Pentagon weighs border deployment

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/12/border.defense/index.html)


Source: Several thousand National Guardsmen could be deployed

(CNN) -- The Pentagon has been asked to draw up options for deploying military personnel to help secure the border with Mexico, CNN has learned.

President Bush could announce a plan as soon as next week, and Pentagon sources told CNN on Friday that National Guard troops might be involved.

Bush is scheduled to speak on immigration and border security at 8 p.m. Monday in an Oval Office address.

Pentagon sources told CNN that one idea under consideration is to deploy several thousand additional National Guard troops in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. The troops would assist civilian authorities by providing logistics, intelligence and surveillance, and would remain under the control of the governors of those four states.

The National Guard already is participating in such roles in small numbers.

The Pentagon said it could sustain a National Guard force of up to 10,000 troops along the border by rotating the forces during regular training cycles, but that it's too early to discuss exact numbers. Any such use of the Guard would be temporary, it said.

(more)

well, i guess the manufactured crisis is moving beyond the rhetoric stage. is it really fair to stretch the national guard even more?

[pseudobrit]

I guess these ****s hold Posse Comitatus in the same esteem they hold the Constitution.

[mactastic]

I guess these ****s hold Posse Comitatus in the same esteem they hold the Constitution.
IIRC, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the NG. Remember, the NG is regularly deployed within the US - or at least they were until many of them were sent overseas.

This is an attempt by Bush to change the subject from scandal and NSA wiretapping, and to rally his base with some nice juicy red meat. Notably, Bush has resisted this idea (same with messing with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) until his poll numbers have gone into the tank. Oddly, it's not a bad idea (again, similar to the SPR), but his big-business cronies have let it be known that they don't want their cheap labor force reduced. So he's finally willing to give it a try in order to staunch the flow of conservative support and for no other reason. Pure partisan politics.

It's the only thing this WH knows.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush could have done this 10 million Mexicans ago. He is such a sorry sorry President.

[zimv20]

Bush could have done this 10 million Mexicans ago.
he did this instead (link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL)):

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

(more)

[Desertrat]

Maybe the NG guys will do better than the marines that killed that kid up at Redford, a few years back. They were part of JTF-6, that trained the ATF agents for Waco. Probably be some fear and loathing in the area around Presidio, Texas.

I don't know how many of you have ever been to or seen pictures of the canyon country along the Rio Grande. Folks have been smuggling across those reaches for centuries. I guess it's a numbers game, though, given that the majority of border jumpers are in Arizona and California. Along the Texas part of the border, there's just a steady trickle in the canyon country, but the numbers are around the cities. (El Paso, Del Rio, Laredo, Brownsville.)

Only a combination of two things will reduce the incentive for Mexicans to come to the US: First, some sort of serious change in the internals of that country, so jobs can be created with decent wages and people don't live in poverty or face slow starvation in so many areas. Their form of Socialism just flat doesn't work. Next, a crackdown on US employers of illegals; no jobs, no impetus to come here.

Nasty situation...

'Rat

[skunk]

Only a combination of two things will reduce the incentive for Mexicans to come to the US: First, some sort of serious change in the internals of that country, so jobs can be created with decent wages and people don't live in poverty or face slow starvation in so many areas. Their form of Socialism just flat doesn't workIt's not a question of whether it's "Socialism" (what a pejorative word that is, eh?) or not. Mexico has been screwed for years.

[Ugg]

Only a combination of two things will reduce the incentive for Mexicans to come to the US: First, some sort of serious change in the internals of that country, so jobs can be created with decent wages and people don't live in poverty or face slow starvation in so many areas. Their form of Socialism just flat doesn't work. Next, a crackdown on US employers of illegals; no jobs, no impetus to come here.

Nasty situation...

'Rat

The one thing I hold against Clinton is NAFTA, the concept was sound but in the end special interests in the US and especially agribusiness totally screwed Mexico over.

Had bushco not decided to ignore Vicente Fox and his attempts to change the culture of corruption in Mexico, there's a good chance that fewer people would be coming north.

Unfortunately, these are only two of an almost endless line of US Presidents that have ignored our southern neighbors and now we're paying the price for that ignorance. Ignoring the problem during the good years only means paying a higher price later on. We're not the only ones paying though, Germany, France, Italy and the UK amongst others are in the same boat.

Two things need to happen in Mexico: Better access to birth control to lower the birthrate (ain't gonna happen under bush) and better jobs south of the border. Bush isn't going to win any votes for the repubs with that one so he'd rather break out the weapons and start shooting like Airforce advocated (what happened to him by the way?)

[blackfox]

I am just not sure what effect militarizing the border will have. It may slow the tide of illega immigration enough to give the illusion of fixing the problem (ie political victory), but unless the root causes are addressed - it is an impossible problem to fix.

Sice there is obvious demand for illegal immigration on both sides of the border, there is always going to be the incentive to exploit that demand. People are ingenious - if you stop one vector, another will spring up. There has been illegal people smuggling through shipping containers for example.

If drugs can make it through, so can people. Funnily enough, the more difficult it is made to pursue easier/legal vectors of immigration, the more those immigrants will suffer and the more money those who exploit them will make - effectively institutionalizing a black-market solution.

[Desertrat]

Pardon my cynicism, but I've long believed that giving the appearance of "We're doing something!" is more important than accomplishment.

Well, Mexico has long declared itself to be Socialist or follow Socialist ideals. Their words, not mine.

I'm not interested in knocking Catholicism, but the position on birth control has, in Central and South America, generally produced people faster than jobs. I was told on a business trip to Mexico City in 1978 that the population of Mexico City was equal to the total population of the entire country at the time of the 1910 revolution: 17 million. And Mexico City was said to be growing at a rate of a Dallas a year--some 600,000 people in Dallas at that time.

In 1985 a kid from mexico City told me that there was plenty of work there, but a day's work wouldn't yield the money for a day's food.

On Fox News, today, an interview with a well-educated school-teacher lady illegal had her explaining that jobs were scarce and pay was poor.

As far as corruption, I'm not sure that Terence Pappa's view would be changed: The Drug Lords didn't corrupt Mexico; the Drug Lords are cash cows, being sold protection by the ruling claque. I dunno. (Terence Pappa is author of "The Drug Lord", a biography of Manuel Acosta. He lived in Mexico for many years, as a journalist.)

'Rat

[blackfox]

Pardon my cynicism, but I've long believed that giving the appearance of "We're doing something!" is more important than accomplishment.
'Rat
Wow.

Must digest before further comment.

[zimv20]

b'fox -- i believe he meant that he believes that's the M.O. of washington, not a belief to which he personally subscribes.

[skunk]

Wow.

Must digest before further comment.I must say I assumed that was a typo...

[blackfox]

b'fox -- i believe he meant that he believes that's the M.O. of washington, not a belief to which he personally subscribes.
ahhh...

'rat, I must say that this opinion puts some of your comments regarding current government policy (aka NSA wiretapping) in an interesting light.

How do you reconcile this cynicism with what I perceive to be your opinion that the government should be given the benefit-of-the-doubt in the NSA matter?

If my perceptions are in error, I apologize.

[mactastic]

Pardon my cynicism, but I've long believed that giving the appearance of "We're doing something!" is more important than accomplishment.
I hope this is some kind of joke...

[solvs]

It may slow the tide of illega immigration enough to give the illusion of fixing the problem (ie political victory), but unless the root causes are addressed - it is an impossible problem to fix.
That's pretty much the modus operandi of WA, the point I believe 'Rat was trying to make. The fact that immigration is supposedly such a hot button issue all the sudden :cough: distraction :cough: yet they cut funding for border guards and send those who should be dealing with it (and local disasters) overseas should be telling people something.

Though with a ~30% approval rating, people do seem to be paying more attention to the endless mistakes.

[pseudobrit]

In 1985 a kid from mexico City told me that there was plenty of work there, but a day's work wouldn't yield the money for a day's food.

On Fox News, today, an interview with a well-educated school-teacher lady illegal had her explaining that jobs were scarce and pay was poor.

Sounds more like America every day. Unless you're one of the GOP's beloved "haves or have-mores".

[Desertrat]

mac, the NSA may or may not have done Bad Things, depending on interpretation of the law. Until there's a resolution of the legal arguments, it's reasonable to give some benefit of doubt. That's not the same as excusing, or as justification. It's merely "wait and see". It's a case where your opinion or my opinion is meaningless to the final outcome, even were you and I 100% in agreement.

Giving the appearance of "We're doing something!" is exemplified by such idiocies as the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, where the perception exceeded the reality by several orders of magnitude--as history has proved. All it did was bring aesthetics and cosmetics into the arena of firearms law--which was predicted before passage.

Anyway, that's the way I see the posturing of all the yawp about Immigration Reform. It's a reprise of 1986, which accomplished nothing but an increase of illegal border jumping. No different, really, from all the posturing of Campaign Finance Reform.

Smoke and mirrors, spin and press releases, "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But whenever it's over and done with, various Congressfolks will talk proudly and others will complain: My money is on the idea that nothing will really change for the better over the long haul, and I'm dubious even about the short term.

Some say a cynic is merely observant. :D

But, our system is the only one we have, so we gotta keep on keeping on. The deal with politics is that you gotta figure out how to keep a full belly on half a loaf. :)

pseudobrit, you dang betcha I'm a have. I busted my tail for quite a few decades to get here. I have the scar tissue to show for it. I learned that the harder or more I worked, the luckier I got. And no brie, no Volvos. My BMWs ran fine, after I rebuilt the motors on below-bank-loan acquisitions. Need some work? I'm waiting on parts for my grader and my dumptruck, to get them back in action. You can weld up the lip on the loader bucket of my backhoe, if ya wanna. The weather's been great for outdoor work; hasn't broken 105, yet. :D

'Rat

[zimv20]

ahh, here's (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1186555,00.html) the reason for the deployment.


Friends and colleagues of Bolten told TIME about an informal, five-point "recovery plan" for Bush that is aimed at pushing him up slightly in opinion polls and reassuring Republican activists, whose disaffection could cost him dearly in November. The White House has no visions of expanding the G.O.P.'s position in the midterms; the mission is just to hold on to control of Congress by playing to the base. Here is the Bolten plan:

1 DEPLOY GUNS AND BADGES. This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration. Under the banner of homeland security, the White House plans to seek more funding for an extremely visible enforcement crackdown at the Mexican border, including a beefed-up force of agents patrolling on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). "It'll be more guys with guns and badges," said a proponent of the plan. "Think of the visuals. The President can go down and meet with the new recruits. He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an ATV." Bush has long insisted he wants a guest-worker program paired with stricter border enforcement, but House Republicans have balked at temporary legalization for immigrants, so the President's ambition of using the issue to make the party more welcoming to Hispanics may have to wait.

[solvs]

But, our system is the only one we have, so we gotta keep on keeping on. The deal with politics is that you gotta figure out how to keep a full belly on half a loaf.
That's a pretty defeatist attitude, and pretty much why we're stuck with the system we have. And why it's been getting worse. And it is getting worse. I know you feel like there's nothing you can do, I feel that way too sometimes, but you're acting as if it's ok. I find it funny that you think we have to wait and see when it comes to something that's already been proven true (Google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=NSA+spying&btnG=Google+Search) if you still aren't sure of the details) and despite the fact that we probably never really will know all the details if people had the same attitude you do (which sadly they seem to), when having a wait and see attitude is what got us into this mess in the first place. Had we attempted to nip things in the bud, it would have never gone this far.

Instead we gave them more power, didn't seem to care when they abused it, and then wonder why they're abusing it even more now.

[Desertrat]

"That's a pretty defeatist attitude, and pretty much why we're stuck with the system we have."

No, solvs. The system we have is a tripod of separation of powers: SCOTUS, the Presidency and the Congress. The Congress in particular must balance among competing interests, and thus there are multitudes of "half a loaf" measures enacted into law.

Trouble compounds when there is emoting and spin aimed at re-election and about all that appears in the way of legislation is the occasional heel--which mgiht well be stale.

But that's what people do. Always have, always will. Politics is an art, well-known as the "Art of the possible". Cajole, wheel, deal, and get the best deal you can for your view, always knowing that you're only gonna get part of what you want. Compromise with competing interests, which interests have as much right as you to be heard.

'Rat

[solvs]

Compromise
Compromise? What compromise? I don't know about you, but I don't see a lot of compromise unless you count the Dems who do nothing. Last I checked, we have a Pres who thinks he's above the law and a Congress who seems to let him get away with it, then is surprised when they have a disagreement and he goes his own way anyway. Don't get me started on the SCOTUS.

I agree that this is all showboating, but we shouldn't accept half a loaf because then that's all we'll ever get. And eventually, we'll get even less. Which we seem to be. The least you could do is get a little frustrated. Squeaky wheel and all. Not saying anything gets accomplished by complaining necessarily, but acquiescing certainly isn't going to get us anywhere. For the record, this has nothing to do with what I want, this is about doing the right thing. NSA spying without warrants wasn't right. Cutting funding for the Border Guard then trying to talk up securing the border bothers me too. For those who really care about this country, you'd think they'd feel the same way.

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, you dang betcha I'm a have. I busted my tail for quite a few decades to get here. I have the scar tissue to show for it. I learned that the harder or more I worked, the luckier I got.

Doesn't really work that way anymore. Must've been nice, though.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Looks like Bush is going to put a token force of the National Guard on the Border but they wont be allowed to arrest anyone? what the heck is this clown doing. Ill be watching his speech very close tonight and if he spews more talking points & spin ill will urge everyone in my family of republicans to vote them all out of office. He has taken 5 years to do near nothing but talk. The border should have been secured the day after 911 not 5 years later if we really have a war on terror.

[mactastic]

Ill be watching his speech very close tonight and if he spews more talking points & spin ill will urge everyone in my family of republicans to vote them all out of office.
Why wait? :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

Im not ,i allready started, This President has stopped representing us the American workers a long long time ago. He is so phoney I just cant wait and see all the fine print like they wont be able to detain or arrest the Mexican.

[Desertrat]

solvs, I doubt there has ever been a bill in any state legislature or in the Congress which didn't have some variety of compromise or many compromises in it before it left committee, not to mention floor amendments. That's how our system works. It's not wired up for winner take all, other than brief moments in history...

'Rat

[Desertrat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat
pseudobrit, you dang betcha I'm a have. I busted my tail for quite a few decades to get here. I have the scar tissue to show for it. I learned that the harder or more I worked, the luckier I got.


pseudobrit said, "Doesn't really work that way anymore. Must've been nice, though."

I gotta disagree with you, on that. I'm seeing a fair number of folks bootstrap themselves up, just in my wanderings. "Find a need and fill it." is still operative.

Just as a for instance: I got to talking to a yard-maintenance guy that did the mowing at my wife's little manufacturing operation in Thomasville, Georgia. He and his wife are the workforce. They're grossing right at $100K a year. They're in their early 30s.

A buddy of mine here in Terlingua has a car-repair shop. His mechanics are making $30/hr, and even in slack times are getting around 30 hours a week. Tourist season? Banzai!

I keep wishing some halfway healthy middle-aged guy would move here with a backhoe and dumptruck. If he couldn't net/net/net $20K/yr in his pocket after all business and living expenses and taxes, forget it. (And people would quit bugging me. I'm dammit retired!)

:), 'Rat

[zimv20]

link (http://public.cq.com/public/20060515_homeland_15nationalguard.html)


DHS Does About-Face In Backing Use of National Guard to Seal Border

In December of 2005, Fox News talking head Bill O’Reilly floated an unlikely — even brash — idea to the Homeland Security secretary to seal off the porous southwest border.

“Why don’t you put the National Guard on the border to back up the border patrol and stop the bleeding, and then start to increase the Border Patrol, the high-tech and all of that?” O’Reilly asked.

Michael Chertoff, in those relatively calmer days before mass pro-immigration rallies, heated immigration reform politics in the Senate and cellar-dwelling opinion polls for President Bush, dismissed the idea out of hand.

“Well, the National Guard is really, first of all, not trained for that mission,” Chertoff told O’Reilly. “I mean, the fact of the matter is the border is a special place. There are special challenges that are faced there.”

Chertoff added that that it would take a huge amount of National Guard troops, that they would need new training. But couldn’t the National Guard pull it off, O’Reilly asked?

“I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem,” Chertoff said. “Unless you would be prepared to leave those people in the National Guard day and night for month after month after month, you would eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way.”

[...]

DHS spokesman Jarrod Agen distanced the new policy from Chertoff’s earlier comments, saying by phone Monday that the National Guard troops would easily assimilate into the border protection apparatus.

“What we’re using them for are things they have been trained to do, and have used them for in other circumstances,” Agen said.

(more)

heck of a job, chertoff.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Chertoff another Bum, though i know almost nothing of this clown it wouldnt surprise me if he aint another draft dodger that Bush seems to enjoy all around him.

[mactastic]

Now that's some fancy spin.

[zimv20]

i found this sidenote (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/05/15/how-republicans-think-it-only-took-hitler-four-years-to-exterminate-6-million-jews/) interesting.


Writing in the rightwing “news” site WorldNetDaily, a genius named Vox Day, whose bio says he is “a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992,” posits that the United States could model the Nazis’ effiency at population control in dealing with the illegal alien crisis:

[President Bush] plans to address the nation tonight, a speech wherein he will almost surely attempt to deceive citizens into believing that he does not wish the mass migration from Mexico to continue unabated. He will likely offer some negligible resources for law enforcement and border security – resources which will never materialize – in return for an amnesty program that will grant American citizenship to the Mexican nationals who have helped lower America’s wage rates by 16 percent over the last 32 years.

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: “Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it’s just not going to work.”

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.

[mactastic]

So why only troops to the Mexican border? Wasn't the only terrorist captured coming into this country with explosives caught on the Canadian border? Isn't the Canadian border much more porous, and less dangerous than a desert crossing?

Or is Bush's base only in a snit about brown people?

Is this really about security, or about pandering to the base?

[Ugg]

So why only troops to the Mexican border? Wasn't the only terrorist captured coming into this country with explosives caught on the Canadian border? Isn't the Canadian border much more porous, and less dangerous than a desert crossing?

Or is Bush's base only in a snit about brown people?

Is this really about security, or about pandering to the base?

Although terrorism remains a buzzword for the repubs, they no longer care about anything other than getting re-elected.

The US/Canada border is one of the most porous in the world and virtually unguarded. An arabic looking person might stand out in MT or ND but the rest of the states that line the border provide a pretty fair opportunity. Then there's the Great Lakes with its tens of thousands of pleasure boats and a Coast Guard that's understaffed.

It's funny because I've known plenty of Canadians who come here to work illegally.

[blackfox]

i found this sidenote (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/05/15/how-republicans-think-it-only-took-hitler-four-years-to-exterminate-6-million-jews/) interesting.
hmm...yeah, we got those pesky japanese-americans quite efficiently to back in the 40's too...

This goes to show the double-edged sword that Bush (and the entire GOP) are beginning to feel - That in catering and pandering to an extreme base in order to be elected, you risk alienating the majority of the voter base. Alternately, if you turn around and try and cater to that majority. you will lose the extremist vote. A substantial loss of either makes it difficult to win elections.

[mactastic]

The more I look at it, the worse this plan gets. 'The NG will stand down as the Border Patrol stands up' part seems a little too much like a failed Iraqi program. And the idea of rotating an already overstreched NG in and out in three week stints seems ridiculous. Plus, those weeks are the ones the NG is supposed to spend training for their actual missions - you know, disaster relief, firefighting, and military support missions. Of course if the NG is down to something like a third of the equipment they should have, training could be pretty useless anyway...

And I'm guessing that, despite the Bush rhetoric, the states will end up footing much of the bill. Kind of like NCLB.

[Desertrat]

Lotsa chickens coming home to roost all over the place.

I don't see how TPTB can do anything about the motivations for illegals to jump the border. It doesn'tmatter who's president or who controls Congress. Life is bad in Mexico for the border jumpers, and common sense says go where life is better, even if it's not easy. And, there are no notable consequences for getting caught in mid-jump.

If the money is spent on the manpower to enforce existing laws about illegal presence in the U.S., varous groups--both individual people and corporate interests--will see their costs rise (restaurant meals, yard maintenance, construction, and don't forget fried chicken :) ). That will bring about weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and a lot of lobbying of Congress and nasty letters to editors and Congressfolks.

Twenty-five years ago, this problem of illegals was becoming serious, but was nowhere near catastrophic. The Simpson/Mazzoli nonsense of 1986 did nothing to solve the problems; it exacerbated them. The influx increased in following years to the sorts of problems we see today.

Given the frustration levels of many in our society--whether from the situation in Irag or maltreatment by TSA or from job-loss due to out-sourcing--I'm not at all surprised at the emotions against some group of scapegoats. We're switching from "ragheads" to "wetbacks" as the scapegoat du jour.

One thing that's made it easy for the illegals to become scapegoats is the hostile rhetoric of those who yowl about Aztlan and "Gringos must go!'. Ask and ye shall receive...

IMO, it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. I don't see any politically viable/acceptable solution which can truly work out for the better.

'Rat

[solvs]

That's how our system works. It's not wired up for winner take all
I think you're missing my point. I like compromise. It's how you get stuff done. Look at Newt and Bill, before the stupid stuff. Not saying I liked everything, but it's better than one "team" wanting to dominate the other. I realize the Dems probably did it before I was born, but that doesn't mean I like it that the neocons are trying to do it now. Even worse that they're doing everything wrong apparently. That's my problem. I don't want our system to work that way. From what you were saying, you didn't seem to mind all that much if it did.

We're switching from "ragheads" to "wetbacks" as the scapegoat du jour.
Well... yeah. People were falling for it, then they weren't again, and now they're pissed at everybody. Kinda backfired me thinks.

[mactastic]

One thing that's made it easy for the illegals to become scapegoats is the hostile rhetoric of those who yowl about Aztlan and "Gringos must go!'. Ask and ye shall receive...
Another thing that makes it easy for the illegals to become scapegoats is the hostile rhetoric of those who yowl about white supremacy and how 'we own it, 'wetbacks' must go'. Bloviate and ye shall recieve...

[Desertrat]

There's surprisingly little racism in the numerous anti-illegal comments I've read, over this last couple of years. We've not had to ban many at all from THR* or TFL* for that. The issue isn't ethnic or national source.

It seems the the people who are most upset are those who've gone through the legal process. "I followed the rules. I'm waiting. What gives an illegal the right to go to the head of the line?"

Not much fair play...

'Rat

*http://www.thehighroad.org and http://www.thefiringline.com Both are RKBA sites. TFL's server is down for the moment.

[mactastic]

There've been surprisingly few Aztlan comments on the pro-amnesty sites over the last few years too. Does that bid of unsourced anecdotal evidence change your mind?

Plus, I can dig up just as many racist quotes as you can Aztlan ones. Point is, you were pointing to a small subset of people and extrapolating from there, but when I do the same thing you say 'Oh no, anti-immigration folks aren't like that'.

Duh. Pro-immigrant folks aren't overwhelmingly pro-Aztlan either, yet you didn't have a problem implying that they are.

[Desertrat]

That's not the point, mac. The Aztlan folks have jumped up with a lot of noise, lately. They get headlines. Like the professor at UTex-Arlington who's an Aztlanista who said, "Gringos must go, even if they must be killed." (Not an exact quote, but he did use the word kill in a public statement.)

And then there's the idiotic labelling of the Minutemen as "vigilantes". Anybody who says that is dictionarily challenged. :D

Just thought I'd throw that in...

Hell's bells, I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm anti-illegal. I have zero problems with those who follow the legal structure.

My contempt is for those who knowingly break laws, or encourage people to break laws. I don't care what political party, what agency, what local cop or what drunk driver or con man. If they do wrong, file charges. Jump the border, get tossed back. Support a border jumper, suffer the results of charges of conspiracy or aiding/abetting criminal action.

Say, how about fair play? Remember the guy up in Maine for whom the nearest church was a short walk into Canada? Much longer to return via auto through a legal port of entry. He got fined the max, as an example. $10,000. "encourager les autres" Why not fine illegals the same amount? Equal treatment under the law and all that.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Hey, Klan recruitment is up too, in no small part due to their increased rhetoric over immigration. But I suppose that's just background noise to you? Not NEARLY as important to point out as some professor at an 'ivory tower' institution huh?

Again, you seem to be trying to score points by pointing to the fringe elements and pretending they are mainstream. We can go 'round and 'round with that all day, but it ultimately is pointless.

[pseudobrit]

Hell's bells, I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm anti-illegal. I have zero problems with those who follow the legal structure.

You know the "legal structure" makes it nearly impossible to get into this country by the book.

We could make the federal speed limit 15 miles per hour to see how it feels.
"Hell, I'm not anti-speed, I'm anti-illegal speed."

[Ugg]

You know the "legal structure" makes it nearly impossible to get into this country by the book.


Yep, an antiquated system that is chronically underfunded is unable to process even those who would be considered valuable to society. The Finnish guy who created Linux is a prime example although I'm sure that "Mr. Faux News" Murdoch's paperwork was expedited.

I worked with a woman who had emigrated with her family from Austria at the age of 11. She gained citizenship a few years later and at the age of 56 wanted a passport so she could go back to the homecountry for a visit. They were unable to find her naturalziation papers and after spending literally weeks sitting at the INS office in Seattle, was told basically that unless she could produce her copy she was out of luck. After untold letters to anyone who cared and some who didn't, a tv interview and a 3 year wait, she finally got her passport.

She was essentially being held hostage by the US government. Had she tried to go to Canada, it's very possible that she wouldn't have been allowed back into the US. This all took place pre 9-11.

The whole system is basically on paper and contained in filing cabinets in dingy buildings across the country. When a person receives a summons to the INS, they're all told to come at 8 am and it's first come, first served. If you've ever been near an INS office, the lines snaking around the block are surreal. It's very reminiscent of bread lines in the USSR.

The INS is also one of the most powerfuls agencies in the US, more like the KGB or Gestapo than an agency of the most powerful country in the "freeest" most "democratic" country in the world.

[Desertrat]

Increases in Klan membership, mac? I hadn't heard that. I hope your source is someone besides Morris Dees.

No doubt the whole immigration structure needs revamping. I don't think I've heard anybody say they think it works properly. But, aside from any changing in the structure, to do better with the numbers of people that apply, more money is needed. It's up to Congress to D-O-do something--and we see how well that's working.

Back to the thread topic: Has anybody seen anything about how this 6,000-man system is supposed to actually work? That is, I've read about "normal two-week training cycles". That suggests 6,000 divided by the 26 two-week periods in a year, or some such variant--which means not all that many "helpers".

Other comments speak to a purely observational and gofer status, not armed patrolling. Anybody read about that aspect?

I often wonder in stuff like this if anybody can get away from bureaucratese and speak in plain-folks' English: "What we'ere gonna do is...," and "Here's how it's gonna work:" That would cut down on all the confused speculation, I'd hope.

Sorta like Clinton's 100K cops. Nobody explained that there are three shifts and not all cops are on patrol. The expectations were not met by the realities. Not Clinton's nor the Congress' "fault", other than the lack of an explanation about how things would actually work.

I hope the border fence deal works better than what the Park Service tried in BBNP. They built about twenty miles of boundary fence, constructing from sorta northeast to southwest along the northwest borderline of the Park. They got done, and then discovered that the folks from Santa Elena across the river had already "salvaged" the first three miles or so of fence wire. :)

'Rat

[mactastic]

Increases in Klan membership, mac? I hadn't heard that. I hope your source is someone besides Morris Dees.
Just as I hope your source was someone other than World Nut Daily. 'Cause I hadn't heard that Aztlan commenters were getting all that much press, which you claim.

No doubt the whole immigration structure needs revamping. I don't think I've heard anybody say they think it works properly. But, aside from any changing in the structure, to do better with the numbers of people that apply, more money is needed. It's up to Congress to D-O-do something--and we see how well that's working.
More money? Don't you rail against that sort of thing usually? Don't you go on about how schools used to be so much more efficient back when you were young and all that? Why's the Border Patrol different?

Back to the thread topic: Has anybody seen anything about how this 6,000-man system is supposed to actually work? That is, I've read about "normal two-week training cycles". That suggests 6,000 divided by the 26 two-week periods in a year, or some such variant--which means not all that many "helpers".
My understanding is that there will be 6000 at any given time, meaning that with a two week cycle that will require some 144,000 NG troops to be cycled through each year. And, of course, as the Border Patrol (which Bush, with conservative support, has chronically underfunded) stands up, the NG will stand down. Sure. We've seen how well THAT works!

Other comments speak to a purely observational and gofer status, not armed patrolling. Anybody read about that aspect?
Yes, it's a look-but-don't-touch affair. Another reason this effort is doomed to failure. Not to fear though, the government is soliciting bids from some of it's larger campaign contributors to provide a longer-term fix -- because funding the Border Patrol seems to be off the table for some unknown reason.

I often wonder in stuff like this if anybody can get away from bureaucratese and speak in plain-folks' English: "What we'ere gonna do is...," and "Here's how it's gonna work:" That would cut down on all the confused speculation, I'd hope.

Sorta like Clinton's 100K cops. Nobody explained that there are three shifts and not all cops are on patrol. The expectations were not met by the realities. Not Clinton's nor the Congress' "fault", other than the lack of an explanation about how things would actually work.

I hope the border fence deal works better than what the Park Service tried in BBNP. They built about twenty miles of boundary fence, constructing from sorta northeast to southwest along the northwest borderline of the Park. They got done, and then discovered that the folks from Santa Elena across the river had already "salvaged" the first three miles or so of fence wire. :)

'Rat
That's the problem with fences. Without guards, fences are hardly a deterrant to anyone with a pair of wire cutters.

[skunk]

Not to fear though, the government is soliciting bids from some of it's larger campaign contributors to provide a longer-term fix -- because funding the Border Patrol seems to be off the table for some unknown reason.Seems to be a perfect fit for Blackwater and Halliburton. Now wouldn't that be sweet?

[Dont Hurt Me]

The President is giving us gimmicks so he can pass amnesty. Lots of lip service ( as usual) no substance (as usual) whats new.

[zimv20]

seems no one thought much of bush's speech monday night. pro-immigration groups, anti-immigration groups, congresspeople, the national guard and affected governors all dislike the idea of using the guard to patrol the borders.

one california lawmaker (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-calguard18may18,1,3210480.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california) even suggested freezing $38 million of funding for the CA national guard.

so what's the solution? federalize the guard! (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/05/18/a1.immig.0518.p1.php?section=nation_world)


Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, raised the possibility that Guard members could be sent over the objections of a state's governor.

"If a governor truly did not want this mission performed in their state, then the option is there for the president and the secretary of defense to federalize the Guard. And then the mission would be conducted, and then it would be without the control of the governor,'' he said.

[solvs]

seems no one thought much of bush's speech monday night.
See what happens when you try to please everybody. You please nobody. This is why W just does whatever the heck he wants. It's just easier that way. So what if some people (like ~70% of the country) get pissed off, at least he gets his way. Did he have a way on this?

Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that he's just pandering and it backfired.

[zimv20]

AP (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/19/ap_newsbreak_guard_stint_to_last_2_years/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News)


Guard stint to last 2 years

SACRAMENTO, Calif. --President Bush's planned deployment of National Guard troops to the Mexican border would last at least two years with no clear end date, according to a Pentagon memo obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The one-page "initial guidance" memo to National Guard leaders in border states does not address the estimated cost of the mission or when soldiers would be deployed. But high-ranking officials in the California National Guard said they were told Friday that deployments would not begin before early June.

While the military document makes clear the troops would remain under the command of their governors, it also indicates a high degree of federal control over operations. It states that the National Guard Bureau's Army and Air Directories "will serve as the states' focal points for force-planning, training, organizing and equipping their forces."

Guardsmen in "all other states, territories and the District of Columbia" will serve a supportive role, according to the memo.

[...]

He proposed deploying 6,000 troops at a time to the border in two-week rotations. The deployments would be temporary, he said, until enough Border Patrol agents were hired to secure the mission. He asked Congress to add 6,000 more Border Patrol agents by the end of his presidency.

The White House also said the troops would be financed with part of the $1.9 billion requested from Congress this year to supplement border enforcement.

hmmmm.... open-ended deployment, funding source unknown, deployed until existing forces can manage the situation on their own.

why is this starting to sound like iraq?

[solvs]

why is this starting to sound like iraq?
Because it's the same thing we've heard before. You know the definition of insanity right? Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. Make your own conclusions.

[mactastic]

why is this starting to sound like iraq?
Well because it's been such a winning formula there.

This is another election-year boondoggle that will end up costing the taxpayers billions, which will then likely flow to the likes of KBR. All while Bush has not been funding the Border Patrol at the levels he should be.