No border patrols

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Big Train
    Full Member Status

    • Apr 2004
    • 4011

    No border patrols

    Ah tough times. Budget cuts. Horribly misguide priorities.

    Funding stalls putting Guard soldiers on border - Yahoo! News

    WASHINGTON – A proposed government plan to use National Guard troops to help stem Mexican drug violence along the southern border is stymied by disagreements over who will pay for the soldiers and how they would be used.

    Ordered by President Barack Obama in June to help secure the border with Mexico, the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security drafted a $225 million program to temporarily deploy 1,500 Guard troops to supplement U.S. Border Patrol agents.

    The two agencies are wrangling over how to structure the deployment, but the primary sticking point is the money, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    The funding stalemate lingers even after Obama renewed his commitment to Mexican officials on Monday to reinforce the border and to help Mexico battle the drug cartels. Fierce battles between Mexican law enforcement and the cartels have left as many as 11,000 people dead and fueled concerns about violence spilling into the U.S.

    "The United States," Obama said during a news conference in Mexico Monday, "will also meet its responsibilities by continuing our efforts to reduce the demand for drugs and continuing to strengthening the security of our shared border — not only to protect the American people, but to stem the illegal southbound flow of American guns and cash that helps fuel this extraordinary violence."

    Meanwhile, state leaders are getting antsy.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry is still waiting for a response to his request for 1,000 more troops, his spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said Tuesday.

    "For too long the border has gone without the adequate resources to secure it," Cesinger said. "It's a federal responsibility but a Texas problem."

    Early drafts of the Pentagon's plan revealed Defense would seek reimbursement for its costs of the program, which is slated to last just one year, giving U.S. Border Patrol time to build up its force of agents.

    The Department of Homeland Security, which expects to get roughly $44 billion in its overall 2010 budget compared to the Pentagon's $636 billion — is also reluctant to bear the costs of the proposed program.

    Military officials have also balked at having a highly visible uniformed presence at border crossings.

    One administration official said an initial Pentagon draft was nixed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates because it suggested that Guard troops could be used to help screen commercial vehicles at the border.

    Defense leaders have been insistent that the U.S. avoid any appearance of militarizing the border, and they are opposed to using the soldiers at border entry points to openly inspect vehicles.

    Defense officials have been uneasy about the Guard plan from the onset, insisting that the effort be temporary and not tied to any existing program that could end up being extended or made permanent. Adding to those concerns is the fact that while the program would be federally funded, the Guard members would be under the control of the border states' governors.

    At the same time, Pentagon officials have grumbled that the latest demands come as the U.S. is still fighting two wars, including an escalation of fighting in Afghanistan, and the Guard units are still needed to take on some of the battlefield duties

    A new draft that drops those border inspections from the list of Guard missions was prepared, and one senior administration official said that Gates and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano agreed on that move in a conversation last week.

    One official said a resolution to the matter is still some weeks away. Other debates have involved where the soldiers would be stationed and what tasks they would perform.

    "The two agencies are resolving a handful of issues that remain," Paul Stockton, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for homeland defense, told The Associated Press Tuesday. "The Defense Department is working closely with DHS to make sure the president has viable options to consider prior to making his decision."

    Stockton, who last month traveled to El Paso, Texas, to review the border situation, declined to provide details of the negotiations, but said agencies are close to finalizing options to send to the president.

    The two agencies have apparently agreed to include a provision that would allow armed Guard soldiers to conduct surveillance near the border. The soldiers would not perform law enforcement duties, so they would carry weapons solely for self-protection, officials said.

    Other Guard missions could intelligence analysis, monitoring of entry stations, helicopter transportation support and aviation surveillance — which would likely involved unmanned aircraft.

    The White House order was sparked by a request last February from Perry, who asked Napolitano for 1,000 National Guard troops on the border. In March Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer joined in, asking for 250 additional Guard troops above 150 already there. In both cases, the state officials wanted the soldiers to be mobilized by the federal government so that the states would not have to pay for them.

    Officials argue that additional border patrol agents are needed so they can more diligently monitor the southbound traffic, as well as continue inspections of those heading northbound into the U.S. There are currently about 19,500 border patrol agents, with roughly 17,200 on the southern border.
  • davehagarfan
    Head Fluffer
    • Jan 2009
    • 294

    #2
    Do any of the border states Ca, Az, Nm, Tx have any kind of agents at the state level that are involved in all this?

    Comment

    • Big Train
      Full Member Status

      • Apr 2004
      • 4011

      #3
      No. As we have been told endlessly (which helps reelections as well) "Immigration is a federal issue". Sheriff Joe in Arizona probably being the only exception, but the Feds are out to get him for actually doing something.

      Comment

      • standin
        Veteran
        • Apr 2009
        • 2274

        #4
        Originally posted by Big Train
        No. As we have been told endlessly (which helps reelections as well) "Immigration is a federal issue". Sheriff Joe in Arizona probably being the only exception, but the Feds are out to get him for actually doing something.
        Links, documentation......
        To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
        MICHAEL G. MULLEN

        Comment

        • ppg960
          Sniper
          • Dec 2005
          • 991

          #5
          Nafta???

          That's interesting.
          So now I can assume the level of drugs, refugees and other BS will "Stampede" into the USA. Well then, your taxes will go up to once again fight the drug trade and when these people claim "Refugee" status they get free Health Care. They have no money so they can't pay anyway.
          Good luck with that one!
          Isn't NAFTA Great!!!

          Comment

          • Big Train
            Full Member Status

            • Apr 2004
            • 4011

            #6
            Originally posted by standin
            Links, documentation......
            What do you want links to Standin? Countless officials (Mayor Antonio, Police Chief Bratton, senators, the governor) ALL have said the same thing "Immigration is a federal issue".

            Comment

            • standin
              Veteran
              • Apr 2009
              • 2274

              #7
              Originally posted by Big Train
              , but the Feds are out to get him for actually doing something.
              This.... documentation.
              To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
              MICHAEL G. MULLEN

              Comment

              • Big Train
                Full Member Status

                • Apr 2004
                • 4011

                #8
                On the Arpaio issue:

                The Associated Press: Arizona sheriff balks at feds' enforcement change

                Arizona sheriff balks at feds' enforcement change
                By AMANDA LEE MYERS (AP) – Jul 31, 2009

                PHOENIX — The self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America" has never gotten so much resistance from the federal government.

                The Homeland Security Department wants Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., to stop arresting illegal immigrants whose only crime was crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without documents.

                The thing is, Arpaio doesn't much care.

                "I'm not going to bend to the federal government, I'm going to do my job," he said. "I don't report to the federal government, I report to the people."

                Shifting winds in Washington have led the Homeland Security Department to rework a federal program that has allowed Arpaio's deputies to make federal immigration arrests since February 2007.

                It's not yet known whether Arpaio — who has 160 deputies and jail officers trained to make federal immigration arrests and speed up deportations — will sign the new deal.

                If he doesn't, the feds say he would lose his authority to make any federal immigration arrests.

                The revamped program would require Arpaio to clear plans for immigration sweeps beforehand with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and coordinate with ICE before releasing information about such enforcement actions to the news media.

                Those requirements don't sit well with the sheriff, who is known for his independence and well-oiled media operation.

                Even as he considered whether to sign the deal, Arpaio launched a three-day immigration sweep east of metro Phoenix on July 24. Deputies arrested 74 people; 25 of them were illegal immigrants.

                Ten of the illegal immigrants were released because they had committed no other crimes, and that fact pitted Arpaio against Homeland Security. Arpaio says the feds told his deputies to let them go, while Homeland Security says the decision was exclusively Arpaio's.

                That sweep was the latest of 10 Arpaio has conducted in the last two and a half years. Many were held in heavily Latino areas in metropolitan Phoenix, with deputies stopping drivers for traffic violations.

                The sweeps sparked several angry protests from critics who said they amounted to racial profiling and led to a Justice Department investigation of Arpaio. Arpaio said the people who were pulled over were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.

                Homeland Security's revamped program focuses on the most serious criminals and creates three priority levels for immigrants who are to be arrested and detained. Immigrants convicted or arrested of major drug offenses or violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery or kidnapping are the top priority.

                The other two levels pertain to immigrants with prior convictions, but people whose only crime is being in the country illegally are not covered under the program.

                Eleven agencies in the country have signed the new so-called 287(g) agreement, while 66 agencies operating under the old program — including Arpaio's — were given 90 days starting July 10 to decide whether they want to agree to follow the revamped program, said DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler.

                Arpaio called the new program an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

                Chandler said changes to the new program were designed to spend Homeland Security resources wisely. "We feel that, you know, with the limited resources we have we need to be focused on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat," he said.

                Chandler declined to say whether DHS could take away Arpaio's option to sign the agreement.

                Even if Arpaio doesn't sign it, he vows to continue cracking down on illegal immigration. He will do so by enforcing more limited state immigration laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Just on Wednesday, his deputies arrested 52 illegal immigrants, 48 of whom will face human smuggling charges.

                In a news release about the arrests, Arpaio said: "This is yet another example of my continued promise to enforce all the illegal immigration laws in Maricopa County regardless of the ever-changing policies emanating from Washington, D.C."

                Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the anti-illegal immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, said it supports allowing local law enforcement agencies to make federal immigration arrests and that Arpaio should not be limited to targeting only serious criminals.

                "If all police departments did was go after serious crimes, most of their other functions would fall by the wayside," he said. "Just because there are murderers in Phoenix doesn't mean cops shouldn't pull someone over for speeding and running a red light."

                Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said her group doesn't believe local agencies should be allowed to make any immigration arrests and that Arpaio has abused his power long enough.

                "He's a rogue sheriff, and he is the clearest, most visible example of why these 287g ordinances are bad for local communities," she said. "Arpaio demonstrates what happens when there's absolutely no federal oversight of a program that has really led to some serious civil rights abuses."

                Comment

                • davehagarfan
                  Head Fluffer
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 294

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Big Train
                  No. As we have been told endlessly (which helps reelections as well) "Immigration is a federal issue". Sheriff Joe in Arizona probably being the only exception, but the Feds are out to get him for actually doing something.

                  Thanks for the article...I had heard about the shootings near the border south of San Diego but wasn't sure if the guy was Federal or State....if I remember right the officer was actually Latino...he got arrested for supposedly using excessive force....I can't remember the exact details....


                  That's really sad only one guy is doing anything at the State level about this issue that's been going on for the better part of 30 years...

                  Comment

                  • standin
                    Veteran
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 2274

                    #10
                    "I'm not going to bend to the federal government, I'm going to do my job," he said. "I don't report to the federal government, I report to the people."
                    You run, operate or participate in a federal program, you get federal oversight.
                    Case closed.
                    To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
                    MICHAEL G. MULLEN

                    Comment

                    • sonrisa salvaje
                      Veteran
                      • Jun 2005
                      • 2098

                      #11
                      Originally posted by standin
                      You run, operate or participate in a federal program, you get federal oversight.
                      Case closed.
                      You got any links/documentation on that?
                      RIDE TO LIVE, LIVE TO RIDE
                      LET `EM ROLL ONE MORE TIME

                      Comment

                      • sadaist
                        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 11625

                        #12
                        Originally posted by standin
                        You run, operate or participate in a federal program, you get federal oversight.
                        Case closed.
                        Very soon, it will be the same when seeing a doctor & them determining if & when you should get any necessary procedures done.
                        Casket closed.
                        “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

                        Comment

                        • standin
                          Veteran
                          • Apr 2009
                          • 2274

                          #13
                          Originally posted by sonrisa salvaje
                          You got any links/documentation on that?
                          To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
                          MICHAEL G. MULLEN

                          Comment

                          • standin
                            Veteran
                            • Apr 2009
                            • 2274

                            #14
                            Originally posted by sadaist
                            Very soon, it will be the same when seeing a doctor & them determining if & when you should get any necessary procedures done.
                            Casket closed.
                            2 points wrong there, procedures that are medically approved do go through federal oversight.
                            And at the moment, some corp decides who can have those procedures.
                            Try not to get cancer, MS or have a heart attack.
                            To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
                            MICHAEL G. MULLEN

                            Comment

                            Working...