Put U.S. Troops on U.S. Borders

A group of House Republicans called on President Bush last week to station U.S. military forces on U.S. borders to stop illegal immigration and to ensure that foreign terrorists cannot sneak into the United States undetected.

The congressmen held a press conference to publicly make the request one week after Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge informed them in a closed briefing that the administration had no intention of using U.S. forces to secure the U.S. border.

"Just since September 11, almost 500,000 aliens have entered this country illegally," said Rep. Jim Ramstad (R.-Minn.) at the June 18 press conference. "We must use all necessary resources and that unavoidably means using our military."

Ramstad’s figure of 500,000 illegal aliens since September 11 could be an understatement. Privately, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials estimate that, as a rule of thumb, one to two illegal aliens succeed in entering the country each year for every illegal alien they actually catch. The number of illegal aliens intercepted each year ordinarily exceeds 1 million. In fiscal 2001, the INS intercepted 1.2 million. That would mean, according to the agency’s rule of thumb, somewhere between 1.2 million and 2.4 million illegal aliens succeeded in entering the United States last year. (The INS estimates that about 275,000 of these settled down to become permanent illegal U.S. residents.)

It is unknown, of course, how many of these 1.2 million to 2.4 million illegal aliens are violent criminals or terrorists.

Since illegal aliens by definition are not given pre-visa background checks, and are not identified or questioned in any way at the border, it is impossible for the government to know whether any terrorist crossed the U.S. frontier yesterday, or will cross it today, or, so long as we leave the border essentially undefended, will cross it tomorrow.

The government already has demonstrated it cannot at this time effectively track visitors who enter the country with legal visas, let alone those who enter illegally. After last year’s terrorist attacks, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft ordered U.S. attorneys around the country to seek out and interview 4,793 Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 33 who had entered the United States on legal temporary visas between Jan. 1, 2000, and Sept. 11, 2001. Ashcroft later announced that the government had found only 2,261 of these men. Of the remaining 2,532, the Justice Department believed 680 had left the country. That means there are approximately 1,785 young Middle Eastern men who entered the U.S. before September 11 and whom the Justice Department cannot find who are now roaming around the United States.

And that does not count Middle Eastern men who entered the country after September 11.

The State Department told Human Events (see cover story, April 8) that between September 12 and March 31, it had issued approximately 50,000 new temporary visas to foreign nationals wishing to visit the United States from the non-Israeli Middle East. In that same period, State said, it had also issued more than 140,000 temporary visas to people wishing to visit the United States from the arc of South Asian nations running from Pakistan through India to Bangladesh.

This large influx of legal visitors from areas of the globe where Islam is a significant or dominant religion, heaped on top of the massive influx of utterly unmonitored illegal aliens who cross our undefended borders, demonstrates the scope of the security problem the U.S. faces in trying to detect, track and capture terrorists who come here intending to harm Americans.

"It’s been nine months, and the borders are no more secure today than they were on September 11," said Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the 65-member Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, which sponsored the press conference. "It will take years for the new [Homeland Defense] agency to be fully functional. That will be too late."

Tancredo insisted that the President has the authority to immediately put troops on the U.S. border to provide tactical and logistical support to the Border Patrol, although the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents members of the military from actually stopping and detaining foreign nationals once they cross the border into U.S. territory.

"The President has the authority to put troops on the border today," said Tancredo.

In fact, the House has already voted to amend the Posse Comitatus Act to make it possible for military forces to patrol the border for the actual purpose of stopping people from coming in illegally, or capturing them if they do.

Rep. Virgil Goode (I.-Va.) offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill (HR 4546) on May 10 that would give the U.S. military the power to police the border and arrest illegal aliens. The amendment passed by a vote of 232 to 183. (See Human Events rollcall, May 20, page 19.) All GOP House leaders except Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), who normally abstains from floor votes, voted for the measure. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) and House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman George Gekas (R.-Pa.) also voted aye. The House has passed similar legislation before, but in the past it has always died in the Senate.

Tancredo said that in the wake of September 11 and in the face of a continuing threat from foreign terrorists intent on committing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, the Senate should now pass the measure and send it to President Bush. Yet, so far not one senator has agreed to sponsor it.

The President in recent months has appeared reluctant to support any legislation that might spark controversy and remove points from the soaring job-approval rating he has enjoyed since September 11. It is unlikely, however, that signing a bill to allow U.S. forces to actually defend the U.S. border against illicit intruders would cost the President politically.

To make this point, Tancredo cited a recent Zogby poll that found 68% of likely voters in the United States agreeing that "the U.S. should deploy military troops on the border as a temporary measure to help the U.S. Border Patrol curb illegal immigration."

Speakers at the press conference also called attention to the most recent alleged incursion into the United States by Mexican troops. The INS announced on June 14 that a Border Patrol agent had discovered a Chevrolet Suburban containing 21 illegal aliens inside the United States near Calexico, Calif. Eight had been shot, and some of the aliens claimed that it was Mexican soldiers who had shot them.

The White House did not respond to calls from Human Events seeking the President’s reaction to this congressional proposal to put U.S. troops on the U.S. border. Two days after the press conference, on June 20, Tancredo said that he had not received any reaction on the proposal from the White House either. (See story below, however, for another type of reaction the White House had to Tancredo.)

At a congressional briefing a week earlier, Ramstad had asked Ridge directly if the administration would consider using troops at the border to stop illegal aliens and terrorists. Ridge told the congressmen that "there were cultural and historical reasons not to do it," said Tancredo.

At the press conference, Bill King, retired chief Border Patrol agent, estimated that 20,000 troops would be needed to secure the border. There are approximately 10,000 Border Patrol agents. "There have been up to 120 incursions [by Mexican troops or police] in the last six years," said King.

Some of the congressmen supporting the proposal have expressed amazement that the U.S. government is willing to deploy U.S. troops all across the globe to defend the borders of foreign nations, but is unwilling to deploy U.S. troops at U.S. borders to defend our own nation. "We have National Guardsmen policing in Bosnia but not here," said Rep. Nathan Deal (R.-Ga.).

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mike Halbig sounded cool to the idea of troops on the border, which he said on June 19 was not under discussion at the Department of Defense "as far as I know. It’s not a Department of Defense mission. We have no wish to militarize the border." He noted "the Defense Department currently has 1,600 National Guard members supporting the INS and Customs at the border on a temporary basis."

At the press conference, Tancredo called on President Bush to at least "extend this temporary program, which expires in September, and keep the National Guard’s help at the border and points of entry."

Ramstad circulated a letter addressed to President Bush that at least a dozen congressmen signed last week. "Congress has broadened the military’s role several times since the enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act," the letter said. "We are currently working to give you greater authority in utilizing the military on our borders. The U.S. House recently passed an amendment to the FY03 Department of Defense authorization bill that would allow the direct involvement of our military in assisting U.S. Customs and INS agents in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens into the U.S."

Tancredo told Human Events the congressmen did not want the focus to be on the Mexican border alone. "We have had more identifiable terrorists come across the Canadian border," he said June 20. "When we say the border, we mean the thing that goes all the way around the United States."

There are "cultural and historical" reasons not to deploy the U.S military to protect our borders, eh Tom? Methinks you're not qualified to be our first Homeland Security Secretary. Its evident you think the need to avoid offending Mexican sensitivities is more important than keeping Americans safe from future terrorist attacks. Well now we all know why you have so little clout in Washington and it ain't cause you're not a Cabinet Secretary with an empire; its because what comes out of your mouth doesn't make sense. More's the pity.

Militarizing the borders would be dangerous window dressing. If we love freedom, the last thing we want is to have the military meddling in civilian affairs.

A better solution would be to beef up the Border Patrol and start deporting serious numbers of Illegals out of the American Interior.

And no more Amnesty, ever.

Give Vicente Fox a huge powder, a Mickey, a whatever....since It ain't his damn call.. Last we heard, GW is still President.

When was the last time anyone bombed Mexico City? Same applies for Canada, EH?

I guess Bush thinks he'll lose Hispanic votes, but many of them are FOR this.
I read, or heard on TV quite a while back that the government was afraid to put the military on the border because they were afraid they'd be corrupted by the drug dealers!?
Bill O'Rielly is harping on this and may get something done.

Dumbya is an idiot. His wholehearted support for an Open border has nothing to do with votes, it has to do with cheap labor. Bush is doing NOTHING to stop illegal immigration in this country. Vincente Fox runs Bush's Mexico policy just as Saudi Arabia runs his Middle Eastern policy.

Yeah, we patrol everyone ELSE'S border except for our own.

Militarizing the border is the only way to seal up the border. More bureaucrats can't. We're being INVADED, the military should PROTECT us.

But since Vincente Fox is in charge of our borders, it will never happen. I doubt that Dumbya would even use the term "illegal alien", or even knows how to spell it.

Deny he is implementing left wing policy after left wing policy...

I haven't liked everything he's done, but we don't know everything he knows, and his reasons for doing so.

He was a good governor of my state, and I believe him to be a moral man. Maybe he's insuring his second term so he can do things then without fear. I hope so.

Yeah, that's it. Running to the extreme left "just to get re-elected so he can REALLY do what he wants".

The excuses for Chimpy W are getting beyond absurd.

And to even suggest that his lurches to the extreme left are OK because "we don't know everything he knows" is an insult. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a 60% increase in Fed ed spending is bad policy.

LOL, I just looked at your profile page and you've been here awhile!! Look, I like Bush just like I can't stand Clinton. Until he does something I consider really bad, I'm for him.

Why, because he isnt clapping like a chimp for non-conservative G.W Bush?

This is the kind of talk that in popular on 'another' forum. I think you two are soulmates. Have at it with each other!

The military option simply isn't going to happen, short of a real shooting war. Washington D.C. is spineless, and we also need to follow the money trail. Bush is looking like a poser (and yes, I voted for him) who's inexplicable leftist actions could get him sh-tcanned in 2004.

However, I'm on the "wait-and-see after the elections" bandwagon, in a vain hope that he's just paving the way for a GOP controlled Senate. And he damned well better be, for I have not begun to bash....yet.

"His wholehearted support for an Open border has nothing to do with votes, it has to do with cheap labor. Bush is doing NOTHING to stop illegal immigration in this country. Vincente Fox runs Bush's Mexico policy just as Saudi Arabia runs his Middle Eastern policy."

I agree. But I don't think he's an idiot, I think hes a corporate bought and paid for pol just like the rest of them. Thank God for a few good men.

Troops on the border will not change anything. Why do people think that the military, which is controlled by the same government that controls the INS/Border Patrol is going to be so effective at controlling our border? It is not.

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.