Posted on 05/21/2004 3:46:15 PM PDT by Libloather
House OKs bill to let U.S. soldiers guard border
Sergio Bustos
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- U.S. soldiers may be asked to keep undocumented immigrants and potential terrorists out of the country.
The House on Thursday passed a defense authorization bill, which includes a provision that would let U.S. troops join with U.S. Border Patrol agents in guarding the nation's borders with Canada and Mexico.
The bill authorizes Defense Department programs for the coming fiscal year, which will begin Oct. 1. The border troop amendment, championed by Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., passed the House late Wednesday by a 40-vote margin, 231-191.
The provision stands little chance of surviving beyond the House because it was not part of the Senate's version of the defense bill.
"If troops were needed, they could be of significant assistance to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens, and could prevent the entry of weapons of mass destruction into our country," Goode said.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, who spent 26 years with the U.S. Border Patrol and opposed the amendment, said it was "simply the wrong solution to our current problems along the border."
"This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia and over 100 other countries around the world," he said. "We cannot and we should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders."
Southern Arizona lawmakers whose districts run along the U.S.-Mexico border echoed Reyes' argument.
"Border security is and continues to be a top priority for me and for the Congress as a whole," said Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Tucson.
"But the Goode amendment would militarize our border and stretch the resources of our Army."
Down boy! Hahaha, let's do a "Rachel Corrie" on them. Get a line of bulldozers coming at them and see what they do.
"The Constitutional mandate for the federal government to help the states "repel invaders" is a completely separate issue from the "use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement.""
Yep. National borders, national issue.
This would be different if they were using army troops to secure the border between indiana and illinois. But they're not. They would be acting in a true 'national interest'.
Also, one of the most interesting proposals I've seen was on FR - build a couple new army bases in the desert southweest. We're going to be fighting in desert climes for some time, so it makes as much sense to one or more 'desert division'.
Soldiers get trained there, and part of their training is in securing a border area. Almost perfect dual use plan.
bttt
LOl With that way of thinking it won't be long before you're on the cover of Time Magazine holding your gun.
I like where you're going with your two points (19 and 20.) However, they belong in a document which outlines "how to become and American citizen" which should have a bunch of points. I do like your point which makes citizenship conditional on lawful behavior for ten years. May be tough to get in such a bill.
I don't think that the current administration will allow that.
Probably will never happen. If his district is drawn up like Gephardts 3rd District up here in Mo., its gerrymandered full of democratic voters will will keep voting for him no matter what.
Another thing that chaps my butt, are that most immigration judges and BIA appear to be a bunch of social engineering activists with little regard for the law. Their decisions are public record and folks should really see the kinds of aliens that grant relief to. I can't help to wonder if there isn't any corruption involved when an IJ allows convicted felons to remain in the U.S.
I don't believe it will come to that, whenever labor becomes scarce or expensive innovation kicks in. I'd be willing to bet that if every illegal were deported within a few years you'd see some sort of mechanization of a lot of these jobs, and the ones that were left would pay a high enough wage to attract native born workers. This mantra that without illegal labor the economy would shut down is a crock.
But, Repubbies ALWAYS mess important legislation like this up
As long as they don't cross the border (why would we? What's in the hellhole known as mexico that we want?) what difference does it make?
As long as they don't cross the border (why would we? What's in the hellhole known as mexico that we want?) what difference does it make?
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.