NBC: Bush may deploy Guard along U.S. border

[Roon]

WASHINGTON - As the White House prepared for President Bush to address the nation on immigration, sources told NBC News on Friday that the Pentagon could deploy as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to the country’s southwest borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.

The White House said it was seeking time from television networks for the president’s remarks on Monday at 8 p.m. ET. Bush, trying to build momentum for legislation that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens, is to speak from the Oval Office.

“This is crunch time,” Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, told reporters
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12754924/

[northzax]

1. cause we have so many guardsmen and women to spare?

I thought there was a war on?

[Debau2005]

4. Exactly!

So when they get home from Iraq and Afghanistan, they can then patrol the borders?! Who cares that they have/had jobs and families.

My question is why is this necessary now? Do we have millions of illegals making a run for the US every day? Has the flow of illegal border crossings gotten so bad that this is necessary? Why not hire more Border Patrol people to do the job that their department is supposed to do?

I am so dizzy from the spin and change of direction coming out of the criminals in the White House, that I think I am going to fall down!

[creeker]

70. The Soldiers signed up to defend the country-- in WW2 solders were sent

from europe to the south pacific----For MANY years the "Guard" was a vacation for many members---now they are asked to do the job they signed up for and may be reassigned for further duty---so they do the job they signed up for--- whats your problem with that?

[Debau2005]

74. I don't have a problem with them

defending the country. However what are the "defending" the country from? Illegals crossing the border, this is not a new issue, and I don't understand why it is now considered a "threat?" Are they going to be given shot to kill orders? What are their "duties" going to be? When they are asked to defend, that means to me that they are given approval to use force. So now we are going to start spraying bullets at illegals crossing the Mexican border?

Now doesn't this make us a better, more compassionate nation! :sarcasm:

Also these men and women have probably served in the illegal war in Iraq. They now deserve the right to resume their lives. When they were deployed to Iraq, they were asked to do jobs that they DID not sign up for.

[Julius Civitatus]

13. No worries. It's a PHOTO-OP. They'll be back in their units by Wednesday

This is another MISSION ACCOMPLISHED moment.

[Dudley_DUright]

23. because as Stephen Colbert reminds us

"...no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

[wordpix2]

64. c'mon, you saw all those Guardsmen helping out NO last year. NOT

[Akoto]

2. Desperate attempt to hold on to his base.

As his poll numbers crumble, * finds himself grasping for any opportunity to hold on to his supporters, some of whom are finally seeing the light and leaving him.

It's just like the gay marriage fiasco the last time around. He'll use the hell out of it while he needs the votes, and then you'll never hear him talk about it again.

[FreakinDJ]

6. Sad part is it will probably work

I've been saying for 6 months here on DU that the immigration debate is the 06 - 08 wedge issue. If the DEMs fail to take the strong, well thought out and logical upper hand in this issue they will be burried with it

[TheFarseer]

21. You are totally right

the only thing is that many democrats believe that illegal immigration is OK. Taking a strong position against illegal immigration, and both houses are ours, IMO.

On the other hand, if bush pulls this off and gets the base all fired up, it becomes much more difficult.

[FreakinDJ]

33. Irresponsible views

Many have no idea what the outrage is all about. Almost like some limousine liberal attempting to defend their gardener, who they themselves are exploiting to some extent.

Illegal immigrants have been allowed in this country to suppress wages and bust unions, and the Republican machine has been behind the largest portion of it. Why we can’t even get the Federal government to compile the true cost of the illegal alien population

Yep it looks like the Republicans are going to win back their base on this issue and a good amount of the working class as well. Their flying balloons left and right looking to see what sticks and acting out on the emotions.

The only question in my mind is exactly how are they going to cater to their business alliances and not illegalize illegal alien employment

[TheFarseer]

38. We're totally agreeing here

This is being mis-represented as just some people who want to pick fruit and provide for their family. I'm fighting for jobs with these people and I have a 4-year degree (you better believe there's illegal immigrant accountants). If you don't see the problem, then you must already have a great job. I guess I just care about Americans more than other people. Americans fought for higher wages and better working conditions for hundreds of years and now that's what Mexicans etc. must do. It's not fair to come here and destroy everything we've fought for. I especially don't like hearing about the cost to our schools, hospitals, federal prisons, and welfare system due to illegal immigrants, at the risk of sounding like a freeper.

As to your question, I don't see how they can make both parties happy. Their goals are almost as incompatible as pro-life and pro-choice. The only questions is, which party will be ripped open over this first?

[FreakinDJ]

41. The key is the Emotional Plea

Like I said they are floating the balloons to test the waters.

I’m seeing they feel they have the time between now and august to test their programs. A series of press releases (like the one we are discussing) and polling results (see below). They are going to weigh the political clout they can derive while with holding true reforms.

The key is the Emotional Plea

• On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.
• While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.
• When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
• Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.
• When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, thought not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
• There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself, exceptions included Hispanics 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea and the most liberal voters (progressives) 54 percent of whom approved of it.
• When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and a policy of mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations; while 56 percent want the House approach.
• But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent version to 30 percent.
• One reason the public does not like legalizations is that they are skeptical of need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of 74 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.
• Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that 73 percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.
• Public also does not buy the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 70 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

[Ms. Clio]

56. You are using a rightwing source

According to RightWeb, CIS is the pseudo-intellectual arm of the rabid anti-immigrant organization, FAIR.

"The Center for Immigration Studies describes itself as "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States." Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), CIS is dedicated "to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.

Members of its board of directors are: Patrick Burns, Thomas C.T. Brokaw, George Grayson, David Simoz (chair and president), Carol Iannone, Otis Graham (co-chair), Peter Nuñez, Frank Morris, William Chip, Jacquelye Jackson, Vernon Briggs, Scott McConnell, and Willard Fair. Steven Camarota is director of research, and Mark Kirkorian (formerly a policy expert with FAIR) is executive director. Annual revenues in 2002 were $898,810. (1)

Origins, History, and Impact

The Center for Immigration Studies was founded in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Another FAIR spin-off is the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which functions as the litigation arm of FAIR, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."


Perhaps if you stopped reading rightwing propaganda, you would have a dfferent perspective on this issue.

(Edited to add link)

[Bridget Burke]

57. And CIS is closely allied with the Social Contract Press....

Which publishes that eminent scholarly journal "Social Contract."

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1539

Small world here....

[Ms. Clio]

59. downright incestuous n/t

[struggle4progress]

68. The CIS agenda is zero immigration: xenophobe crackpots, funded by Scaifes

<edit: clarity>

[struggle4progress]

67. "..Southern lawmakers met with White House strategist Karl Rove earlier ..

.. in the week for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control .."

Posted on Fri, May. 12, 2006
Bush weighs deploying Guard to U.S. border
LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/14567524.htm

[keta11]

3. I am guessing they have have GOP '06

Campaign stickers pasted on the butt of their rifles for the duration of their deployment.

[babylonsister]

5. Yes sirree, that's the ticket! Let's let everyone get used to the

idea of armed militia 'protecting' us. That'll work. Psych-ops, anyone? :eyes:

[Virginia Dare]

7. Somebody better tell the Chimp...

the National Guard's in Iraq.

:think:

[Cerridwen]

8. Whew! Just like the KGB...how, er, quaint

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/kgb/su0535.htm

The legal status, duties, and rights of the Border Troops were set forth in the Law on the State Border, confirmed by the Supreme Soviet on November 24, 1982. Article 28 defined the basic duties of the Border Troops. Their duties included repulsing armed incursions into Soviet territory; preventing illegal crossings of the border or the transport of weapons, explosives, contraband, or subversive literature across the border; monitoring the observance of established procedures at border crossing points; monitoring the observance by Soviet and foreign ships of navigation procedures in Soviet territorial waters; and assisting state agencies in the preservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment from pollution. Border guards were authorized to examine documents and possessions of persons crossing the borders and to confiscate articles; to conduct inquiries in cases of violations of the state border; and to take such actions as arrest, search, and interrogation of individuals suspected of border violations.

Gee, I feel so much safer and I'll sure be glad to get one of those jobs that americans won't do.

/sarcasm off

[qanda]

9. "We must get the base back"

I'm sure this is their reasoning.

[Kagemusha]

10. Well it was widely reported this is part of Bolten's plans

I'm not surprised, except I have to ask, aren't those 5k NG troops supposed to be going to, like, Iraq or something?

[habitual]

11. cmon, they told us they were gonna do this remember?

they told us they'd make the photo-op with the dudes down there on their 4X4's with american flags attached to the antennas. remember that vision that they SAID THEY WERE GONNA CREATE?

[KansDem]

12. Anyone predicting a Guard/Minutemen clash?

Hot sun, sweaty bodies, itchy fingers, and tempers flaring. Not a good mix...

[sutz12]

14. You know, back when I was in USMC...

We used to train in the California desert to prepare for duty in the Middle East.

Now, they are training 'on the job,' so to speak, in Iraq, for duty in the California desert.

Is there something wrong with this picture, or is it just me?

[Roon]

15. I wonder what the freepers say about all of this

anyone got a link?

[Inland]

16. Nothing says "I care" like militarizing the problem.

Because the only part of government that Bush thinks can work, or wants to work, is the military that he controls as commander, only military deployment is the REAL solution. When your only tool is a hammer, everthing looks like a nail.

[Xipe Totec]

17. Posse Comitatus Act

United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. Generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

Insurrection Act. Exceptions:

The US Code (10USC331-335) reads:

§ 331. Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

§ 334. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time

[thereismore]

22. Exactly what I'm thinking. This is another excursion of * to

the edge of the law and BEYOND.

[951-Riverside]

25. Notice our politicians are being very quiet about this.

:mad:

[madrchsod]

32. the dems shoould shut up untill they

have a plan that will work in the real world

[Xipe Totec]

27. We'll see if he gets his wings clipped this time

His reactions to events are getting more bizarre every day.

:popcorn:

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Do they have any bricks left from the Berlin Wall? They can use them on

the border here now.:puke:

[C_U_L8R]

19. Nothing rouses the Republican base

better than sending armed militias
to go shoot at immigrants (legal or not)

What a bunch of racist bastards.

[Phx_Dem]

20. those crazy air conditioned "battle suits"...

should come in handy with the 110-125 degree days coming this summer.

[Roon]

24. Remember all the protests last month?

I bet the protests get bigger and bigger now.

[951-Riverside]

28. If these protests have been organized by Bush/Republican interests

...you're not going to see or hear a damn thing and anyone who tries to organize on their own probably will be harassed, intimidated and/or arrested .

[Bridget Burke]

45. And if the protests continue....

You will realize that they are NOT a Republican plot.

[951-Riverside]

50. We will see

Although I've disagreed with the protesters in the past I really hope they come out and protest against putting troops on the border its just a waste of time, resources & also highly illegal to boot.

[BiggJawn]

26. So Il Douche's gonna pull them out of the Middle East?

I didn't know we had 5,000 Guardsmen to spare.

[KamaAina]

29. Ah yes, the same Guard that performed so well in La. and Miss.

after Katrina. :sarcasm:

Well, it would have if half of it -- and two-thirds of its equipment -- hadn't been in freakin' IRAQ!! :grr:

So let me see if I've got this straight: The Guard is available to be deployed for a lame-ass political photo op, but was NOT available when TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES depended on them ?! :grr: :banghead: :nuke:

[kurth]

30. 5,000 troops over 2,000 miles???

Man, the Mexican hordes are SOOO scared.

[madrchsod]

31. remember this all you doubters

he` at the most 30-35%. his base of wing nuts will never fault him but the largest voting block in this country who could really effect the out come of the elections is the mexican america voters. we have seen them in the streets and we see them in the workplace and they are pissed. the republicans can no longer rely on them in this election and the democrats better come up with a decent plan.

[FreakinDJ]

37. Mexican Nationals who are now legal US Citizens

I talked to former Mexican Nationals who are now legal US Citizens that are all in favor of closing the border.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Two?

Or three?

[951-Riverside]

52. How many hispanics voted for Bush & Schwarzenegger?

Two or Three? :sarcasm:

[FreakinDJ]

53. Dems arn't going to make it catering the hispanic vote alone

the numbers against illegal immigration don't support it

[Bridget Burke]

58. Well, we aren't going to get ANY votes....

From Right Wingers.

[Union Thug]

34. The next step towards a fascist police state.

Thank you conservative bastards.

[Bridget Burke]

35. "On May 20, 1997, Esequiel Hernandez, Jr was herding his family's goats...

100 yards from his home on the US-Mexican border in Redford, Texas, as he did every day. Six days before, he had turned 18 years old.

Unknown to Esequiel or any of the other residents of Redford, a group of four Marines led by 22-year old Corporal Clemente Banuelos had been encamped just outside the small village along the Rio Grande River for three days. After watering his small flock of goats in the river, Esequiel started on his way back home when the Marines began stalking him from a distance of 200 yards.

The four camouflaged Marines were outfitted with state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and weapons. Esequiel carried an antique .22 caliber rifle -- a pre-World War I, single shot rifle to keep wild dogs and rattlesnakes away from his goats. The autopsy showed that Esequiel was facing away from the Marines when he was shot. He probably never knew the Marines were watching him from 200 yards away. ...

Corporal Banuelos ... led the Marine unit that patrolled the Redford area. He fired the shot that killed Esequiel on the orders of an unidentified commander who was not present at the scene. He and his fellow Marines, trained to kill the enemy, were placed in a situation which was inconsistent with the role of the military. Now he will have to live with the guilt of killing an innocent man for the rest of his life. He too is a victim of our present drug policy.

www.dpft.org/hernandez/gallery/

Then, it was the "War on Drugs"--now, the "War on Immigrants." Our military (active duty or reserve) is NOT trained for this work. Besides--aren't they a bit stretched right now?

[951-Riverside]

40. "War on Terrorism" not "War on Immigrants"

Responding to:

Then, it was the "War on Drugs"--now, the "War on Immigrants." Our military (active duty or reserve) is NOT trained for this work. Besides--aren't they a bit stretched right now?

but whatever you or they decide to call it innocent people are being "tortured & killed" because of these needless "Wars" also throughout the years they have tied the hands of our border patrol agents WHAT THE FUCK is the National Guard going to do?

Wear hot camo uniforms and carry M-16s instead of MP5s?

[Bridget Burke]

44. ONE reason our Border Patrol has been doing so "well"....

Might be that INS is now Immigrations & Customs Enforcement--part of the Department of Homeland Security.

We know how much that move did for FEMA.

[Ms. Clio]

60. That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks

damn you are good.

I remembered seeing this story on 60 Minutes or something similar.

[acmavm]

36. So, does this mean no more head's up to the Mexican

government?

[FreakinDJ]

39. Bush will gain a couple of points for this

You can argue the legality all you want, it certainly hasn't stopped him yet from doing any thing Kimg Chimpy wants but he'll most likely earn back a few points.



Sad part is it will come directly out of the DEMs faithful

[TankLV]

42. But conveniently ignoring the "white" Canadian border, again, I see.

Hmmm....

Couldn't be racism!

[951-Riverside]

47. Re: "Couldn't be racism!"

How many Canadians run across border & use massive amounts of tax-payer supported services. If the numbers of Canadians by-passes the number of Mexicans coming into the country I'll buy your argument.

Oh and don't forget the Cubans all they need to do is reach US land and they automatically become citizens, can Mexicans openly do the same?

No.

[Bridget Burke]

54. In the War on Terrorism....

Why ignore the Canadian border?

[cassiepriam]

43. I thought they were all in Iraq. nt

[BigDDem]

48. I guess

they'll all have to quit "fighting for our freedom" in Iraq.

[951-Riverside]

49. Seems like this idiot President is stretching our forces to the max

Same thing happened to the USSR before it fell... hmmm.

[cassiepriam]

55. When he starts the draft, going to need them on the Canadian border :(( nt

[PassingFair]

63. Yep. Nobody gets In and Nobody gets Out

Paging Sinclair Lewis...

[cassiepriam]

65. Bingo. You got it. Just like Russia.

I love a good dictatorship, just never thought I would live in one.

[Tight_rope]

51. What the fuck for?

Doesn't that fool realize that every decision me makes is "ALWAYS" a "BAD" decision!:spank:

[One Honest Guy]

61. "They are all terrorists, sir!"

Few months ago on BBC international they had a segment on US immigration. They had this brit interview a US marine (I think) who came back from Iraq to join some special unit that patrols the US-Mexico border with helicopters. The interviewer asked if he (the marine) thought any illegal immigrants were potential terrorist. He answered directly and clearly: "They are all terrorists, sir!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Good.

It'll inflame the hispanic vote and drive them the Democratic Party and, I suspect, do little to curtail immigration.

[MisterP]

66. when you're a chimp, every problem looks like a banana

a variant of the "if you have a hammer..."

[kineneb]

69. Ummm, where is he going to find spare Guard troups?

Arn't they mostly over in Iraq? And how is 5000 Guard stretched out on the boarder going to change anything? Sounds like more BS from The Little Emperor and his minions.

[twaddler01]

71. * is just asking for martial law isn't he...or MSM eyes?

[HuffleClaw]

72. it'll be bush's big moment too

'ah am sending in the troops to protect this great nation of ours...'

they want the public to get used to seeing the military on the streets of america. oh, and divert attention from the rapidly growing domestic spying scandal, rove's coming indictment, their sinister plans for iran and HIS own plummeting poll numbers. and how? by encouraging discrimination and bigotry. its disgusting.

[Coastie for Truth]

73. Question- what are we going to use for the Guard

for this year's Hurricane Season - and for the inevitable "Big One" on the San Andreas Fault?

[951-Riverside]

75. We're on our own

Sure they force us to pay them but when we need their help, tough luck.

[Coastie for Truth]

76. Nope

We are going to rely on hyperglycemic (diabetic), arthritic, over weight, FRA (Social Security term for "full retirement age"), Red Cross, Salvation Army, Southern Baptist, and Citizen Corps volunteers.

The "Old Farts"