bodidley wrote:Forgot to reply to this earlier. There actually are some National Guard troops deployed to the border but how much they're accomplishing is questionable. For the most part I think it's a terrible idea. For one we're still at war so you're talking about raising the deployment burden just as the campaign in Iraq has come to a close (granted the deployment burden is being kept afloat by cutting down the size of the force).
Now, the proposal was an attempt to address the issue of the number of vets being "released into a depressed workforce", as I believe Shikanosuke put it, and an attempt to keep them occupied. Now, (perhaps I misunderstand you) if putting soldiers on the border would raise the deployment burden, that would mean that they're still needed elsewhere-or are you referring to the financial costs? If it's the latter, remember that in this hypothetical scenario, discharging the soldiers is not an option. Is there some cheaper way to keep them busy, other than perhaps keeping them at a base all day?
The training cycle is also affected because you would have to train troops for a completely different mission than war fighting before you send them, and then if you shift them to a combat mission later on they're out of the loop as far as the most up to date tactics and they're a little bit rusty.
Isn't rust inevitable for soldiers in peacetime? That said, what would be the difficulty in keeping them up to date? And of course, if they're still needed elsewhere, there'd be no need to implement this plan, which again is more about keeping them out of the job market than anything else. Also, my own job essentially involves letting the right people in and keeping the wrong people out of a facility. Training began and ended within two days. I understand that border patrol would certainly be more complex, but how much more so?
If you ship overland to the border you would have to pay American truckers much more to bring the supplies into remote locations, or even not-so-remote locations.
The long-haul company I deal with pays its drivers 22 cents a mile. The in-city guys make about $40 a trip, I believe. And owner-operators have to fuel their vehicles out of pocket as well. There's also a rail network that runs near most of the border, as well as highways. There are a few areas where I would imagine this being a problem (Southwest Texas, mostly), but I wonder how many regions on the border are really that remote. I do admit the military transportation problem does seem daunting.
The biggest reason why I think it's a bad idea is that when I was in Afghanistan I had to point a loaded weapon at people sometimes. American soldiers are not going to want to point guns a American citizens who happen to be near the border or at Mexican citizens who want to get a job.
Can't this be avoided? I'd think it would go without saying that anyone patrolling the border wouldn't be authorized to use lethal force unless in self-defense-like cops. Cops aren't supposed to pull out the guns until they feel their lives could be at risk, and I doubt many immigrants are armed and dangerous. Isn't there some kind of procedure that could be adopted?
Why even throw more money at a losing solution in the first place? No matter how tight you make security at the border people are still going to come.
It's a deterrent. Of course they'll keep coming, but it can't hurt to try to minimize illegal migration. And again, I can't think of a cheaper way to keep soldiers busy without discharging them. If you've got a better idea, believe me, I'm all ears.
State authorities have cracked down on farmers for using Mexican labor, and the only thing that's changed is now we're importing the produce directly from Mexico and the food safety standards are not as high.
That is an unfortunate consequence, but the solution to that is a problem for someone else to figure out. But I don't think the idea of allowing farmers to continue using illegal labor is a popular one in this country.