House OKs plan to allow military to patrol borders

House OKs plan to allow military to patrol borders
By Sergio Bustos
Gannett News Service
U.S. soldiers may be asked to keep undocumented immigrants
and potential terrorists out of the country. The House approved a
defense authorization bill Thursday that includes an amendment
that would let U.S. military elements join U.S. Border Patrol
agents in guarding the borders with Canada and Mexico.


House OKs plan to allow military to patrol borders
By Sergio Bustos
Gannett News Service

U.S. soldiers may be asked to keep undocumented immigrants and potential terrorists out of the country. The House approved a defense authorization bill Thursday that includes an amendment that would let U.S. military elements join U.S. Border Patrol agents in guarding the borders with Canada and Mexico.

The amendment, championed by Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., passed the House late Wednesday 231-191.

But the amendment stands little chance of surviving because it was not part of the Senate�s defense authorization bill.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, who spent 26 years with the Border Patrol, opposed the amendment, saying it was �simply the wrong solution to our current problems along the border.�

�This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, and over 100 other countries around the world,� he said. �We cannot and we should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders.�

Southern Arizona lawmakers whose districts run along the U.S.-Mexico border echoed the same argument.

�Border security is and continues to be a top priority for me and for the Congress as a whole,� said Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Tucson. �But the Goode amendment would militarize our border and stretch the resources of our Army.�

Said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson: �The amendment was very mean-spirited and had nothing to do with national security. We can be grateful that it probably won�t survive the Senate-House conference.�

Goode argued that troops could be �of significant assistance to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens, and could prevent the entry of weapons of mass destruction into our country.�

Pentagon officials also opposed the idea, according to Kolbe and other lawmakers.

The Bush administration has already threatened to veto the House bill because it includes a provision that would delay the next round of base closings until 2007.

The bill authorizes Defense Department programs for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
www.navytimes.com...

I think its a great idea, except the fact we are at war at the moment. I have thought for a long time that the National Guard should have bases on the US border as a deterant. But would they be authorized to shoot? That would be a major press event if some pregnant woman was shot by US soldiers on American soil. Do they arrest them? Our prisons are already to full.

Lets just nuke Mexico! And maybe take over Canada. That way we double our landmass and eliminate our imigrant problem! People should pay me to be so smart.

I totally support this and want illeagle imigration stoped. If the media would report the problems it is causing everyone would.
www.grassfire.org...

Originally posted by factfinder38
I totally support this and want illeagle imigration stoped. If the media would report the problems it is causing everyone would.
www.grassfire.org...

Its true that after reviewing the facts, everyone agrees we have to do something to stop it. But what can we really do? I can think of tons of things, but nothing thats "politically correct". Armed troops would be just that, armed. Meaning, the media would make a huge deal out of every death. And for the wounded... do we hospitalize them in the country? Then, do we pay for the bill with welfare? I doubt they'll bring cash across the border.

It seems with every problem you try to fix in this country, you create 10 more. You have to love America.

Originally posted by signa
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, who spent 26 years with the Border Patrol, opposed the amendment, saying it was �simply the wrong solution to our current problems along the border.�

�This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, and over 100 other countries around the world,� he said. �We cannot and we should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders.�

From the Constitution,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

what in gods name is the primary duty of the military, militia or whatever you want to call it!

That bill is the wrong solution for border security. If you are a US citizen they don't even check you! lol. It is all a wierd mess, we really need to ban togather and vote for the correct representitives and senators.

Originally posted by cma
That bill is the wrong solution for border security. If you are a US citizen they don't even check you! lol. It is all a wierd mess, we really need to ban togather and vote for the correct representitives and senators.

Ok, what have I missed here?
You do not protect your own borders from your own citizens, you protect it from infiltrators. Want to tell me why you'd protect your borders from yourself?
Obviously, we need to ban together and fight off ignorance as it seems to be overwhelming the gene pool!

Anybody ever hear of the legal primciople of Posse Comitatus?

This bill, as the news report says is 'dead meat'.

Even if passed it would stand a tough time in the courts passing muster.

Plus, aren't our boys busy enough as it is already. Or are the Republicans fixing to be" forced into" reinstituting the draft?

These clowns never quit, do they.




[Edited on 27-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

Damn.... guard the borders! That's a no brainer.

Especially the Canadian/US border. We wouldn't have to put men with guns at every 3K interval, just use those surveillance drones we seem to like so much. We could probably even dedicate a satellite or two to the cause. Then just have some airborne reserves on call, maybe a few blackhawks stationed every 800 miles along the borders and we'd be set. We could secure the Canadian border with surveillance technology, a battalion of soldiers, two or three starlifters, a couple of blackhawk detatchments, and maybe an eagle or three. It wouldn't even cost that much.

Of course, an operation like that would have to be steeped in bureaucracy, and cost 300% more than necessary. Caveat emptor!

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Anybody ever hear of the legal primciople of Posse Comitatus?

This bill, as the news report says is 'dead meat'.

Even if passed it would stand a tough time in the courts passing muster.
[Edited on 27-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

First off, Posse Comitatus does not have any bearing here as national defense and security is not a police role. Should the military be used as law enforcement Posse Comitatus would be violated.

Regardless of what side you are on, most everyone agrees that illegal immagrents are harmful to the country. So what's the real problem?

Good deal!!!!! Best news I've heard in a long time..

Krazy................

You want someone to draw you a picture?

what part of not Constitutional is it you need to see?

(Changes in the USSC could change the proper outcome of a Posse Comiatatus case it hears, I might add.)

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Sounds legit enough to me...a Bill is an act of congress...is it not?

Originally posted by BasementAddix
June 18, 1878


Sounds legit enough to me...a Bill is an act of congress...is it not?

Read the case law. Other federal issues involved like states rights........

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

Originally posted by gmcnulty

Read the case law. Other federal issues involved like states rights........

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

The rights of the states does not come before the rights of the country. It is obvious that those in boarder states lack the fortitude to properly man tha border.

9-11 changed quite a bit of legal precident, as I am sure that there is nothing illegal about using the US military to secure it's boarders.

Pretty much a no brainer. Our borders are really a joke and it's time to change that.

Hi gmcnulty.