Bush Plans to Send 6,000 Guards to U.S.-Mexico Border

Washington | Monday, May 15, 2006

AP - In Speech, President Calls on Congress to Overhaul Immigration Laws

President Bush, trying to build support for a major overhaul of the nation's tattered immigration laws, said Monday night he would order as many as 6,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. border with Mexico and urged Congress to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.

"We do not yet have full control of the border and I am determined to change that," the president said in a 17-minute prime-time address from the Oval Office.

more at the link

-----

Full Transcript of the Speech


canuck May 15, 2006 - 9:41pm
( categories: AgonistWire | Economics: USA )

or plan. I'm actually kinda pleasently shocked.

scrat May 15, 2006 - 11:07pm

How can this be justified on any reasonable basis. The US-Mexian border is 1951 miles long from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico. Placing 6000 NG troops on the border means that we'll have added one trooper per mile to the border security, once you calculate that the average trooper can really only patrol the border for eight hours per day on average. I'm feeling safer already! I'll bet Dubya didn't even bother to calculate what his pathetic little number really comes to, just so long as it sounded good and enabled him to divert attentio from Karl Rove's impending indictment. How long before even the Congressional Republicans realize they have to put this corrupt, incompetent administration down?

VizierVic May 15, 2006 - 11:11pm

I would just say that the desert is good training and climate acclimation for Iraq. ;)

Tina May 15, 2006 - 11:21pm

but damn hard to find a better realistic alternative.

Those that think you can lock up or deport 12 million people live in la-la land. Hitler managed something along those lines, but this will not fly in the United States of America. You going to lock up all the Catholic priests and social workers that offer them aid also?

Assuming another million try to cross and get caught this year. What then are you going to do with these people?

One problem with theories: Sooner or later they have to be applied to the real world in which we live.

I can't tell you how much it pains me to have to agree with something bush the lesser says, and what he suggests won't work, but it may be the best alternative I've heard offered.

If we get the troops and no plan to assimilate those already here and also fail to provide legal short term work permits, expect hell to break loose.

I did inhale.

Don May 16, 2006 - 10:51am

World Nut Daily

World Nut Daily


What sort of publication would use the Nazis as an example to prove that we can deport twelve million people?


     "Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society"

Digby has more: "Rid themsleves" is an interesting way of putting it, don't you think? I'm not surprised at this. They are working themselves into a complete frenzy on the right over immigration. (Lou Dobbs is so excited about this speech he is frothing at the mouth and almost incoherent.) These same people, not a year ago were obsessed with terrorism. I guess the thrill of screaming about the Islamofascists wore off. Now they want to follow lead of the Germano-fascists to "rid themselves" of the mexican vermin. It's all part of the same great racist roar....read on

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/15.html#a8297

I guess Gibson would be one of those who would agree with the statement "say what you will about Hitler - at least he made the trains run on time". Oddly, I tend to be more concerned by the trains' destinations than punctuality.

Maybe it's a weakness.

Escher Sketch May 16, 2006 - 11:42am

1. Anybody who feels the need to spontaneously tell you about their MENSA membership status, particularly in their author bio, isn't nearly as smart as they think they are.

2. Any libertarian that doesn't talk about the concept of duty isn't to be trusted - they don't have to put it in those specific terms, but if there's no implicit acknowledgement of the importance of the social compact, they're flying under a flag of convenience not conviction.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave May 16, 2006 - 12:41pm

Imagine the logistical nightmare this creates for the guard. Instead of your normal one or two week annual training event at your local National Guard Base, you now have orders to report - where? With - what? Reporting to - whom? To do - what?

I can't think of something more disruptive to the local law enforcement / border patrol personnel than a revolving door of National Guard Troops coming down for a two week vacation in Arizona at taxpayer's expense.

And the first time one of these guys puts a bullet in some poor Mexican immigrant whose pregnant wife is standing next to him it will be all over.

The following words come from a guardsman who is a friend - they are not mine -- "The guard is like Boy Scouts without adult supervision." Now that is a pretty unfair characterization given they are fighting and dying in Iraq, but it gives you perspective on their view of themselves, prior to deployment in Iraq. And it tells you what will happen in Arizona under these circumstances. Quasi-militarization using quasi-military will lead to very unfortunate mishaps.

George, go back and read Reagan's notes on his immigration challenge and return to your roots.

dhomyak May 16, 2006 - 1:23pm

...in two week rotations? I'd guess they mean to call up (and maybe even Federalize) a number of units for signficantly longer periods.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave May 16, 2006 - 2:47pm

as a series of two week rotations, per G. Bush.

They probably made this concession to the Guard because then it could be done in such a way that it wouldn't increase the annual commitment of Guard members not in Iraq.

dhomyak May 16, 2006 - 3:15pm

That's just about the weirdest way of doing that I've ever seen. Guess it fits into the established "trying to use the military without anyone noticing" theme, but it's a hell of a way to run a railroad. I have my doubts about how long it'll last in practice - i.e., I think we'll see normative deployments stretch to a few months.

Judging from the face they're putting forward, they sure want everyone to think that most of what they're doing is building infrastructure - dunno how long that's going to last, either.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave May 16, 2006 - 11:08pm

this evening and he said he sincerely doubts the 2 week rotation is accurate. But he doesn't actually have orders yet either. Said his last stint with the guard some years back near the border in San Diego had as its highlight the remodeling of a local Pizza Hut.

Good use of resources.

In any case, he assured me they are well qualified for whatever the mission will be. I reminded him that the human flesh peddlers are armed, no different that drug smugglers and that it will come to armed confrontation.

How long before Vincentes Fox puts Mexican troops on the other side to keep their citizens from getting killed on our side? Of course you could argue they should be the ones preventing the crossings. But you can see the escalation opportunity.

Funniest part was when one of his friends said he favored building a wall, like the Israelis. I tried to picture them being able to round up enough landscapers, concrete workers and steel fence installers to do the job, given most of them in my home state are illegal immigrants.

The irony of it all.

dhomyak May 16, 2006 - 11:49pm

the guard will assist in surveillance only, in support of the border patrol.

The truth is, smugglers will adjust to the new rules and the people will keep coming as long as there's a failing economy in Mexico.

Another truth: There's not a solution to every problem.

I did inhale.

Don May 17, 2006 - 9:18am

what do you think of the ID card idea?

Tina May 17, 2006 - 9:45am

Sealing the border is OK with me also if we relax the standards stopping Mexicans from visiting and open more legal crossings. Obviously we don't need criminals coming into the country.

I also like the idea of temporary work permits. If workers can come and work legally and then go home this will ease the pressure to enter illegally.

Many don't go home now, and bring their families because getting here is so hard and so expensive.

The real problem lies in the fact that Mexicans can't afford to stay home and work. Mexico seems more than willing to let her citizens continue to flee and send home money rather than fix their problems.

No one seems prepared to address that issue. Until that changes, whatever we do will fail.

I did inhale.

Don May 17, 2006 - 9:25pm

...in the press conference, the thinking seems to be that they'll involved in a goodly amount of fence and road building. Frankly, I'd be a lot happier if they stuck to that rather than surveillance and recce, at least on the ground - lot less chance that someone'll get hurt, on either "side". Last damned thing anyone needs is tempers flaring higher than the rhetoric.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave May 17, 2006 - 9:54am

Video - WMP
Video - QT

transcript

BLITZER: Give us your -- tell our viewers who aren't familiar your personal story, how you got to where you are, your grandparents, your parents. They struggled, they came here. I don't know if they came here legally or illegally, but give us the story.

GONZALES: Well, three of my grandparents were born in Mexico. They came to Texas. My parents -- both of my parents were born in Texas, extremely poor. My mother...

BLITZER: But when they came to Texas, were they legally documented, were they unlegally documented?

GONZALES: You know, it's unclear. It's unclear. And I've looked at this issue, I've talked to my parents about it, and it's just not clear...

C&L Link

Escher Sketch May 17, 2006 - 6:46pm

http://agonist.org/20060517/senate_votes_to_bar_immigrant_felons_build_fencing


"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"

nymole May 17, 2006 - 7:31pm

the Constitution has mandated that the President-- the Executive Branch, secure the borders of the United States. To date the only portion of the US borders ever attempted to secure have been our coast line and costal waters. While I might find objection personally to nearly every action taken by the Bush Administration, at least this one action is fulfilling the mandates of the Constitution. Fences and razor wire are nasty obstructions, but just as you see when you travel into Mexico, there is human monitoring of traffic along the roads and passing from the Frontera zone into the rest of the country, you pass through a check point and must present papers showing lawful entry and proof of motor vehicle insurance. Sure, those last for six months and allow for multiple trips to an extent, but without the papers you are turned back to the border. Further inside Mexico, you might be hauled to jail if the policeman has more than a bicycle you can outrun or threathens you with a gun. It's been a while, but usually money could fix whatever problem you had, but papers had to be done at the border and the only fix was looking the other way as you passed by. We can't say that happens here because dollars are not in the equation, but if it happens without any money changing hands, what is the difference?One small step to contorl the passage of people from one point to another is a beginning that need not address illegal residents already here. In Mexico, US citizens can't legally work, but in the rare circumstances where it occurs, warnings come to those involved to stay home on a given day when inspections will be made. I'm certain that happens here, too, but there are just too many people involved for any inspections to have any effect.

Today in Congress it was debated whether illegal aliens paying into Social Security should be elligible for benefits. McCain voiced the majority opinion saying people of whatever circumstance deserve what they have paid into. Alberto Gonzalez was asked about the legal status of his grandparents as some members of Congress have considered and advocated denying citizenship to those whose parents or predessors came here illegally, and had no answer.If we simply control our borders all the other details can be worked out eventually. My major complaint with guest worker programs with a time limit, is that on low wages going primarily to feed families back home, what is someone to do to feed their family when the time limit expires? With virtually no limit on Canadian Immigration to the US, Mexico should have an equal advantage. I don't think Canada allows easy immigration from the US either, just as Mexico does not allow it. Wherever immigration issues occur, it should work bilaterally in equality.

Phil May 18, 2006 - 8:49pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.