Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Scribbler1 · May 17, 2006, 07:33 pm

I'm wondering why we don't hear some of the state governors complaining. Has their authority over the Guard in their states been userped.

bugsbunny04 · May 17, 2006, 09:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

I'm wondering why we don't hear some of the state governors complaining. Has their authority over the Guard in their states been userped.

We are given to understand that the President is the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces. The National Guard is a component of the Army and Air Force. The Gov. has authority, but every Guardman is sworn to obey the orders of the President, and the Governor. The President comes first.

RickSp · May 17, 2006, 09:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bugsbunny04

We are given to understand that the President is the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces. The National Guard is a component of the Army and Air Force. The Gov. has authority, but every Guardman is sworn to obey the orders of the President, and the Governor. The President comes first.

The president is an elected official, not a king. His powers are limited, even if he clearly does not share that view.

rmnunez · May 17, 2006, 09:32 pm

California's Schwartzenegger and New Mexico's Bill Richardson expressed doubt over the deployments while Arizona's Napolitano and Texan Rick Perry supported the move. Richardson and Schwartzenegger are Republicans.

Scribbler1 · May 17, 2006, 09:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bugsbunny04

We are given to understand that the President is the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces. The National Guard is a component of the Army and Air Force. The Gov. has authority, but every Guardman is sworn to obey the orders of the President, and the Governor. The President comes first.

I understand the dual purpose the Guard serves but I was more curious as to why the respective governors hadn't complained. There isn't much fat on the guard as it is and Bush mobilizing them for "support" of the Border Patrol stretches the Guard even more. They won't be ACTING like a military force so why send them there?

I'm betting the shit will hit more than one fan if we get hammered by a couple of good-sized hurricanes as they are predicting.

bugsbunny04 · May 17, 2006, 11:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

I understand the dual purpose the Guard serves but I was more curious as to why the respective governors hadn't complained. There isn't much fat on the guard as it is and Bush mobilizing them for "support" of the Border Patrol stretches the Guard even more. They won't be ACTING like a military force so why send them there?

I'm betting the shit will hit more than one fan if we get hammered by a couple of good-sized hurricanes as they are predicting.

Well, first of all, Arizona doesnt have to worry about hurricanes. Texas has to worry about hurricanes BUT...

Second, the types of units that respond to hurricanes ARE NOT the same as the types of units that are going to the Border.

Third, 6000 troops is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Guardsmen available.

They WILL be acting in role similar to that they would be acting in say, if they were deployed to Iraq. The problem is, you arent paying attention. They are SERVICE AND SUPPORT TROOPS! If you still arent tracking, you arent informed enough to participate in this debate. Let me help you:

Not everybody in the Army is a Grunt. For every grunt, there are dozens of people other than grunts (POGies) giving him everything from transportation and communication to MREs and ammo. The Guardsmen going to the border are POGies. Their job is to SUPPORT men with guns. In Iraq they are going to support men with big guns in the desert. On the border they are going to support men with small guns in the desert. Doing the latter is better preparation for the former, than what 99% of these guys do in their civilian jobs.

If you STILL arent tracking, I suggest you just walk away.

Scribbler1 · May 17, 2006, 11:45 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bugsbunny04

If you STILL arent tracking, I suggest you just walk away.

I'm just asking questions, boy, so don't get snotty.
And I was talking about hurricane damage in general and not in the state they were going to.

jose · May 18, 2006, 10:05 am

WASHINGTON, May 17 — The quick fix may involve sending in the National Guard. But to really patch up the broken border, President Bush is preparing to turn to a familiar administration partner: the nation's giant military contractors.

Through its Secure Border Initiative, the Bush administration intends to not simply buy an amalgam of high-tech equipment to help it patrol the borders — a tactic it has also already tried, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, with extremely limited success. It is also asking the contractors to devise and build a whole new border strategy that ties together the personnel, technology and physical barriers.

"This is an unusual invitation," the deputy secretary of homeland security, Michael Jackson, told contractors this year at an industry briefing, just before the bidding period for this new contract started
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/wa...=1&oref=slogin

bishop · May 18, 2006, 10:17 am

well, i've learned enough about this proposal in recent days to switch my stance from supporting bush's initiative to opposing it. it's a nice charade, and an expensive one at that. rotating troops in/out every 2 weeks is quite a large undertaking. there hasn't been any logistical planning from what i've seen, these troops have absolutely no enforcement powers, considered extremely temporary, and i've even read that not all of them will be armed. excellent.

plus, this 6,000 figure was just some estimate a general gave when asked how many soldiers he could sacrifice without affecting operations in iraq. that alone shows that this is all window dressing and nothing more - another flailing act by an evil, lame duck president.

Boetie · May 18, 2006, 10:27 am

Moneybags gets to cross borders around the world and use cheap labor without having to face an army.

The little guy whom wants to do what moneybags does, which is seek to improve his lot, tries to do so by crossing borders. But, unlike moneybags, the little guy has to either go through red tape which could take decades and still get turned down or try to cross the border and face a whole army waiting to dogpile on him.

What a world we live in. Even if the little guy tries to improve his lot in his own country via moving his country to the left. The United States does everything it can to prevent that from happening. ie Vietnam, Nigaragua, Haiti, Chile etc.

Note on Vietnam: in case anyone didn't know Vietnam was supposed to have an election in 1958 which was cancelled because the United States feared the South will overwhelmingly vote communist. This of course could not be postponed indefinitenately, but lucky us we got a war going and just like Iraq we went on a whoopie look at democracy in action when a few people voted during the middle of a quamire. End note.

jose · May 19, 2006, 09:32 am

snip
A busy U.S-Mexico border crossing was shut down Thursday after U.S. authorities shot and killed the driver of a car headed for Mexico, officials said.

The shooting occurred on southbound Interstate 5 around 3:30 p.m. about 50 feet north of the San Ysidro Port of Entry, the world's busiest border crossing, which links Tijuana, Mexico, with San Diego.

The driver, who not immediately identified, was pronounced dead at the scene with multiple gunshot wounds, said Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents began following a black SUV after a citizen reported seeing the vehicle pick up suspected illegal immigrants near the U.S. side of the border, police said.

As traffic backed up near the border, the vehicle stopped on the shoulder. When agents approached, the suspect began to drive off, said police Lt. Kevin Rooney.

Two agents then opened fire, he said
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...831738,00.html
Shot while trying to escape Merika?

Boetie · May 20, 2006, 09:52 am

Below is a copy and paste job from a website.

Begin

How has US foreign policy placed, or kept, in power oppressive governments which people are forced to flee?'

- What role have international trade agreements had in creating or exacerbating people's urge to flee their homelands? If capital is going to freely cross borders, should people and labor be able to do so as well, going where globalization takes the jobs?

Such a framing of the problem would lead to a solution involving the Secretary of State, conversations with Mexico and other Central American countries, and a close examination of the promises of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank to raise standards of living around the globe. It would inject into the globalization debate a concern for the migration and displacement of people, not simply globalization's promise for profits. This is not addressed when the issue is defined as the “immigration problem.” Bush's “comprehensive solution” does not address any of these concerns. The immigration problem, in this light, is actually a globalization problem.

Perhaps the problem might be better understood as a humanitarian crisis. Can the mass migration and displacement of people from their homelands at a rate of 800,000 people a year be understood as anything else? Unknown numbers of people have died trekking through the extreme conditions of the Arizona and New Mexico desert. Towns are being depopulated and ways of life lost in rural Mexico. Fathers feel forced to leave their families in their best attempt to provide for their kids. Everyday, boatloads of people arrive on our shores after miserable journeys at sea in deplorable conditions.

As a humanitarian crisis, the solution could involve The UN or the Organization of American States. But these bodies do not have roles in the immigration frame, so they have no place in an “immigration debate.” Framing this as just an “immigration problem” prevents us from penetrating deeper into the issue.

End

Why is this problem of immigration limited to just illegal immigrants and not taken farther? I think the issue should be taken beyond just worrying about the borders as what you are about to read will point out.

grandpa · May 23, 2006, 11:11 pm

Quote:

Quote by: brien

Historically, this is a land of LEGAL immigrants. I think you are overstating the xenophobia issue.

Historically, this country was born out of genocide, tyranny, racism, warfare and slavery.

Grandpa h.

May 17, 2006, 07:33 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I'm wondering why we don't hear some of the state governors complaining. Has their authority over the Guard in their states been userped. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

May 17, 2006, 09:32 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	California's Schwartzenegger and New Mexico's Bill Richardson expressed doubt over the deployments while Arizona's Napolitano and Texan Rick Perry supported the move. Richardson and Schwartzenegger are Republicans. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

May 18, 2006, 10:05 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
jose Volcanic Erupter Location: España Posts: 2,608	Bush Turns to Big Military Contractors for Border Control WASHINGTON, May 17 — The quick fix may involve sending in the National Guard. But to really patch up the broken border, President Bush is preparing to turn to a familiar administration partner: the nation's giant military contractors. Through its Secure Border Initiative, the Bush administration intends to not simply buy an amalgam of high-tech equipment to help it patrol the borders — a tactic it has also already tried, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, with extremely limited success. It is also asking the contractors to devise and build a whole new border strategy that ties together the personnel, technology and physical barriers. "This is an unusual invitation," the deputy secretary of homeland security, Michael Jackson, told contractors this year at an industry briefing, just before the bidding period for this new contract started http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/wa...=1&oref=slogin

May 18, 2006, 10:17 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	well, i've learned enough about this proposal in recent days to switch my stance from supporting bush's initiative to opposing it. it's a nice charade, and an expensive one at that. rotating troops in/out every 2 weeks is quite a large undertaking. there hasn't been any logistical planning from what i've seen, these troops have absolutely no enforcement powers, considered extremely temporary, and i've even read that not all of them will be armed. excellent. plus, this 6,000 figure was just some estimate a general gave when asked how many soldiers he could sacrifice without affecting operations in iraq. that alone shows that this is all window dressing and nothing more - another flailing act by an evil, lame duck president. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

May 18, 2006, 10:27 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
Boetie Hot Lava Posts: 1,227	Moneybags gets to cross borders around the world and use cheap labor without having to face an army. The little guy whom wants to do what moneybags does, which is seek to improve his lot, tries to do so by crossing borders. But, unlike moneybags, the little guy has to either go through red tape which could take decades and still get turned down or try to cross the border and face a whole army waiting to dogpile on him. What a world we live in. Even if the little guy tries to improve his lot in his own country via moving his country to the left. The United States does everything it can to prevent that from happening. ie Vietnam, Nigaragua, Haiti, Chile etc. Note on Vietnam: in case anyone didn't know Vietnam was supposed to have an election in 1958 which was cancelled because the United States feared the South will overwhelmingly vote communist. This of course could not be postponed indefinitenately, but lucky us we got a war going and just like Iraq we went on a whoopie look at democracy in action when a few people voted during the middle of a quamire. End note. Last edited by Boetie; May 18, 2006 at 10:33 am.

May 19, 2006, 09:32 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
jose Volcanic Erupter Location: España Posts: 2,608	Border Crossing Shut Following Shooting snip A busy U.S-Mexico border crossing was shut down Thursday after U.S. authorities shot and killed the driver of a car headed for Mexico, officials said. The shooting occurred on southbound Interstate 5 around 3:30 p.m. about 50 feet north of the San Ysidro Port of Entry, the world's busiest border crossing, which links Tijuana, Mexico, with San Diego. The driver, who not immediately identified, was pronounced dead at the scene with multiple gunshot wounds, said Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents began following a black SUV after a citizen reported seeing the vehicle pick up suspected illegal immigrants near the U.S. side of the border, police said. As traffic backed up near the border, the vehicle stopped on the shoulder. When agents approached, the suspect began to drive off, said police Lt. Kevin Rooney. Two agents then opened fire, he said http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...831738,00.html Shot while trying to escape Merika?

May 20, 2006, 09:52 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
Boetie Hot Lava Posts: 1,227	Below is a copy and paste job from a website. Begin How has US foreign policy placed, or kept, in power oppressive governments which people are forced to flee?' - What role have international trade agreements had in creating or exacerbating people's urge to flee their homelands? If capital is going to freely cross borders, should people and labor be able to do so as well, going where globalization takes the jobs? Such a framing of the problem would lead to a solution involving the Secretary of State, conversations with Mexico and other Central American countries, and a close examination of the promises of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank to raise standards of living around the globe. It would inject into the globalization debate a concern for the migration and displacement of people, not simply globalization's promise for profits. This is not addressed when the issue is defined as the “immigration problem.” Bush's “comprehensive solution” does not address any of these concerns. The immigration problem, in this light, is actually a globalization problem. Perhaps the problem might be better understood as a humanitarian crisis. Can the mass migration and displacement of people from their homelands at a rate of 800,000 people a year be understood as anything else? Unknown numbers of people have died trekking through the extreme conditions of the Arizona and New Mexico desert. Towns are being depopulated and ways of life lost in rural Mexico. Fathers feel forced to leave their families in their best attempt to provide for their kids. Everyday, boatloads of people arrive on our shores after miserable journeys at sea in deplorable conditions. As a humanitarian crisis, the solution could involve The UN or the Organization of American States. But these bodies do not have roles in the immigration frame, so they have no place in an “immigration debate.” Framing this as just an “immigration problem” prevents us from penetrating deeper into the issue. End Why is this problem of immigration limited to just illegal immigrants and not taken farther? I think the issue should be taken beyond just worrying about the borders as what you are about to read will point out.