Guarding the Border
Obviously the point of this initiative has nothing to do with securing the border and everything to do with trying to stabilize the President's poll numbers by locating an exit strategy from the immigration quagmire he stumbled into. That said, it's still worth pointing out that this is a silly idea. I don't really no whether or not dedicating more manpower to border security is a good idea all things considered. But insofar as it is a good idea then, obviously, it should be done by enhancing the manpower of the agency actually charged with doing border security. Adding another mission to the National Guard portfolio is just going to either create problems in other National Guard areas of responsibility or else ensure that whatever they do on the border is done half-assed.
Has anyone seen any evidence at all that Bush is interested in border security? Or in port security? Or in any other part of national security? I haven't. So, of course the National Guard as border patrolmen will be a half-assed operation, and intentionally so.
The real problem with doing such a job in a half-assed way isn't the security part of it, but the diplomatic part. It will be grossly insulting to Mexico to show that we consider them a threat to our national security. In fact this is almost guaranteed to eliminate one of the very few friends we still have among the nations of the world. President Fox has already objected to the whole idea on general principles, as he should. But, then I doubt that anyone has any evidence that Bush has any interest in diiplomacy either.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 14, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the proposals on this website about 25% of the time. This is one of those times. Sending the NG to the border is absolutely futile if we still allow employers to employ illegals. This smacks of pure politics. I think the solution to illegals is relatively easy.
That being said, I disagree with the previous poster that says that Bush isn't interested in national security. It seems to me that any time Bush tries to do something about national security then the left screams bloody murder. Mark Steyn has a great piece about "connecting the dots" in defending the country. Everyone wants to know why we didn't "connect the dots" before 9-11 but when you try to collect the dots then it is all an issue of privacy. Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It appears to me that the Democrats aren't very serious about national security. I find it hard to believe that Americans have signed up for everyone to be very invasively searched at airports but not for their phone numbers to be on a data base.
May 14, 2006 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That being said, I disagree with the previous poster that says that Bush isn't interested in national security. It seems to me that any time Bush tries to do something about national security then the left screams bloody murder."
The left screams because Bush pours ridiculous amounts of resources into escapades like Iraq that don't increase our security. Ditto for these NSA projects. The Iraq results speak for themselves, and this NY Times article gives a good idea of how productive the FBI has found the NSA's leads.
"I find it hard to believe that Americans have signed up for everyone to be very invasively searched at airports but not for their phone numbers to be on a data base."
Not only have we NOT signed up for any such databases, there's statutes on the books that specificaly forbid collecting such data without court order, subpoena, customer's consent, etc.
May 15, 2006 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's obviously not a long term fix, but it's not intended as a long term fix, just as a short term PR operation: Send the National Guard to patrol a small section of the border, while informing the Mexican government as to which section, so they can send their citizens through a different stretch of it, and then in a week or two quietly have the Guard leave.
It isn't going to work.
Indeed, Hoppy, it WOULD be a gross insult to Mexico to reveal that we consider them a threat to our national security. The problem is that they ARE such a threat, and allowing them to continue aiding their citizens in flouting our immigration laws is just too high a price to pay for their supposed "friendship".
May 15, 2006 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I find it hard to believe that Americans have signed up for everyone to be very invasively searched at airports but not for their phone numbers to be on a data base."
I don't remember signing anything.
"Everyone wants to know why we didn't "connect the dots" before 9-11 but when you try to collect the dots then it is all an issue of privacy."
Whoa. The issues regarding advance awareness of 9/11 were entirely about information that we *already had* being ignored or disregarded by those in charge. I don't see how giving the government increased surveillance powers has anything to preventing future attacks.
May 15, 2006 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Illeagal immigration is a complex problem. The immigrants who are here have family ties, jobs, and a social support system within their communities. It is a problem requiring study, analysis, deft handling, and compassion. It needs a president that does nuance, reads more than the sports page, and stays up past 9:30pm to do some homework. It may even involve giving up weekends at Camp David. We do not have a president like that.
It's been said that the last one to talk to the president usually wins the argument. That must be because he has no understanding of the problem under consideration. He's said himself that his direct reports read the newspapers for him, and he gets a summary of their interpretation of the issues.
He is lazy, ill prepared, mean tempered, thin skinned, allows no dissent, vengeful, rules from the gut, hears voices in his head which he thinks is God (just like a "cigar is just a cigar" voices in your head can just be voices in your head - I really think it's Cheney hissing in his ear) and he's demonstrated a lack of compentence making decisions about complex problems. Once again he is not prepared to handle an issue, and when it becomes a political liability we get the usual Bush M.O. - the manufacturing of an immediate crisis, and of course it must have a military solution. Rumsfeld takes another bite out of the Constitution, and Cheney's hands are blistered from rubbing them with glee. We will now have a standing army, within our borders, deployed for police purposes - this was something the Founding Fathers were very fearful of because they knew it was a short road to tyranny from there.
These people are coming here for work and obviously they are finding it. The demand is high for their cheap, do whatever the boss says without complaint labor. The raiding of that pallet company was also a politcal stunt. We were told they were going to crack down on employers of illegal immigrants. Well, just like the terror alerts, once it was no longer politically useful we heard no more about it. This could turn out the same way. But I think the pressure will continue to ramp, and because they have no well thought out plan this could escalate to people being hurt or killed. And when that happens we will get the "few bad apples" excuse, the not surprising "they weren't trained for this kind of duty" shuffle, and the "staying the course" babble.They are playing a dangerous game to solidfy their base. This has turned into a racial vendetta for some of that base - and racism is the glue which holds the Southern Strategy together - so this is what we get: Another on-the-fly, ad hoc, don't have a clue answer to an extremely important issue which can really hurt people and their families..
I sure don't have the answer, but putting the "Army" on the border is not it - and the National Guard, as we have seen these past 3 years, are combat experienced troops - it is a distinction without a difference. But if I were the leader of a Latino organization I know what I'd do: I would take a page from the civil rights playbook: start a massive, well organized, and thorough voter registration drive. Get every eligible Latino in this country to vote - a well publicized and highly visible effort - that ought to scare the bejeebers out the imbeciles in Washington.
May 15, 2006 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't really no whether"
uh--try "know". We are the party of "know", not "no", after all.
tankerboy--Steyn's reaction is completely disingenuous. The left-wing response to the latest evidence of Bush's use of the NSA is not outrage at the government's collection of data per se. The outrage is over the *illegal* collection of data. Illegal i.e. contrary to law. Done without court warrant and accompanied by the explicit refusal to consult with courts. Done in violation of laws passed by Congress and with the explicit refusal to ask Congress for new laws.
Does this administration want to collect more "dots"? Then fine by me. Let them ask Congress to pass laws to make it possible. Let them obtain warrants from the Courts in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. If they want to do it legally and Constitutionally, then you won't hear a peep from me.
Oh, and they might hire some Arabists who can actually *translate* the dots, if they want to maintain the pretence that this is directed against terrorists. Collecting all of those English-speaking dots from 200 million English-speaking Americans, and maintaining a staff composed of almost entirely English-speaking analysts, sure makes it look like Islamofascism is not their main interest.
As does their refusal to have their activities subjected to Constitutional oversight.
Yeah, they're damned if they *do* spy on ordinary Americans using illegal and unconstitutional means, and damned if they *don't* spy on the real terrorists using legal and Constitutional means and don't do anything to analyze the foreign-language data they already collected before 9/11. Yeah, that's a pretty unfair standard to hold them to, isn't it.
May 15, 2006 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has Bush ever met a quagmire he wouldn't wander into? If he thinks he will get a short term political benefit out of it, regardless of long term consequences, then consider it done. He's the Decider!
May 15, 2006 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? There really is no equivelance here. For pretty obvious reasons certain places such as planes, courthouses, government buildings need to be kept especially safe and I'm willing to go through the hassle of being patted down with a wand to make sure that the guy sitting next to me on an airplane doesn't have a gun, knife or bomb.
I'm not quite sure why its so odd for me to agree to this kind of security search and have a problem with my phone logs being shoved into a vast government database. Sure both are invasive, but the first example is just a temporary invasion of my privacy. After I get through the security checkpoint, thats it, its over. I wouldn't consent to being stopped on the street by police on a daily basis and searched for weapons which is basically what these data bases are doing. Its a continuous invasion of privacy that could potentially be used for lots of different purposes.
May 15, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course its just bush showboating, imagine the numbers of americans who given the opportunity to patrol the border for a paycheck. Not to mention their shock when the discover they are shipping out to iraq. When you sign up theres no guarentees, it helps bush with both looking as though he cares about secure borders and gets enlistment up. Now Im in favor of shutting down the border even with troops, and personally dont see why we should care one bit about hurting mexicos feelings they've never cared about ours nor have they ever shown any interest in americas welfare.I do find it strange that so many liberals and democrates rant about the illegalities of bushs wiretaps yet dont seem interested in inforcing our own laws concerning illegal entry into the U.S. We know the mexican government is aiding these illegal invaders, yes i called them invaders. Whether it 11 , 12 , or however million its a mighty large force who are willing to break our laws. They make demands on the american people speaking of rights and responsibilities. Of course they are intitled to human rights but civil rights are for law abiding citizens. If we want to blast bush for breaking the law then we should also be insisting our immigration laws be enforced. Everytimr democrates show support for any kind of amnesty or path to citizenship we are siding with bush and his corporatist buddies.
May 15, 2006 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that any time Bush tries to do something about national security then the left screams bloody murder.
Two things:
First, I know that sounds really great, but the reality is there are a few key REPUBLICANS that question Bush's actions, such Hagel and Specter.
Second -- Republicans own the House, Senate and Presidency. They can do whatever they want.
Why, again, are you crying about things not getting done in Washington?
And why, again, do you think Republicans are actually serious about doing things to protect our security?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
May 15, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought all those Minutemen were building us a wall?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
May 15, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if it wasn't George Bush we were talking about I would call this a clever ploy. It's a meaningless symbolic gesture, sure, but it might take some pressure off and defuse some really breathtakingly stupid ideas, such as the House Republican plan to turn immigrants into felons.
May 15, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again it only works when you group illegals in with immigrants, they are not remotly the same. One goes thru a lawfull process the other enters illegally and proceeds to get fraudulent I.D. thats 2 laws they are willing to break. Just see what happens when a citizen gets caught with a fake S.S.# or fraudulent drivers lic. its a felony. Yes it is prosecuted as a crime not treated like a parking ticket as it is when were talking about illegal aliens.
May 15, 2006 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course it would be felony if a non-citizen uses a fake social security number or fraudulent drivers license. They are not exempt from the criminal laws. The question is whether we want to treat persons whose only offense is being here without documentation as felons. The vast majority of them are leading leading law-abiding lives apart from the immigration violation.
May 15, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They are not exempt from the criminal laws. The question is whether we want to treat persons whose only offense is being here without documentation as felons."
We are not talking about people whose wallets got lifted. Illegal immigrants are no more "persons whose only offense is being here without documentation", than bank robbers are "persons whose only offense is "taking money from the bank without a withdrawl slip." The reason they don't have (unforged) documents, is that they entered illegally.
So what if their only crimes are the crimes they'e committing?
May 15, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except it's not a crime. It's an administrative violation that subjects the violator to deportation potentially but not to prison. Illegal does not necessarily equate to criminal. That's the big change the House bill tries to make.
May 15, 2006 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In March, I was hearing radio ads from companies trying to hire people for border patrol. The ads said something about this being a growing market or something to the effect.
Perhaps this deployment is just leading up to yet another crony pork barrel for privatizing national security.
May 15, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of those obscure distinctions that matter only to lawyers. "Illegal" = "violates the law", and "violating the law" is a "crime", in the common parlance.
May 15, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
From NPR: Morning Edition, May 17, 2006 · Recruiting and hiring thousands of additional federal Border Patrol agents is a key part of President Bush's plan to reduce illegal immigration. But tough entry requirements and low pay are making it difficult for the Border Patrol to find and retain enough new agents to meet that goal.
Does anyone see the herd of cronies lining up to slop the government trough yet to protect national security at the border?
May 17, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink