President Obama has ordered 1,200 National Guard to protect the border and has requested $500 Million from Congress to slow the flow of immigrants across the Mexican border.

According to Politico:

In addition to the troops, the funding will be used to increase Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security activities at the border with Mexico “to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money,” an administration official said Tuesday.
Senator John McCain who is in the battle of his life for his senate seat complained that 1,200 simply wasn’t enough boots on the ground.  McCain requested that 6,000 troops be deployed and sent to the area. 

72 Thoughts to “President Obama Orders 1200 National Guard to Protect Border”

  1. Rick Bentley

    I’m glad to see this change in direction, but 1200 is not enough.

  2. Second-Alamo

    He was forced to do something. Not a sign of a great leader, but more of a begrudging follower.

  3. Well it’s a start in the right direction. I suspect this is a sign of things to come and a public recognition that something MUST be done NOW. I say Alleluia!

  4. George S. Harris

    The biggest restriction is that if the NG is “nationalized” then a law called posse comitatus goes into effect or is it affect?

    The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

    The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.

    This might be a case where Congress can demonstrate their resolve. They could authorize the use of the NG in a law enforcement rule, but that may create an open a whole new Pandora’s Box. Maybe Moe Davis could fill us in.

  5. @George S. Harris
    If there are killers and drug lords running amok by the border (and we know there are some), I would hope Congress would give the NG authority to do what they would have to do if there were riots in our streets–defend us in whatever capacity they need to. That said, once we give the NG that kind of power, they damn well better not abuse it. They better be trained to distinguish violent criminals from migrant workers, families and victims of human trafficking.

  6. hello

    While I’m glad he is sending some NG it’s not enough and Second is right, he isn’t doing it because he wants to, he is doing it because he has to. If it was really all about boarder security he would have done this a year ago when it was originally requested.

    Way to be a ‘leader’ Mr. President… kind of like how he is ‘leading’ with the oil spill (36 days an counting).

  7. hello

    Another great example of Obama’s ‘leadership’ is ordering the biggest offensive in HIS Afghan war and then won’t even be at Arlington cemetery on memorial day. Nice…

  8. PWC Taxpayer

    @hello

    Can anyone confirm what I read somewhere, but cannot find now again, that His Messiahship had to shift this tradition to Biden because he really needs to get home to Chicago for a family vacation and to talk – get to his Chicago palace guards before the Blogovitch trial begins next week?

  9. Poor Richard

    Amazing to see the right attack Big Government so Big Biz can
    do what the hell it wants, but something deadly major goes wrong
    and they turn on a dime demanding the government take care
    of it PDQ. What happened to private enterprise is always right so
    ditch any regulations or oversight? We lost our common sense
    balance.

    The Feds AND BP have the responsibility to resolve this NOW!
    The damage already caused will haunt us for decades.

    As for the NG on the border – a nice PR symbolic move.
    Obama message = OK,OK – I’m doing something.

  10. It sounds to me like damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Damn Obama for not securing our border (even though the previous president couldn’t manage to do it) Damn Obama for not sending enough National Guard to the border. Damn Obama for spending money. ($500 million)

    As for Memorial Day, 🙄 There is no legal obligation for the President to go to Arlington National Cemetery. Very often a VP fills in on the holidays. TP, the President has a name, use it. Next time the comment comes down. If you feel strongly that he should be tied down to the federal city for all holidays, say so without being demeaning.

  11. hello

    Not all federal holidays Moon but memorial day is different especially right after the announcement that there will soon be the biggest offensive in Afghanistan. So he sends thousands of troops in harms way in HIS biggest offensive in HIS Afghan war yet he can’t even make the ceremony in Arlington on Memorial Day. To me it’s a disgrace. Your complete lack of ability to criticize this President for ANYTHING is amazing.

  12. hello

    And your right, there is no legal obligation for the (war time) President to go to Arlington National Cemetery on memorial day, just a moral obligation.

  13. PWC Taxpayer

    Moon-howler :It sounds to me like damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Damn Obama for not securing our border (even though the previous president couldn’t manage to do it) Damn Obama for not sending enough National Guard to the border. Damn Obama for spending money. ($500 million)
    As for Memorial Day, Next time the comment comes down. If you feel strongly that he should be tied down to the federal city for all holidays, say so without being demeaning.

    Fair enough. A war-time President of the United States has a responsiblity to defend the Constitution of the United States and its people. That means that when he or she sends American troops into harms way on foriegn soil, he/she has an obligation to all of us to represent us in honoring those who have sacrificed for that obligation. It is not delegatable and certainly not when excuse is that he wants (“officially”) to take a family vacation back to Chicago.

  14. PWC Taxpayer

    Then again, sending Biden is a real risk in itself – to Obama. Odds on a change of plans?

  15. Arlington National is not the only military cemetery. I understand he plans on going to a different one. Nice touch actually to go somewhere else.

    It is not unusual to send a VP to Arlington on the Veterans Holidays. I got all tangled up in the Cheney traffic jam at Arlington on one of the Veterans Days…I think it was the one after 9/11. I didn’t criticize President Bush for that though.

  16. I don’t think Memorial Day and Veterans Day differ that much in National Observance. Not everyone has to do the exact same thing.

  17. George S. Harris

    It is amazing how Taxpayer and You Lie can take any topic and stray off course with it in order to critcize the governemt, particularly President Obama. I think if MH put up something about what time the sun was going to rise or set, those two would find some way to criticize President Obama. The topic is sending troops to the border–not Memorial Day or the president being in Chicago. If he wants to send Vice President Biden to Arlington I, as someone who served 39 years in the Navy, have no objection. They could have sent no one and then TP and YL could really bitch.

  18. Why can’t we focus on what IS being done and encourage more of a move forward? If 1200 guards aren’t enough, then push for more, but don’t discourage the efforts with negativity and partisanship.

  19. Thank you, George. Of course, I am in total agreement. it just gets old, doesn’t it.

    TP and Hello, make some positive contributions and stop whining por favor.

    Good point, Pinko.

  20. George S. Harris

    And while we are “off topic”, how did this get to be President Obama’s war in Afghanistan? As much as I hate this war I must say that at least President Obama is trying to get it right and has made a committment to get us out. And unless my recall of history is really screwed up, it was George Bush who started the war, it was George Bush who failed to resource it correctly, it was George Bush who didn’t have a clue as to how to get out, it was George Bush who went to war with Iraq to settle a person vendetta and it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and (to a lesser degree) Colin Powell who made up all sorts of false claims about WMD, al Qaeda affiliation, etc. to justify the attack against Iraq and Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with 9/11. So how is it President Obama’s war? Huh?

  21. Rick Bentley

    “don’t discourage the efforts with negativity and partisanship”

    That’s not a good point at all.

    Obama clearly doesn’t care about national security, or he would have done this a year ago and CERTAINLY a month ago, instead of spending his time lecturing us about how people were going to be abducted when going out for ice cream.

    It is our corrupt President who is highly partisan.

    To get anything done, it is necessary to understand that appeals to intellectual integrity, to principles, to pride in country do not work when dealing with a Republican official or a Democratic official. They are nakedly inetrested in manipulating us and in sleeping on the job. (Total absence of leadership).

    We’re getting 1200 troops on the border because Obama, Holder, Napolitano read the law, understand that there is nothing reasonable that they can do to please the pro-illegal crowd, saw the polls showing almost 70% of America wants this, snapped out of their state of denial, and realized there’s nothing they can do to change public opinion or to stop Arizona from protecting itself.

    I submit to you that Obama is putting 1200 troops on the border only try to preclude the more proper move of putting 20,000 troops on the border and of actually securing it.

    We’re closing in on 10 years of total corruption at the top on this issue, of Presidents who don’t uphold their oath of office.

    There’s no comprehensive solution coming. The borders will be closed a bit tighter, and illegal immigrants in America will feel less secure. I’m in favor of that.

  22. Rick Bentley

    When FAIR’s report comes out soon detailing the costs associated with illegal immigration, it will undoubtably cause public opinion to harden. Meanwhile the ARizona situation will keep the issue in the news and in public consciousness. So PAP, brace yourself for a sea change on the issue.

    I suspect that when Obama got sniped at by McCain, the last illegal immigrant sympathizer left in the GOP, yesterday he realized that his political cover on this issue is down to zero and almost immediately, bingo 1200 troops supposedly on the border eventually.

  23. @Rick Bentley
    Rick, sometimes I don’t care what prompts someone to do the right thing. “Whatever it takes.” I can be pretty pragmatic in that way.

  24. Poor Richard

    Been injured by a major oil spill, coal mine cave-in, financial meltdown,
    illegal immigrants, poor health care or terrorist?

    Phone Hubris, Avarice, Fox and Halliburton TODAY!

  25. hello

    You simply can’t find anything wrong with our President, period. My brother is the same exact way and as I said to him, Obama could come to your house, spit in your face and kick your dog. You would respond by saying you had dirt on your face and he was trying to help you clean it off and your dog was acting up so he was just helping you train him.

    I did say something positive, I said already that I’m glad that he is FINALLY sending some NG. However, after reading this:

    “Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl says his understanding is those troops will be doing desk jobs instead of being on patrol duty, where they could be a visible deterrent to illegal border crossers.”

    http://www.wtaq.com/news/articles/2010/may/26/az-sen-guard-troops-not-patrolling-desk-duty/

  26. Elena

    George S. Harris :And while we are “off topic”, how did this get to be President Obama’s war in Afghanistan? As much as I hate this war I must say that at least President Obama is trying to get it right and has made a committment to get us out. And unless my recall of history is really screwed up, it was George Bush who started the war, it was George Bush who failed to resource it correctly, it was George Bush who didn’t have a clue as to how to get out, it was George Bush who went to war with Iraq to settle a person vendetta and it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and (to a lesser degree) Colin Powell who made up all sorts of false claims about WMD, al Qaeda affiliation, etc. to justify the attack against Iraq and Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with 9/11. So how is it President Obama’s war? Huh?

    Great summary George!

  27. Elena

    I wouldn’t trust FAIR to clean my kitty box correctly! Pu-Lease…..FAIR uses the terminology of “report” loosely, to say the least!

  28. marinm

    Hello,

    Nothing except money stops the AZ governor from mobilzing National Guard troops in her state to State Active Duty and giving them whatever orders she wants.

    She also has the power to force everyday citizens to form up into state militia and impress them into service.

    The want for federalizing the National Guard means that Virginian’s pay tax dollars to protect her states border.

    Now, you can make a case that the border is under assault by another nation (Mexico and Canada) but the idea of having long term troops deployed on the border is cost prohibitive and duplicative of the work done by CBP.

  29. hello

    I get that marinm, however, isn’t is the Feds job to protect our boarders? I just sick and tired of admin after admin addressing this problem by doing as little as possible. Sending 1,200 NG is great, but for one it’s not nearly enough and two, their apparently just being sent to do desk jobs. They aren’t even going to see, patrol, guard the boarder.

    This President, and many before him, simply don’t care about national security when it comes to our boarders.

    Sure, spend TRILLIONS on this and that but money to protect and guard our boarders, NEVER! Not acceptable. Throw these bumbs out and get someone in who will.

  30. I wouldn’t even let Bill Clinton kick my dog.

    Actually Hello, if you were talking to me, I expect things to be discussed reasonably rather than sniping. While I don’t agree with Rick, I am not going to take issue with how he said it because he said why he felt the way he did and he didn’t name call, unless I missed it.

    George, excellent summary.

  31. hello

    When did I ‘name call’? Please point that out and Ill make note of it but I don’t think that I have.

    Okay, so kicking your dog is crossing the line but spitting in your face? 🙂

  32. Maybe it wasn’t you. It was a joint statement. If you didn’t name call, then you didn’t name call. I didn’t say you did. I said Rick didn’t.

    I don’t agree with everything the president says or does. However, I am not going to pick and rag on him here. 1. It gets tiresome. 2. I don’t think it is in the best interest of the country. 3. I remember a lesson I got taught by my father when I was in 1st or 2nd grade about respect.

  33. marinm

    Hello,

    Good points and I agree with you that there is a Constitutional obligation to secure and defend our borders. To that end the decision on how to do so rests on President Obama and how seriously he believes in the Oath he took for his office.

    As to the method he uses to secure the border – CBP, mix of county/state civilian law enforcement or members of the active military that’s his call based on what level of response is needed, what we can afford, and how much of an impact do we want on future civil liberties.

    Do I think he’s doing a good job? Heck no. He has epic fail written all over his face. But, it’s his administration and his call. Sending 1200 people to provide observation and support is being done more for political capital and as a soundbite rather than for protection. AZ and the border states still bare the brunt of what’s going on and the inability of Washington to execute on a plan – one way or the other.

    It’s a failure of leadership from Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid to pass legislation one way or the other and it’s one of Mr. Obama in failing to understand the prediciment that AZ and the border states are in.

    I do think it’d be eye opening if the governor militarized the citizens of Arizona and forced them to muster and report for border guard duty. Seeing housewives with M4 rifles walking the fence line on CNN would really show how desperate AZ is to get some assistance in something that Congress should be doing without having to be asked.

  34. hello

    Not in the best interest of the country?!? Really? Dissent can be both respectful and patriotic. We are supposed to challenge and question our elected leaders. So your saying that ‘picking on or ragging’ on the President (I call it pointing out lack of leadership and corruption) is not in the best interest of the country? Wow, BOLD statement there Moon.

  35. hello

    I suppose the same doesn’t go for county supervisors or state elected officials, just the CURRENT President. I see.

  36. A reinforced battalion. 1200 men. Doing what? I don’t credit Obama for doing the right thing until he DOES the right thing. Sending 1200 men, even if they were ON the border won’t be worth anything. They can’t stop people. As noted, POSSE COMITATUS, does not allow it.

    1200 men. What type of unit? For almost 400 miles of border? The article states,

    “The additional troops will help fight narcotics trafficking across the border, provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, and help train border agents until the Customs and Border Protection service can recruit and train additional agents itself.”

    So, this appears to be another intel unit that will not be physically stopping people. What type of training will the NG be able to provide to agents that they do not already get from the Border patrol?

    More surveillance and intel? Intel takes months to develop. Surveillance? We already know where the trails are. We just don’t have enough men to stop them. I’ve seen videos where the illegal aliens will jump the fence and rush past the patrol en masse. One out of 100 are caught. Shift change leaves sections unguarded. They wait for the change and then come across.

    Now, if the Arizona governor is so worried about it, let her activate HER Guard units, put them on the border, and then they can be used to enforce the law. And either the feds support that or they try to stop it.

    This isn’t just Obama’s fault. Bush was just as bad. That is the problem. Its a hard decision and a complicated problem. And politicians don’t do “complicated” unless its to hide something. That said, Obama is now in the driver’s seat. Whatever happens, is now on him.

    However, we are still hamstrung once the illegal aliens make it into the US. While Feds can stop and ask for immigration papers, we don’t do it. Nor do we have enough agents to do that. And God forbid we have the states do it. Look a the hysteria over Arizona.

    Again, if there is “evidence” that someone is not from here, that is not profiling, but using that evidence to determine legality. Sorry, but appearance, accent, etc, are all appropriate. If you’ve got an Irish accent, and I’m from immigration, I would ask if you’re here legally. Same for those from south of the border. Just because there are so many of them doesn’t mean that we have to ignore them.

    We either defend our sovereignty or we lose it.

    As to it being Obama’s Afghanistan war, its his because he wanted to be CINC and its HIS policies and strategies that we are using, for good or bad. Just as it’s his economy, trade policies, diplomatic results, etc. For good or bad. He gets the credit or the blame.

    [ed. note: Cargo, I took the liberty of blockquoting for you. I think you are making a very valid point and I wanted to make sure things stood out. I hope you don’t mind.]

  37. @hello
    “You simply can’t find anything wrong with our President, period.”

    I was wondering if you are addressing me ere, Hello. If so, that’s not true. I am just responding to this issue and what he is doing. I say “carry on.”

  38. @marinm
    OUTSTANDING! That is a great idea. Call out the militia.

    Here’s an interesting post on that very subject: http://gunowners.org/op0301.htm

    That would be a great idea. And completely constitutional. And would force your average American to recognize that there are some responsibilities to go along with their rights.

  39. PWC Taxpayer

    George, your history really is screwed up. GB asked the Taliban to give up the 9/11 terrorists and they refused. With all the blessings that Congress can give, we appropriately went after them. Saying that GB started that war is like saying the US started WWII by r4eacting to Pearl Harbor. Obama has resisted getting it right from the start – only to do what GB was doing in order to cover his ass. Your history is also all screwed up with regard to Iraq, although I understand that you are just repeating the campaign lies of democrats. The crap about there not being any WMDs (he used them on his own people), not building them or developing the capability to credibly threaten Israel if the desert storm restrictions were not removed, violations of the no fly zone restrictions, and other issues – oh yes and a plot, the plot that was confirmed by the CIA, FBI and USSS to kill a former President. Is that in your opinion not an act of war all by itself?

  40. Poor Richard

    Perhaps if Republicans didn’t spent eight years shilling for Bush II,
    one of our worst presidents, they might have more standing to
    throw darts at Obama.

    Bush II-
    – Record deficits (After Clinton’s eight years of restraining them).
    – An economy going off the cliff, aided by his cut taxes and spend more policy.
    He started the huge bail outs.
    – Two tough deadly unfinished wars including one of choice.
    – An immigration law that the majority in both parties rejected.
    – Mission Accomplished and Good Job Brownie mentality. Ignore the facts.
    – America suffered the most deadly surprise attack in history on his watch.
    -Etc.

    Obama isn’t perfect but he is head and shoulders above your “W”.

  41. hello

    Great response PWC… George was waaaaay off in left field but I didn’t want to respond and get ‘off topic’. 🙂

  42. hello

    Ah, Poor Richard, falling into the same lefty trap as all those who proceeded you…. but Bush… but, but, but Bush… give me a break. Come up with a defense of Obama that doesn’t include ‘Bush’ and Ill give you a dollar.

  43. PWC Taxpayer

    @Poor Richard

    Thanks PR, these are the kinds of discussions that I would love to have here Most of your list is way off-base, I just do not have the time today. However, it can also be said that many, many Republicans and conservative moderates abandoned – not just Bush but the Republican Party because of their loss of faith — hmm fielty – to small government, (he really did increase the number of federal employees over Clinton by 700,000 — ok there was a war but still that does not count military, the buy outs were nothing compared to what Obama did, and that does not count for the corporate take-overs vs restructuring. Do you remember Chrysler, the Penn Central, US steel – totally different philosphical approach. My guess is that you too have ignored the constitutional issues associated with the Katrina response, Louisiana’s responsiblity/failures – to include the diversion of funds from the dikes (O&M). Now one more thing. Are you suggesting that the law enforcement response of the Clinton Administration did not encourage the 9/11 attack planners vice the hammer that Bush rightfully and with the full support of the American people landed on them – and since.

    I really don’t think many Republicans – office holders or other supporters have shilled for George in the way the those same folks and the media have shilled for President Obama.

  44. Rick Bentley

    Republicans enabled Bush to do damage to America

    Democrats are enabling Obama to do damage to America

    In each case the guy is judged not for his own ieptitude, but against the fear of the other party

    Bush was the opposite of a conservative – grew government, entangled us overseas

    Obama is Presiding over ecological disaster and the impending collapse of our social safeguards, and wage degradation

  45. Poor Richard

    Two presidents, two disasters.
    Each perfectly suited to to their talents and experience.
    But wouldn’t you know it:
    The oilman gets the hurricane
    The blowhard gets the oil spill.
    (Anonymous)

  46. PWC Taxpayer

    @Poor Richard

    LOL!!! And then there was Carter the only then living person/engineer to have walked into a melting nuclear reactor (Submarine) – there for Three Mile Island. It was the only reason he was there. God did it.

  47. Hello, no, it wasn’t a bold statement at all. I am not going to have it here and neither is Elena.

    Poor Richard, that really is hilarious.

    Sorta reminds me of an old joke I heard from my mother in law ..it made my husband blush…nahhh…I won’t tell it here…..snicker.

  48. marinm

    To be clear, I’m not talking about citizen’s militia or rump militia but a State sponsored militia under the command of the civil authority.

    But, I do believe that forcing homemakers and office workers to take the field and guard a fence will reinforce the responsibilities of citizenship at both the state and national level.

    Since you’d also be conscripting a massive force at the E1 level you can also do it on the cheap. 😉

  49. Hello, any time we have criticized the AG or a supervisor, we have explored why we are taking the stand we take. You are free to not agree with us. We don’t just pick and nag however. It has been weeks since Corey has had a thread.

    Le’t go to the bottom line real fast, since I don’t have to justify what happens here. This blog isn’t going to be a place where people can take cheap shots at the President. It wasn’t done at Bush and it isn’t going to be done at Obama. If you want to criticize policy fine. State it and why. And this is the last time we need to have this discussion.

    Frankly, I am in a foul mood over a person using this blog to get even with someone they don’t like anyway, today. My patience is short.

  50. Poor Richard

    Being President is a tough job. Even Reagan (almost sainted by some)
    had his share of stumbles (remember Iran-Contra?). My point is that Obama
    must answer for his actions like everyone else, but our country would
    be best served by a loyal opposition that could bring forward reasonable
    coherent alternatives and not just scream “No, don’t want to!” like
    a group of petulant spoiled children. Plus, every administration is
    impacted, for good and bad, by the ones that came before it.
    It is naive to suggest history should be ignored.

Comments are closed.