First troops in Bush's border plan arrive

AP on Yahoo ^ | 6/3/06 | Jacques Billeaud - ap

[NormsRevenge]

The emphasis of the NG will be on providing training, auxiliary support and also in building up an infrastructure along the border to support the increased number of troops and border patrol to be included in this border mission. This will likely include new communication, transportation , holding facilities and living areas.

The 115th has the talents that the doctor ordered as the mission starts out. Expect more of the same is the best bet.

[old republic]

Thanks for the infomation. It is very interesting. I think Article I Sec.10 would govern this situation because it is illegal for states to enter into any agreement without the consent of Congress unless there is an emergency that will not admit for delay. The fact that the NG is not being allowed to use guns is ridiculous, but it also implies a lack of urgency. This section does however, provide that states may enter into compacts if actually invaded. The ironic part is that by urging the states to do this Bush is implicitly admitting legally that the US is being invaded. In any case, here is Article I Sec.10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[cousair]

I live in Washington State. All day today and over the weekend, our local radio stations have been broadcasting that the Governors of both Washington (illegally elected Christine Gregoire) and Oregon have told their respective National Guard units they DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE BORDER IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, that this order should be voluntary. I understand that is not the case coming from the White House when the President ordered it. Does anyone know more about this, and since when can a state pick and choose what they will or won't do. Border security is just that, BORDER SECURITY!

[Once-Ler]

You should check out the polls that consistently put 80%+ of the American public on my side of this issue.

The polls are lies until election day. Where is the leader who is ready to galvanize the angry and ignored American electorate? Why do no men of stature choose to side with this mythic 80% you claim is on your side. Why does the rat media prop up a pip squeak congressmen Tancredo who can't advance to even a statewide seat, and speech writer Buchanan who captured an asterisk in 2000. Where are your hero Senators and Governors? I believe reality over media sponsored polls. When I see both rats and Republicans embrace deporting illegals on cargo trains then I will believe 80% is on your side. Right now I doubt over 20% of Americans care about immigration one way or the other. Your faith of polls in the face of common sense is remarkable, but I suppose if polls were saying what I wanted to hear I would want to believe them also.

I think there will be more seat turnover within the GOP than between parties, as those willing to sell our country to Vincente Fox find out that Americans aren't too happy about becoming second-class citizens in our own country.

Well if you and the 80% are going to knock off bad Republicans in the primaries you better get cracking. Of the 233 House GOPers, 158 have already been renominated by the party.

It will be fun to watch the polls as we near Nov and discover the rats, once again, have swallowed the media poll koolaid and lost the elections. The GOP will add seats in the Senate and retain a majority in the House. Here in WI we will win back the Governors seat and the AG seat.

Men of reason will hold their noses if they must but they will vote GOP. The alternative is rat rule.

[La Enchiladita]

I read your homepage and learned something, thank you. It really cleared up my head.

So, based on that, isn't it absurd to send unarmed troops to the border?

I.e., can they not carry out their engineering duties while carrying a weapon? How does that work when they are doing the same thing in Iraq? Aren't there at least armed troops standing guard?

It seems unwise, to say the least, to be anywhere near our southern border without a weapon.

[Terabitten]

Thanks for the infomation. It is very interesting. I think Article I Sec.10 would govern this situation because it is illegal for states to enter into any agreement without the consent of Congress unless there is an emergency that will not admit for delay. The fact that the NG is not being allowed to use guns is ridiculous, but it also implies a lack of urgency. This section does however, provide that states may enter into compacts if actually invaded. The ironic part is that by urging the states to do this Bush is implicitly admitting legally that the US is being invaded. In any case, here is Article I Sec.10: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article I Section 10 doesn't say that states cannot have agreements with each other - it says that states cannot enter into such compacts without consent of Congress. I believe that there is a longstanding consent for use of National Guard troops (along with about a billion other topics that various states have agreements with each other on.)

[Terabitten]

I live in Washington State. All day today and over the weekend, our local radio stations have been broadcasting that the Governors of both Washington (illegally elected Christine Gregoire) and Oregon have told their respective National Guard units they DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE BORDER IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, that this order should be voluntary. I understand that is not the case coming from the White House when the President ordered it. Does anyone know more about this, and since when can a state pick and choose what they will or won't do. Border security is just that, BORDER SECURITY!

Unless the Federal Government "federalizes" the National Guard, they belong to the state governor. Now, the FedGov has a BIG stick in this, in that the FedGov provides around 95% of the funding for the National Guards of most states. So, Washington state and Oregon both risk essentially losing their NG units if the Federal Gov't pulls the funding for them. The Department of the Army would likely just convert those units to US Army Reserve instead of Army National Guard. The Governor can't touch USAR.

[Terabitten]

I read your homepage and learned something, thank you. It really cleared up my head. I.e., can they not carry out their engineering duties while carrying a weapon? How does that work when they are doing the same thing in Iraq? Aren't there at least armed troops standing guard?

Typically, they would still carry their personal weapons (M4 rifle) slung on their back while they worked. I think they should be armed for this mission as well. Often times, however, an infantry unit will be detailed to provide security for an engineer (or other specialty troop) unit. Who knows, USBP may be providing security for them, God knows they've got enough firepower.

[old republic]

Thanks again. I know that states can enter into compacts with the consent of Congress, but they cannot without Congress' consent barring any extraordinary circumstances. I'm interested in knowing that if there are agreements about the NG what are the names of the legal agreements, what are the terms of such agreements, and when were they approved by Congress.

[cousair]

Thanks for your answer. I knew the Gov had that power, but I guess border security isn't an issue unless the President makes it so and federalizes the NG. My main reason for the remark was that nowhere in the MSM has this been reported to my knowledge.