Should the Military patrol our borders/ A poll to freep

http://www.nbc5i.com/firstatfour/index.html ^

[zipp_city]

Should the military patrol our borders

[dynachrome]

Should the military patrol the U.S. border for illegal immigrants?

Choice Votes Percentage of 505 Votes

Yes 485 96%

No 20 4%


So far, so good!

[MIchaelTArchangel]

No, but the military should be flying predators equipped with Hellfire missiles at the ready for the next time the Mexican military and/or police cross the border to provide covering fire for drug and human smugglers. The burning hulks complete with the fricassed remains of the invaders will give Vinnie the Fox something to think about.

[CONSERVE]

514
21

[Cailleach]

Should the military patrol the U.S. border for illegal immigrants?
Choice Votes Percentage of 541 Votes
Yes 520 96%
No 21 4%

[LadyNavyVet]

Posse comitatus wouldn't have to be repealed. All Congress would need to do is authorize the use of troops in this instance. The posse law is not as restrictive as many believe, and it was changed substantially in 1981 so the military could assist the police and Coast Guard in responding to drug smuggling. There are drugs coming across the southern border as we speak, I'm sure.

[claudiustg]

---The military on the border can be scaled back at any time, especially after an election. ---

You've got that right. Believe them not, for they are deceivers.

[El Gato]

Yeah, you'd have to partially repeal posse comitatus to pull that off. I'll assume that's part of the question and vote "yes." Limited repeal, of course.

No it would not. The Posse Commitatus act is more limited than you might think. If a governor requests federal help due to a breakdown in public order, the military can be sent in, as they were during the Rodney King riots.

But these are federal laws that would be enforced, but the military would not be enforcing them anyway, in the sense of arresting people for trial. They'd be pushing them back across the border, or just blocking them from crossing in the first place and repelling any armed incursions by the Mexican gangs, military or police, including the Federales (Federal Judical Police). If arrests were necessary, the Border Patrol could put liaison officers with the military units, and they could make the arrests.

Or do you think the federal military can't resist an intrusion on US territory, armed or not, without an act of Congress? Posse Commitatus does not go that far. By your notion, the Destroyer which fired the first shots of WW-II (for the US, in the Pacific) was violating the Act. War had not been declared, so I guess they should have sent for federal marshalls when they spotted the mini-sub trying to sneak into Pearl Harbor. (BTW, the hit the sub and presumably caused it to sink. Not long ago the sub was found with a nice hole, of the same size as the destroyer's gun, in it's conning tower. :) )

[Gordongekko909]

Yeah, limited repeal. Which is, I guess, not the best way to describe it: I mean stick an exception into the law to allow for troops to be used for this purpose.

[Dante3]

YES: 96%

[Gordongekko909]

I'd be more comfortable with military personnel able to make the arrests themselves, just in case the people coming over flee in rather than out when they see the National Guard coming. Handing this function off between agencies just seems goofy.

I'm aware that the military can resist armed invasion without Congress authorizing it. But you'd have a hell of a time convincing anyone that the immigration problem is an "invasion" in the "we will raze your cities and take away your land" sense of the word, regardless of some of the signs that showed up on May Day. If we're going to be allowing the National Guard to take over border duty, then I want them to be able to do everything that may end up being necessary.

[thegreatbeast]

I'l agree to the military's use for only as long as it takes to get things in hand. It is a really bad idea to deploy the armed services domestically. Actually it is a bad idea to use our troops as police forces anywhere.

[NewRomeTacitus]

I think our armed forces specific range of skills are custom fit to what we need at our borders. Every other civilized nation manages to have them handy at theirs without chaos breaking out.

And most of them not already surrounded by barrier-like physical features have the good sense to erect barriers. No harm because of that, either - only greater sense of security plus a sense of pride (not shame) for actively protecting what they and their forefathers worked for.

[AZ GRAMMY]

Should the military patrol the U.S. border for illegal immigrants?
Choice Votes Percentage of 822 Votes
Yes 796 97%
No 26 3%
Thanks for taking part in our opinion poll.

[Brownie74]

97% yes.

[azhenfud]

There are drugs coming across the southern border as we speak, I'm sure.

---

Here's a note I sent to Senator Dr. Frist:

---

I would like to thank members of the Senate for their vote against the immigration compromise bill that failed to garner enough Senate support for passage. The bill as it was would not have resulted in an actual compromise, but an outright surrender.

I would like to credit our Lawmakers with enough foresight to realize we must first secure our borders from unchecked illegal entries before revising our immigration code. Maybe I'm too much the optimist.

While there are many who claim we simply can't afford a "continuous linear border barrier", let me bring to mind a few points of which I'm sure you are already aware.

It is estimated Mexico and Central/South America account for as much as 70% of the illegal drugs coming into these United States.

In 1999 alone, it was also estimated Americans spent some $69 billion on illegal drugs. With 70% of that flowing in from our southern border, even should a barrier prove 50% effective, it may be extrapolated that should the US invest as much in a barrier for the remainder of the 2000 mile stretch as we invest in a four-lane highway (approx $13 million/mile), our costs to taxpayers would still only amount to about half of our southern neighbor's contributions to the annual trade in illegal drugs - roughly $20 billion. The effectiveness of such a barrier could also be enhanced by alternating Border Patrol shifts and relocating personnel so contacts of corruption are difficult to maintain, resulting in an approximated 70% effectiveness.

That $20 billion expenditure is an investment with exponentially compounded savings to be realized each year as well from the aid to enforcement of our immigration code. To cut 70% of 70% of a $69 billion annual illegal drug trade (roughly $34 billion annually) is not something to quickly dismiss. What do we currently pay South/Central American administrations annually in illegal drug interdiction? and what do we have to show for it?

Not only can we find the way to deter criminal border entries, but deterring illegal aliens and interrupting the flow of "undocumented pharmaceuticals" has benefits by far outweighing any negative implications surfacing thus far.

As far as a guest worker program is concerned, why can't we get a proposal where employers apply for their workers through DHS and the US Labor departments, swearing out an affidavit of support for each such as sponsors of legal immigrants are required now, and one that would prohibit the judiciary from dismissing the financial responsibilities imposed by those affidavits? It would help prevent guest workers from becoming a public burden and make the employers who claim to need workers responsible for paying a fair wage that will support that worker.

As far as making illegal aliens felons, anyone who has used forged or stolen documents or ID ought be charged as felons. Period. The same penalty ought apply for legal residents as well.

[SE Mom]

802 Yes
26 No