Posted on 05/12/2006 1:11:34 PM PDT by VU4G10
SORRY FOR 3 posts.. my computer was hanging up.
HAVE A NICE MOTHER'S DAY
Good grief people...first of all, the Governors could have activated the NG at any time, but didn't. No, they wait around for the FedGov to act, then feign relief like there was nothing they could have done without the FedGov. I call BS. Also, Bush has supported the fence idea for a year, but the Dems didn't like it:
May 2005 - The border fence provision is part of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which is attached to the House's emergency supplemental appropriations package to finance military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.In a letter to Congress last week, the White House said, "The administration strongly urges [congressional] conferees to include the REAL ID Act of 2005 in the final version of the bill." The legislation also includes a ban on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.The fences were finally approved by Congress and work has begun, but many sections have been delayed by environmentalists:Democrats are bristling over the Bush endorsement, with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid saying he was "disappointed."
"The fact of the matter is Republicans did this in a very tricky way," Reid Spokeswoman Fabiola Rodriguez-Ciampoli told The Associated Press. "They knew that if they included REAL ID in the [military spending bill], it would be very hard to strike it out."
A corrugated metal fence that separates the USA from Mexico starts near here at the Pacific Ocean and runs 14 miles inland. It's a stained and rusty reminder that San Diego was once the place along the U.S.-Mexico border most often crossed by illegal immigrants. The government decided in 1996 to add two more fences with roads and stadium-style lights in between the rows to make it easier to stop anyone who tried to get across.Human Rights groups and local leaders also held it up,calling it "racist":The project has progressed so roughly 10 miles of the multiple fences and roads are built. But work on the final 3 1/2 miles or so has hit a snag: Border security is in conflict with environmental concerns.
At the forum, The Organic Collective distributed a statement that reads, “The Triple Border Fence embodies the most racist and violent face of so called ‘Free Trade’ which allows capital to flow freely across borders, but not the people who create the capital.”There is even a picture of National Guardsmen building the fence you say is non-existent at that website.The space for increased human right abuses was another concern expressed by several panelists. “(The triple border fence) creates a space of impunity for the Border Patrol,” Christian Ramirez, Program Coordinator of the U.S./Mexico Border Program at The American Friends Service Committee, said. “(Within the border fences) there are no witnesses to human rights violations,” Ramirez added.
Likening the proposed project to a U.S. version of the Berlin Wall, Enrique Morones, founder of Border Angels and Chair of the Border Commission to Mexican President Vicente Fox, said, “This fence gives the wrong message and it is hypocritical. The U.S. tells Gorbachev to take down their wall, and here our President still has his.”
Besides environmental and human rights concerns, the triple fence is seen as an insult to our un-consulted Mexican neighbor and as a nemesis to cooperative border culture.
Finally, if you don't have a clue what you are talking about, it is usually best to keep your mouth shut so you won't look like a fool. If you are on the internet, I assume you have access to Google...use it, inform yourselves.
I figured I'd better get my word in edgewise before the Bush Bashers {pardon the pun} migrated to this thread.
Bump!
About time
The ACLU would put a stop to this in a heartbeat.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
How legally?
I'll believe it when i see it.
And even when i see it, i still won't believe it.
Border security, as opposed to enforcement of customs and other international commerce regulations, is a military function. It's also a Constitutional power, and requirement, of the federal government.
Art IV, section 4, Constitution for the United States
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Posse Commutatus is just a law, not a Constitutional imperative. It was passed in the post Civil War era to prevent the US Military from being used to prevent former Confederate officers from voting in federal elections. Prior to the Civil War it was routine for federal military to be stationed at polling places during federal elections to prevent "inebriates" and others not eligible to vote from voting. See this interesting USAF Air University Review article, which goes on to say that:
"Contrary to popular thought, the prohibitions against using regular troops or federalized National Guard units in law enforcement are not absolute. The exceptions and enabling structures are written into the language of the statues. The Constitution has always required the President to be the keeper of public order. If the President receives a request from a state governor for assistance to quell public disorder, the President may issue a proclamation to the effect that order has broken down, and that those responsible must disperse. This proclamation is similar to the pre-1947 Riot Act. If order is not restored, the President may direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to apply whatever assets may be necessary to do so. Because of its plenary nature, this presidential authority is not subject to judicial review. "
Since the language of the US Code containing the prohibition says, "except in such cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress", the Congress could either authorize use of the military to prevent illegal entry into the country, as it has already done in the case of anti drug smuggling efforts, or the President could declare that enforcing the border is part of the Constitutional requirement to "protect against invasion" and send them there on his own hook.
Furthermore, the Air and Army National Guard are not subject to posses commitatas unless federalized. Any Governor of a border state could send them to the border to reverse the breakdown in law along the border. Or a governor could request the President to act, similar to what was done in the Rodney King riots case above.
SO the DoD doesn't have money to process security clearances for personnel has money to deploy the troops?
It is not a problem created by this administration. They inherited it from previous administrations (1941 and on) who have neglected to address the issue also. This may be the administration that provides a long overdue fix to the problem.
Quit griping and support the President for a change. Maybe his numbers will get above 30% again and CNN/CBS will shut up about conservatives bailing on the President, about his impending imeachment, and about their annointed presidental pick, the hildabeast.
I expect the whole "we're considering putting troops on the border" is gonna be among the first things that Pres Bush mentions in his speech for Monday night. (course "considering" ain't the same as "doing"). Then he'll drop the bomb on us that we have to support this bill because "Americans are a compassionate people blah blah blah", and then finally the cameras will pan to all the faces of the House members in the audience to shame them into voting for the bill.
We called him "Ditto" for short.
"The ACLU would put a stop to this in a heartbeat."
Stopping bullets and explosive shells with paper is a futile and fruitless gesture.
"The president will be laying out his "comprehensive" proposal for immigration reform," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Scary..
But conservative anger at the guest-worker idea helped fuel an erosion of support from the president's Republican base. Some conservatives view the program as a type of amnesty for illegal immigrants -- a characterization Bush rejects.
If the invaders were armed there would be no question of defending our borders with troops. These invaders are not armed but their intention is the same; to occupy territory, seize resources and impose their own language, customs and laws.
That is very scary. If he says "comprehensive plan" fifty more times or says anything about "jobs Americans won't do" he will only make the situation worse. Ugh, I am so scared for him, for us.
He should lay out his plan to secure the border (troops, walls, surveillance etc) and delay all reform until such time the border is secure. Period.
I think prayers are in order --- for him....and us.
Bush, locked in a test of wills with some conservatives furious at his support for legalizing some illegal immigrants, will stand firm in his support for a guest-worker program and his opposition to a mass deportation of the estimated 12 million immigrants in the country, the official said.
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.