory serves, I think there is a legal difference between domestic deployment of the National Guard, which are basically state militias controlled by the governer, and regular military or Reserve units. (It goes back to Ceasar crossing the Rubicon.) Guardsman are routinely deployed on domestic missions. I don’t recall the details, but I think legal issues about the domestic use of troops other than Guardsmen, and the politics between Louisiana and Washington, had something to do with the botched response to Katrina. Crossing the Rubicon.

  4. Grim wrote:

    Michael is correct. The Guard is deployed, and operates, under an entirely different section of the US Code than the regular military. The regulations related to the military are in Title 10, including the whole of the UCMJ. The Guard operates from Title 32 — which is to say that, regardless of the similarity of training and structure, they are separate entities and operate under different laws, root and branch.

    From the legal point of view, there is no overlap, and there is usually no problem or legal issue with a deployment of the Guard.

  5. BloodSpite wrote:

    I’ve always been told, in simple terms, Guard is controlled at the State Level, with an option of the Federal Government to call them as well, whereas Regular Army is always controlled at the Federal.

    Fair statement? Or am I off my rocker here?

  6. Grim wrote:

    That’s more or less correct. The Guard operates under a split command, whereby they normally take orders from the governor of their state; however, they can be federalized at any time. The military command structure for the Guard tops out at a lieutenant general (three stars); above him is the civilian command structure, which changes depending on whether the guard is federalized or not.

  7. John the Marine wrote:

    Digger, is almost right on. However, unlike him I am a “put the military” on the border kind of guy. Hordes of illegal immigrants aided by the Mexican Government has created a situation that is beyond the scope of “Law Enforcement”. Troops send a clear message to both the Mexican Gowernment and to the individual border jumpers. Our Sovereignty will be respected because we will enforce it.

    The part that worries me is the same as many others above. That this is only a token sham meant to appease us.

  8. Kristjan Wager wrote:

    As a non-American, can anyone explain to me why this sudden rush to close the border? As far as I can see from the numbers, there are no more illigal immigrants now than before, so why this sudden scare?

  9. John the Marine wrote:

    “As a non-American, can anyone explain to me why this sudden rush to close the border?”

    I don’t know where your from, but doesn’t your country secure its borders? There are a myriad of reasons why doing so is important. Now, and always.

    1. Security
    2. Sovereignty
    3. Prevention of crime (all sorts)
    4. Stopping the drain on public services
    5. Enforcement of the Law
    6. Preventing human exploitation (sex trade)

    and so on. Since I am an American maybe you can explain something to me. Why is the securing of national borders a controversy for the U.S. and not other countries? Don’t European countries secure their borders?

  10. Kristjan Wager wrote:

    I don’t know where your from, but doesn’t your country secure its borders?

    Not particularly - part of the EU and all that.

    There are a myriad of reasons why doing so is important. Now, and always

    I am aware of all of the reasons you mention, but that doesn’t explain the “why now” part. Why the sudden focus?
    Oh, and the illigal immigrants in the US aren’t really a drain on public services, but that’s not really relevant if they are preceived as a such.

    ince I am an American maybe you can explain something to me. Why is the securing of national borders a controversy for the U.S. and not other countries? Don’t European countries secure their borders?

    No, or at least few, Europeans would speak of raising a wall along a border - it brings back old memories of the Soviet Union.
    However, of course European countries secure their borders (or rather the border countries of the EU secures the borders for all EU members). There is in the EU some debate about the job the different countries do at securing the borders (wuth Italy being criticized by the other countries), and in many EU countries there are debates on how to limit non-EU immigration. The debate doesn’t have the same tone to it than the US debate though (at least not as I preceive the US debate).

  11. h0mi wrote:

    I’m waiting for details to emerge before I pile on or not.

    We need beefier border patrol and a wall before we can start any kind of “immigration reform” because we need to halt the “mad rush” to the border before the reforms become effective. This NG thing *should* be an effort to do this because those thousands of border patrol agents we want to patrol the border aren’t just going to come out of thin air. If we do just this and no wall or other such measure to secure the border… then it’s a waste of time and we can welcome a Democratic congress in 2007.

  12. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    My first reaction was “Is this even legal?” I don’t like the idea of deploying the military domestically.

    What is the difference between the National Guard in New Orleans and on the border.

    AND

    if you are NOT going deploy the military to protect the border? What good are they?

  13. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    Short of an armed invasion from Mexico, it is simply bizarre to consider militarizing the border.

    We have armed paramilitary forces crossing the border at will.

    For some reason I don’t see protecting an international border from invaders as ‘domestic law enforcement’

    Los Zetas Update

    Border Wars Data Page

    The Vigilante

    Film at Eleven

    Article. I. Section. 9.
    Clause 2 Of the Constitution of the United States