I was down there when the National Guard was down there and used as a force multiplier for the BP. Worked good. There were some hard chargers in these groups that we ran across. We would strike the illegals, day or night, and contain them with our force and bring in the BP or NG who would then flush them with their Oscar force. We had some real Keystone cop chases. The problem was we were 75-80 miles INSIDE our border.
This would not have to be done if you positioned military (NG, State Militia) on the BORDER facing south with proper ROEs to engage anything crossing the border until barrier is complete.
Why not?
“military (NG, State Militia) on the BORDER facing south with proper ROEs to engage anything crossing the border until barrier is complete.
Why not?”
1. With the money spent on deploying military for that temporary reduction, you could instead invest in longer term reductions (assuming limited resources).
2. “Engage” sounds like “shoot”. We can’t just shoot people for minor crimes, which are not subject to the death penalty, and don’t constitute self defense. It would be a war crime for the military, even on a battlefield.
3. Legally, once people set foot on American soil, they become “US Persons” under the constitution, and they become constitutionally entitled to due legal process. That is why Guantanamo Bay has unique status for holding terrorists - its not legally US territory, and only military law applies. A surge of military to the border might deter a bunch of crossers, but likely only after detaining a surge of extras caught in the act. We can’t effectively detain and process the number we are catching now - we still practice catch and release.
The bottom line is money and political will though. If there was enough money made available, the military could rush the border in weeks with up to tens of thousands of personnel. It would just be hugely expensive to arrange for their housing and feeding and transportation, and create a political firestorm. Objectively, there is not a short term pay off in that is worth the steep cost.
I’ll take a SWAG at $100 Million per thousand people per year - roughly the cost of 25 miles of permanent border wall. If you send a thousand people, they have to sleep, so only about half are working at any given time, and some proportion are in support roles rather pulling shifts, so effectively you would probably field a 24x7 guard/reaction force of about 300.
How much border frontage would they cover? 1,000 people would charitably constitute about two Battalions of Infantry. In the defense, they would doctrinally control about one to two kilometers of front each, or about 2.5 miles total. If you spread them maximally wider, just to maintain observation, you could guard about 18 miles of border (lets say 25, for arguments sake) for a year - for the kind of money it would cost to wall that 25 miles off permanently.
Realistically, you could send some military (a few hundred) to serve as a reaction force for Border Patrol, or conduct a few roundup sweeps/show of force, if you wanted to get some press coverage. In terms of bang for the buck however, Infrastructure, Border Patrol and the ability to detain and quickly process/remove those apprehended is where you make the massively better return on investment.