Only 483 Guard Working on Mexican Border

On the deadline to have 2,500 troops along the Mexican border, the National Guard said Friday that only 483 were in position and working with the U.S. Border Patrol as the Bush administration had directed.

But Guard officials said more than 2,000 others were somewhere inside the four southwestern border states, training or helping plan the deployment. He and Bush administration officials argued Friday that the presence of troops in those states spelled success in the first stage of the mission.

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, an arm of the Pentagon, had promised June 1 that by the end of the month 2,500 Guard troops would be working "on the border."

"As defined by the operation, the National Guard has met and exceeded its goal of deploying 2,500 soldiers and airmen to the four Southwest border states," said White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier. "Progress to date is real and the Guard's efforts are making a positive difference in this national effort."

As evidence, he said the early arrival of troops had allowed the Border Patrol to send 125 agents "back to the front lines," and helped the Border Patrol catch nearly 200 illegal immigrants, seize 123 pounds of marijuana, 18 pounds of cocaine and seven vehicles.

Through initial pay requests filed with the Air Guard and orders filed with the Army Guard, the Guard bureau verified 2,547 troops were in the four border states for the mission, said Daniel Donohue, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau.

The remaining forces _ 1,816 _ are in training somewhere in the four states; 248 are assigned to headquarters and planning roles, Donohue said.

Asked to clarify, Blum spokesman Mark Allen responded by e-mail that the general had never specifically promised to deliver troops to a "geographically defined latitude and longitude."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said 1,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen were either on the border or "on their way," adding 500 to totals released Thursday. But his office said the additional troops didn't actually reach the border, but were considered deployed when they left Friday for two weeks of training.

Several states whose Guard leaders and governors had been contacted by the National Guard Bureau in the last 48 hours also made announcements Friday that they would send troops.

Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina said he would reluctantly deploy 300 troops to the border in mid-July.

"I would prefer not to have any of the North Carolina National Guard deployed to other states at this time," he said. "However, the Guard units in the western states are spread thin as they battle raging wildfires. We must all step up and do our part to keep our country safe."

Kentucky announced it would send up to 650 National Guard troops. Arkansas also said it would send 200. New Jersey also said it would send up to 650 for three-week assignments.

Damon Foreman, senior patrol agent and spokesman for the Border Patrol in San Diego, said agents there eagerly await the Guard's help.

"We would welcome all the help we could get. We could absorb them as fast as we could give them instructions on what to do," Foreman said, adding that the delayed deployment, however, had not affected operations.

"We've been doing a considerably effective job for a long time now, we'll keep doing our job whether the whole number of Guard show up tomorrow, a week from tomorrow, or a month from now."

Bush's plan for stemming illegal immigration by using National Guardsmen in a support role called for 2,500 troops to be on the border by June 30, and 6,000 by the end of July.

Bush had said the mission would free up thousands of officers now on other duties to actively patrol the border. Guardsmen are expected to build fences, conduct routine surveillance and take care of other administrative duties for the border patrol.

You obviously have an I Q problem, so I will no longer waste my time. I repeat, you are a fraud, and Bush is pro illegal immigration, and for 5 years has done everything humanly possible to enable same. He gets an A+ for the WOT overseas, and an F over here. Now, go pound sand with someone else!

You posted to me first, peabrain, then continued to respond to my posts. So put away your pretentious huffiness. You fancy yourself because of your "international financier" position, but nobody gives a rat's ass what you do for a living.

You put up a list of offenses by illegals, I tell you they are Bush's fault, you get your panties in a wad for some reason or another, then basically agree with me.

And I'M the one with the IQ problem?

Sinkspur: "There have been no attacks since 9/11. Bush is protecting the nation just fine."

""Over 19,000 Americans have died a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens since 9/11 (12 a day).*

Over 20,000 Americans have died at the hands of uninsured drunk driving illegal aliens since 9/11 (13 a day).*

Over 13,000 American children are the victim of a sex crime at the hands of illegal aliens since 9/11 (8 a day).*

Less than 7,000 Americans have died on 9/11 and after due to terrorism, including those who died fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is the bigger threat to Americans today, terrorist thugs or illegal aliens?

*Source – “Biting the hand that feeds you”. Written by Congressman Steve King (R, IA) on April 25, 2006.

Source link:

http://www.kingforcongress.com/clippings/desk-immigration4-06.htm

Are those tens of thousands of injured Americans not part of the "nation", sinkspur??

Or, in your world, do you have to have an Arab surname to bring harm to the American people?

From the desk of...

Congressman Steve King - Iowa, Fifth District

Biting the Hand That Feeds You - April 25, 2006

On May 1st, the activists who brought you thousands of Mexican flags flying in marches down the streets of our cities are now bringing you "Nothing Gringo Day". With help from the Mexican government, Mexican unions, Mexican political groups, and through the Spanish language radio and newspapers, the call has gone out to make America experience a total boycott, both here and in Mexico. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Just the word "boycott" sparks the image of noble dissent in the face of economic or social oppression. I think of American colonials bucking British economic interests in retaliation to the Stamp Act. Or perhaps the ostracizing of Irish landlord Charles Boycott, the namesake of the verb for all tyrannized people. If not tyrannized, at least disgruntled. If not disgruntled, maybe just bored.

Yet, isn't the key to a successful boycott an economic or social upper-hand? The cost must be felt if the offending party be forced to reform. For example, how does boycotting a movie you had no intention of going to affect the box office? More people probably see a boycotted movie due to the attention than if it had simply been ignored.

President Carter thought he was on to something when he kept American athletes out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. That showed 'em. That particular boycott neither got the USSR out of Afghanistan nor brought down the Berlin Wall. It just caused our own athletes to suffer.

The May 1st anti-Gringo-fest is also being billed as "A Day Without Immigrants" which is a misnomer on a couple of counts. First, the threatened boycott fails to conjure the image of a Norwegian refusing to buy his May 1 lutefisk at the corner Fareway. Second, the pro-amnesty groups are insistent on confusing legal and illegal immigration. Let's not start mixing our apples and oranges. The issue before Congress is illegal immigration. Perhaps the May 1st boycott should give America a glimpse into "A Day Without ILLEGAL Immigration."

What would that May 1st look like without illegal immigration? There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80%. The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals. Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to anchor babies, to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals. Eight American children would not suffer the horror as a victim of a sex crime.

On the negative side, the price of a pound of tomatoes might go up from $0.79 to $0.80. That is unless you have a garden. But I'm guessing that the Mexican drug lords are not taking May 1st off. Neither will the 11,000 illegal invaders that pour over our border every other day of the year. It is a safe bet that the U.S. Border Patrol will have a very busy "Nothing Gringo Day."

Since September 11th, it remains true that OBL is the greatest threat to America. I will leave it to the reader to decide if the greatest threat is Osama bin Laden or the Open Borders Lobby. The emerging cheap labor "ruling class" in America is the strongest supporter of amnesty for illegals. Their anti-American "new servant class" has chosen to boycott them; the very definition of irony. On May 1st, Primero de Mayo, Americans will observe, as illegal immigrants celebrate, "Bite the Hand That Feeds You Day."

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.