[rdb3]

Their mission should be changed back to what it once was.

Should, could, would, whatever. The game has changed, and it won't be changed back.

As an Army vet, I'm against placing soldiers on the border because the Commander in Chief is the President. A change of the administration can easily remove our soldiers from there, and not even Congress could stop it.

What is needed is Border Patrol agent numbers vastly increased. Two thousand is a joke. That number probably could be increased to 12-15,000 easily. The only concern I have about that is the union of the BP getting far too powerful. But I'll still take those short-term problems to increase border security and to keep soldiers off that border.

After Clinton, I thought we had our fill of playing politics with our soldiers.

[monkeywrench]

Actually, there isn't much point to putting anyone from govt. at the border, as they have their hands tied when there. Kolbe and his ilk, certin sector chiefs, and Homeland Security honchos have all created problems, lately, and it's not hard to see where that's going.

I know the dems would like the extra union voters, but it's pointless for any other reason.

[tahiti]

"As an Army vet, I'm against placing soldiers on the border because the Commander in Chief is the President. A change of the administration can easily remove our soldiers from there, and not even Congress could stop it."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Now what is interesting is that Congress has to depend upon the President to sign the bill that they pass in order for it to become law.

The Congress can of course, override that refusal, and thus the President is "forced" to lead the "militia" as the Congress has ordered via their enumerated power.

His refusal may then be grounds for impeachment.

I hope this is reason for the legislation Rep. King as introduced. I have written my congressman 3 times and suggested the same.

[skeeter]

That number probably could be increased to 12-15,000 easily. The only concern I have about that is the union of the BP getting far too powerful. But I'll still take those short-term problems to increase border security and to keep soldiers off that border.

Trying to cover the borders is a fools errand. Slam a few employers - they're easier to catch.

Make about a half dozen examples in each industry & the rest will ge the message fast.

[bayourod]

We tried to seal a 66 mile stretch of border in Operation Gatekeeper.

Double fences (some concrete and steel), guard towers, flood lights inferred cameras, ground sensors, patrol roads, horse patrols, ATV patrols, 16 helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, trucks, and a ratio of 25 guards per mile were incorporated.

It was successful in reducing the number if immigrants crossing at that sector. Most just went further East to cross, but still about two hundred thousand are caught each year trying to cross, and another estimated 30 to 40 thousand make it across undetected each year. They dig under, climb over and break through the fences. That’s an average of 454 to 606 per mile per year.

Extrapolating the cost/benefit results of Operation Gatekeeper to the entire 105,000 mile coastline and land borders of the United States, these are the numbers I calculated.

At 25 guards per mile at $175,000 per guard, it would cost $459,375,000,000.00 per year and still 47,670,000 to 63,630,000 people could cross undetected into the U.S. each year.

Now I don’t claim that my numbers are precisely accurate. Some numbers, such as number of border jumpers are estimates, and other numbers are from newspapers instead of government sources. $175,000 per guard is what Congress budgets. If anyone has official numbers they wish to substitute I would welcome the corrections. (Any Congressman could request an estimate from the CBO if the magic fence idea wasn't such a joke to begin with)

[B4Ranch]

The State Governors have the authority to place State Guard troops within 60 feet of the US/Mexico border anytime they roust up the courage.

[investigateworld]

Good points.
But actually only two thousand new people would be needed. One thousand field investigators, 500 support staff, 400 USAAGs, 50 judges, 50 Bailiff/Marshals.

Start with asset seizure, and the problem would disappear.
Farm lands would be low priority along with attendants to the disabled, but focus on construction sites, auto body shops and other well known offenders i.e. the local landscape guy. Problem solved.

[international american]

"What is needed is Border Patrol agent numbers vastly increased. Two thousand is a joke. That number probably could be increased to 12-15,000 easily. The only concern I have about that is the union of the BP getting far too powerful. But I'll still take those short-term problems to increase border security and to keep soldiers off that border."

Very thoughtful, intelligent comment!

[BobS]

"As an Army vet, I'm against placing soldiers on the border because the Commander in Chief is the President."

President Woodrow Wilson ordered the Army to man the Mexican border. It's nothing new.