Posted on 05/13/2006 11:59:55 AM PDT by street_lawyer
To do more than deploy the National Guard to patrol the US border with Mexico, the President will most likely need Congressional approval. See: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1385 entitled Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act - Prohibits search, seizure, or arrest powers to US military personnel. Amended in 1981 under Public Law 97-86 to permit increased Department of Defense support of drug interdiction and other law enforcement activities. Certainly preventing illegal border crossings would involve "other law enforcement activities", and perhaps whatever activities have been sanctioned in drug cases could be used to prevent any illegal entry into the country without Congressional approval. But no doubt if the President chooses by executive order to federalize the National Guard, liberals will enjoy a field day confirming what they already want us to believe that the President believes he is a twenty-first a monarch.
If the President intends to call upon Congress to authorize the use of the National Guard pursuant to the Posse Comitatus Act, such a demand will put each Congressmen on the front line of the battle, and each no vote will be seen as a vote for permitting illegal entry. Before that happens expect anyone who is opposed to increasing border security to start spinning the President's intentions today before he speaks so that they may have what will seem to be a credible objection.
Expect the opponents of increasing border security to say that the military is already too stretched out, and that the National Guard personnel who are serving in Iraq should not be extended to patrol the borders, but should be allowed to return to their jobs and to their families. Already the governors of California and New Mexico expressed concern about troop deployments. Approximately170 National Guard troops, funded by the federal government, already do drug interdiction missions in Arizona. It would seen that there is legal precedent and no legal obstacle to deploying further National Guard units along the borders of other stats like California and New Mexico for the same purpose. If the advance estimates are correct the President may be considering deploying as many as 10,000 troops.
The governors who have been in charge of the National Guard units of their States are opposed to the federalization of the Guard units. In New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson who has deployed a mere 68 National Guard troops is already complaining about what the President is expected to unveil Monday night at prime time from the Oval Office. The pretext is that deploying more troops to protect US borders might hamper an emergency response to some possible national disaster. Like eleven million illegals and a porous border is not an economic and political disaster of national proportions.
The fact remains that the Federal and State governments have not shown a will to solve the illegal immigration epidemic that some say will ruin the country and turn it into a haven for the poor of foreign countries. To be sure if Congress really wanted to find and apprehend illegals working in the US the place to start with legislation would be to require the IRS to turn over the names and addresses of all illegals who have registered for tax ID numbers. But then that would be penalizing those who actually do pay taxes and leave the worst of them free to continue hiding and evading taxes. If the States were interested in apprehending and punishing illegals, then perhaps the place to start would be State Courthouses where many illegals are employed by contractors who clean the halls of justice. Perhaps if both Republicans and Democrats wanted to stop illegal immigration the place to start would have been during the Carter administration. The Carter administration proposed comprehensive immigration legislation in 1977, but the Congress showed no disposition to act.
The terms of the "new" immigration bill, proposed by the new near fundamentalists McCain and a somewhat sober Ted Kennedy, is not actually anything new. The same proposals were being circulated by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy sometime in the late 70ties. Because of the obsession with violating someone's civil rights based upon their nationality, Congress would not pass a strong employer penalty bill since doing so might result in employers discriminating against Latinos. Since Congress will not pass a bill that would require legal workers to carry secure identification, the argument is that employers cannot protect themselves from innocently employing illegal workers. Many conservatives and a few others see a guest worker program as rewarding lawlessness and inviting more illegals in the future to migrate into the US.
What Congress has been successful in creating is a new industry for easily forged documents, like social security cards and driver's licenses. Because of Congress and past amnesty programs, three million illegal aliens became eligible for US Citizenship. Eighty one percent of those workers were employed in Agriculture. But the true magnitude of the number of new foreign residents is geometrically larger because the amnesty program set into motion the reunification of millions of more family members. If Congress were truly interested in walling out Mexicans, it could authorize economic sanctions against a Mexican government that some believe has actually assisted its citizens to illegally cross the border into the US. Instead the (SCIRP) recommended in July 1990 that the US establish a free-trade area between Mexico and the US.
If the proponents of illegal workers are correct and there actually exists a market for unskilled labor that cannot be filled by American workers, then perhaps what is needed is a more comprehensive legal immigration policy that will allow foreign workers to compete for jobs with Americans or take jobs that Americans are unwilling to fill. The number of admissions can be linked to the prevailing labor market conditions in order to fill a demonstrated labor shortage until such time as Americans are available for those jobs. One suggestion is to shift worker immigration back to the Labor Department from the Department of Justice as it was during WWII.
The discretionary admission into the country of anyone simply for the purpose of improving their economic condition is a contentious issue. While the US has always been open to foreigners seeking a better life, the time has come for Congress and the States to first care for their own by finding incentives for the urban poor to move into agriculture instead of relying upon public assistance, by reducing the number of literates who lack the skills necessary for employment, by controlling health care costs for those who cannot afford to pay, or improving the quality of life in urban centers by reducing the incidences of crime and the distribution of illegal drugs. When all these issues are resolved, then perhaps Congress can turn again to a more open door policy where foreigners who love America as we do can enjoy the fruits of a truly democratic country with so much to offer.
I got such a large response to a typo in my last post title that I thought I'd give the same people something to comment on this time again. (allert) sp?
U r the koncervativ defendir of faeith?
LOL The thread nannies are on the way. :o)
Good job, thanks.
Knot anohter vanitie! :)
VVannitty Allert?
We already have this -- H1B.
Do we want to be winners or losers? If we want to be winners, we will laugh at the MSM's prediction of doom for Republicans and turn out in huge numbers to increase the Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
If we want to be losers, we'll take our cues from the MSM and go into the corner somewhere to sulk.
The misspelled word took attention away from the information in the article.
Of course Congress will do nothing. All these illegals are potential voters who can be promised goodies in return for votes.
I thought you spelled it V-A-N-N-I-T-Y.
While it is quite true that D.C. is derelict in their duties, most especially protecting our borders, so are the state and local politicians, and other forms of enforcement. With the exception of Joe Arpaio, they all oughta be fired and strung up by their toes...
It was intentional and an inside joke.
git redy fer thu maroons.
I assume you mean that Democrat Congressmen want illegals since they will most likely vote for a free ride, believe the bs about how Republicans are for big business. And don't we have a system at the polling places to stop illegal voters? Or do we just rob servicemen of their right to vote because they are mostly Republicans who understand that Democrats are dangerous to their health?
"I thought you spelled it V-A-N-N-I-T-Y"
I think you do but I wanted to see if anyone would realize that there were actually two missspellled words there.
BTW
it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
>olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
>pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
>pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
>istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
>slpeling
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.