Troops on the border now

worldnetdaily.com ^ | June 20, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[26lemoncharlie]

Why is there resistance to securing America's borders?

It can be done.

We all know it can be done.

But yet there is still resistance to this idea in Washington.

When you hear excuses about militarizing the border, understand they are being uttered by people who, for whatever reason, do not want to secure the border.

The crisis with Mexico has reached new heights. The Mexican military itself has been forced to put troops in the town of Nuevo Laredo in response to efforts by the drug cartels to take control. The new police chief of the town was murdered hours after being sworn in. More than 500 people have been killed in drug-related murders in the border area since January. The illegal invasion of our country continues.

Yet, last week, Newt Gingrich, a likely Republican candidate for president in 2008 who has characterized the border situation as "absurd," said he would oppose using troops. Instead, he said, he would favor dramatically expanding the Border Patrol.

Indeed, the Border Patrol must be expanded dramatically. But that takes time. It will likely take years for us to train enough Border Patrol agents to do the job effectively. In the meantime, our national security is threatened.

There is no other option for us than to use the military.

The border needs to be secured now. Then we can examine the best options for demilitarization – technology, security fences, increased Border Patrol presence.

The Minutemen showed us it is possible to secure a significant stretch of the border with civilian volunteers. If civilians can do the job on a 23-mile stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border, there is no question the military can do the job.

The military has aircraft, it has high-tech equipment and it has manpower.

Some suggest the job is not appropriate for the military. I would submit defending the nation's borders is the most important and appropriate mission of the U.S. military.

The primary goal of the military should be defending the homeland – not projecting force around the world.

There are times when the projection of military force around the world is necessary for our national security, but not at the expense of leaving the homeland defenseless.

We don't have much time left.

Every day we leave our borders unguarded is another day we risk a major terrorist strike inside our country. We are literally inviting an attack bigger and more devastating than Sept. 11.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to hear about Social Security reform or any other priority from this administration until I hear the plan for securing our border right now. Social Security reform is not possible if millions continue to enter our country illegally. Social Security reform will be meaningless if nuclear-armed terrorists enter out country and destroy a major city. Social Security reform will not be the legacy of this administration if the very character of our country is transformed by uncontrolled immigration.

The time for excuses is over.

The American people have had it.

Illegal immigration is no longer just a regional issue in America, it affects every community in the nation

We will not be able to solve any other problem – from health care to energy to crime – without addressing the border. In fact, all of our other problems will only be magnified until we stop the invasion.

There is no other way, in the short term, besides mobilizing the military.

A political leader who embraces this crisis and lays out a simple plan of action for the American people will quickly become the most popular political figure in the nation.

Who is going to rise to the occasion?

[26lemoncharlie]

Put the Navy on the border. lol!
_________________________________

As a Retired Navy Chief, I can assure you - that is a Very Dangerous thing to do. they WILL shoot first then ask questions later. This is because we nust maintain a safety zone between our ship other vessels. They are not as bad shots as many would have you believe either.

[ASA Vet]

You can't be a police officer in this country before the age of 21.

Not true. I've known several PO's who are under 21. (They had to have their mom buy their handgun ammo.)

[Iron Matron]

The primary goal of the military should be defending the homeland – not projecting force around the world.

Our representatives, from the Top on Down, are under the order of WE THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE are growing tired of seeing Children and Misfits running this Country as if it were their personal possession to treat as they please.

WE THE PEOPLE must excersize Our CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY and demand action to protect the United States. If the demanded action is not taken, we once again refer to the Constitution, and begin legal action, prosecute and remove TRAITORS from Office

Am I wrong? Is the Constitution FOR THE PEOPLE or not?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

The American people have had it.

A LONG time ago.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

They can do that because their laws are different. Do we really want to see our Army come in and take over one of our cities?

We had better control our borders and societal values or your statement is going to be rather prophetic. Problem is, it won't be OUR military coming in to take over our cities.

[swampfox98]

Who is going to rise to the occasion?

I'd like to rise to the occasion, bring the troops home from Iraq and put them on the border. However, I'm told that the only reason I remain on FR is that I am one of the inconsequentials. So guess that lets me out, when even on a conservative website poor swampfox98 is inconsequential. snif

And give Newtie this message: No way will this conservative ever vote for you or your friend Hillary.

[Iron Matron]

Secondly it is unfair to burden the American taxpayer with the longterm cost of a problem that originates outside our country.

The problem is that the problem originates outside our Border, then it overflows to THIS side, and that is this Countries only concern. Let Vicente take care of his own!

The greatest burden to the Taxpayer is not paying for the military, its paying to support illegals. I'd rather pay OUR SOLDIERS than the burdens we already carry from the POS Illegals living here:

Hospitals closing from free Medical for Illegals

Cost to educate illegals.

Cost to feed them.

Lost jobs to the non-taxpaying illegal.

Illegals filling our prisons, killing our people, damaging private property..

The Borders should be Militarized. That is what we have a Military for!

I consider the United States Government, as it is, is traitorous until our borders are secure!

[KeyWest]

"So there really is no legal impediment to using the military to secure our borders."

Then there is no legal impediment for the President to use the military to seize your home, which is why the Magna Carta was signed and why we do not use the military for law enforcement. And I did read the article and the author thinks some of those actions are slippery slope. Once you transfer legal power to the military you remove Congress and the law is not longer "we the people" but "Mr. President". I was in the military and we did not like any attempt to put us in a position of law enforcement. And there were many, as noted by so many posts here demanding it. Dangerous in a democracy.

[Abundy]

I'm not advocating using the military for law enforcement as I agree with you that this should never be done - I'm advocating using the military to secure our country's borders.

There is a difference.

[Fishrrman]

backtothestreets writes:
This doesn't end until there is major change in Mexico, and they are not capable of making the necessary changes themselves.

Correct on both points.

The only way the changes can be made is for the United States to invade Mexico, overthrow the government, and force the provinces of Mexico into statehood.

If we do not conquer them (and subjugate their culture into ours), they will conquer _us_ by default, through the "invasion" that is going on now, with the consent (by silence and inaction) of our leaders in Washington, of BOTH politcal parties.

Call it manifest destiny, if you wish. And who cares what the rest of the world may think?

Cheers!
- John

[FBD]

I think RebelBanker has a point. Militarizing our border would definitly help, but sooner or later, there would be an "incident".
The only way soldiers on our border would be non-confrontational with Mexico, would be if they only carried sidearms for personal protection, and served as border observers/reporters, like the Minutemen did.

BTW, Here's a 1995 quote from Sobran:

---

"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal.
If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative.
If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate.
If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."--Joseph Sobran (1995)

[varon]

You act as though the killing of an illegal alien is something that is not acceptable.

You have arrived at this conclusion based on what?

The only comment I've made on this thread was "Remember, the army also takes prisoners." How you draw your conclusion from my statement is beyond my comprehension.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"The military is successful at security - of its own and of others. NK/SK border is a prime example."

The message along the DMZ is that our troops are willing to kill invaders. Even with that message North Korean commandos slip across occasionally.

If we aren't willing to kill we shouldn't use the military. The MinuteMen Project is the best idea I've seen and it should be expanded. Even the MMP will eventually have to deal with lethal violence, but I trust that they will will handle that when it comes.

If we are willing to use force, I hope LRS and Marine Recon are the tool of choice.

Michael Frazier

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Where there is no will, there is no way."

I think you have it exactly right.

Michael Frazier

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Is illegal immigration an act of war?

If the answer is yes then the troops should be deployed and act accordingly."

For me this is the bottom line. I believe it is, in fact, an invasion but I doubt that our domestic enemies will see it that way.

Michael Frazier

[citizen]

Tancredo-08 bump

[backtothestreets]

"Unless you are advocating waging war on Mexico"

I am. Due to the proximity of the Mexican border cities, the corruption encasing those communities, the inability of the Mexican government to stem the growth in the numbers of Mexican citizens that must rely on the corruption for their livelihood, and the fact WMD's wouldn't have to cross our border, but merely be close to have a devastating impact on our civilian and military population, yes, I see this as the only long term solution. Skip all the Band-Aid approaches and get on with the surgery.

[Marauder]

bullets go both ways

True enough, but without the Guard or the military on the border, the bullets will go only one way. And according to recent reports, there are plenty of bullets flying in exotic places like Nuevo Laredo. Mrs. Marauder and I love to take trips to Mexico, but it's kind of a scary proposition these days.

I understand what you're saying, but we are under assault here, and we direly need to defend the borders. There aren't enough Border Patrol agents to do the job. But this is the first I've heard of our BP agents patrolling other countries' borders. What's up with that?