2006 May 14 Sunday
Norwood On Troop Deployments Needed For Border Control

US House Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) says if Bush follows through on rumours and announces deployment of National Guard along the US border with Mexico then unless the number of soldiers deployed are adequate to do the job (at least 36,000 needed) the policy will just be spin.

But will the proposal be real, or just spin?

The truth will lie in the proposed numbers, and whether the plan is for a short-term demonstration project or a long-term strategy for truly securing our southern border.

A real plan has already been proposed, with full details and research data included in last year's Immigration Reform Caucus special report, "Results and Implications of the Minutemen Project."

Under that plan, the southern border can be virtually closed except at legal points of entry within a one-month period -- at the longest. The flood of illegal immigration that has plagued America since the last amnesty plan in 1986 will be over.

It will initially take 36,000 troops. At the start, they should be National Guard personnel drawn nationally. There isn't enough National Guard in the border states alone to do the job without hindering combat readiness, so the forces will need to be pulled from other states as well under current National Guard Bureau assistance regulations.

The 36,000 troops will provide an average of three two-man teams per border mile for the entire 1,951-mile border with Mexico, working eight-hour shifts. Once in place on the ground, the deployment will need to be increased to 48,000 troops, to provide necessary manpower for time-off, sick leave, and long-term support services.

Most likely Bush might try to placate his (former) conservative base with a token deployment of troops. I do not expect him to sign up for a deployment of 48,00 troops to stop the illegal influx while a wall gets built. I also do not expect him to commence serious interior enforcement of immigration laws.

Troops could be used to secure the border while a border barrier gets built. Then the barrier fence or wall could make crossing harder and slower. Attempts to cross would trigger electronic alarms and get caught on video cameras and infrared cameras. Then the Border Patrol could dispatch personnel to catch crossers while they are still in the barrier zone.

Here are the findings of the Immigration Reform Caucus "Results and Implications of the Minutemen Project" report which Norwood refers to above.

Based on the evidence gathered from the Minuteman Project; U.S. Border Patrol; Cochise County Sheriff’s Department; Bisbee, Arizona Police Department; National Park Service; U.S. Army; multiple media sources; and individual testimonies, the Caucus Team reports the following findings on the Results and Implications of the Minuteman Project.

  1. Reasonable Manpower Increases Will Immediately Curtail Rampant Illegal Immigration. An average six additional personnel on station per border mile proved effective in dramatically reducing illegal crossings.
  2. Reinforcements Can Be Oriented and Deployed in Days. In contrast to the Border Patrol position of two-year training time for new officers, the Minutemen demonstrated that auxiliary personnel can be trained and deployed in three days. The lesser duties of supporting higher-trained Border Patrol and other state and federal law enforcement agencies does not require the full legal skills of Border Patrol agents.
  3. 36,000 Reinforcements Would Likely Seal Our Southern Border. However, unlike the Minutemen’s 12-hour shifts, to maintain six personnel on station 24/7 on a permanent basis would require adequate personnel for at least three shifts, or 18 auxiliaries per mile. The 2000-mile southern border would therefore require a minimum 36,000 total additional personnel, with 48,000 likely for a long-term deployment requiring substantial support personnel.
  4. Reinforcements Are Available From Existing Reserves. Troops should be drawn from all 50 states, or the border states and their neighbors at minimum. Mobilizing troops from just the border states would exhaust their manpower reserves, eliminate the warfighting capability of Guard members in those states, and would be unsustainable. Drawing 36,000 National Guard and State Defense Force personnel from the border states and their immediate neighbors would require 41% of available forces in the respective states. If drawn from National Guard forces nationwide, the border reinforcements would total 11% of available forces. As a long-term solution, one-half of the 70,000 federal troops returning from overseas could be permanently assigned the mission as part of the BRAC process currently underway.
  5. The Defense Authorization Act of 2005 provides specific legal authority for the Governors and the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement this plan with full federal funding. Section 512 of HR 4200, the Defense Authorization Act of 2005, passed by the 108th Congress, amends Title 32 Section 9 of U.S. Code to allow Governors to call forth their National Guard for homeland security duties within their state in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, and receive full federal funding for the mission, with no action required by Congress or the President.
  6. Long-Term Solutions: Border Security should remain a federal responsibility. The U.S. Border Patrol must be increased to somewhere between 25-50,000 officers to adequately guard our southern border, with the final size determination dependent on proven field effectiveness of new technology and infrastructure such as fencing, lighting, UAVs, sensors, etc. Until the Border Patrol is fully staffed and equipped, military support will remain a necessity. One-half or more of the 70,000 federal troops returning from overseas should be assigned the mission as part of the BRAC process currently underway, to relieve our National Guard and State forces as soon as practicable. Federal troops should in turn be relieved by a strengthened Border Patrol, but only when such reinforcements are fully in place.

I do not expect honest proposals from Jorge W. Bush. It isn't in his character to mean what he says. He wants to pursue policies that will turn the United States of America into Latin America. His goal at this point is to pursue his policies in a way that allows him to placate Americans across the political spectrum who want immigration reduction. I hope the American people are not gullible enough to be fooled by his next attempt at deception. They do not agree with him: Majority Of American Public Are Immigration Restrictionists.

Update: Bush plans to send a token force of soldiers in hopes of convincing the House Republicans to support his worker permit program for illegal aliens.

The White House formally insisted that no decision has been made and that Bush was still considering options yesterday. But aides left little doubt that the president intends to call for an expanded Guard deployment at the border involving several thousand troops, a significant increase from the 200 or so now there.

...

Tonight's speech is aimed at assuaging House Republicans who have insisted on tougher enforcement measures against workers illegally in the country. If the House contingent feels action is being taken, White House officials hope they may yet sign off on some version of Bush's guest-worker proposal, which would provide a way for undocumented immigrants to stay here legally if they pay back taxes and penalties.

If you want to understand why Jorge Bush's proposal will make the problem with the Hispanic influx even worse see my post Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal. I explain the stupidity of this plan in consideable detail.

I have a simple question for Bush and his fellow traitors in the US Senate: When Mexicans here under their worker permit plan show up with their family members at a US hospital's emergency ward who is going to pay for their medical care? If they break the law who will pay for their public defender, their trial costs, and their prison costs? Who will pay for the schooling of their kids?

Update II: Lawrence Auster asks whether Bush will strike a pose of transparent insincerity or a somewhat slightly more deceptive pose of translucent insincerity.

Oh the nail-biting suspense! What will the president say in his illegal-immigration speech Monday night? Will he huff and puff and deliver his tried and tested, transparently insincere, self-evidently unbelievable, pro-forma statement that he intends to enforce the law ... or will he recognize the trouble he is in, reach deep within himself, and come up with ... a slightly less transparently insincere statement that he intends to enforce the law?

...

In other words, Hewitt is upset at the thought that the president is going to make a border-security proposal that is transparently insincere. For Hewitt, everything depends on the president’s making a border-security proposal that is only translucently insincere.

As Larry has pointed out, some Bush apologists are at least partial immigration restrictionists who support an end to illegal immigration while avoiding taking a position about legal immigration and while avoiding addressing Bush's role in keeping the Hispanic influx at a high rate.

Larry Auster also passes along a very interesting analysis of Bush by Howard Sutherland (which you ought to click through to and read in full):

Bush is also a born-and-bred establishment liberal. For all the Texas accent, he belongs (patrician Greenwich family; Andover; Yale; Harvard) to a bipartisan Northeastern liberal elite. That set may have been wrong about most things in the end, but during his schooldays they were quite sure they were right. With the possible exception of abortion, he does not question fundamental liberal assumptions. His foreign policy is nothing but armed liberalism, and his domestic policies are those of Lyndon Johnson, only worse. Bush used that Texas accent and phrases like “compassionate conservatism” to fool the Republican rubes. Other people may see him as dumb; I think Bush sees himself as smart, successful and in charge. I don’t put much stock in his being in some sort of psychological contest with his father. Any feelings of inferiority he might have had on that score would have vanished when he beat the old man’s record by winning re-election.

...

But why Mexico? Throughout his life, Bush has been exposed to nice Mexicans. At the lower end, there were probably nice maids and ranch hands who helped out around the place and, in their way, helped raise him. For all I know, the Mexican maids were nicer to him than his mother, who is a formidable woman. At the upper end, there were the elegant, erudite, fun and mind-bogglingly rich Mexican oligarchs with whom his father did business and politics, and whose playboy children would have been some of Bush’s playmates in his partying days. He just likes Mexicans. I think he likes them better than Americans. The Mexican functionaries he meets are a lot more like the people he goes hunting with in Texas (some are the same people) than any of his geek Washington advisers. Like many people I know in Texas, he is very comfortable with Mexican culture seen through a tex-mex lens. I like it myself, and I am a sworn enemy of the Mexican government. Bush probably has better memories overall of relations with Mexicans throughout his life than he does with Americans. I would bet that while his personal experiences of his fellow Americans have been good and bad, his experiences of Mexicans have been almost all good from his point of view. He won’t see the bad in Mexico; he hasn’t experienced it and, anyway, to criticize Mexico on social or cultural grounds would be racist. Not gonna happen…

Maybe Bush hates Americans because they aren't as subservient toward him as Mexicans are.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 May 14 06:19 PM  Immigration Border Control


Comments
Stephen said at May 14, 2006 9:23 PM:

This predisposition to turn to the military for a solution to any problem is really worrying in terms of a healthy nation.

Jorge D.C. said at May 14, 2006 11:49 PM:

For secure-the-borders types, the past few days have been useful to determine if you have battered-wife syndrome. Anyone planning to reserve judgement on Bush's handling of the immigration issue until tomorrow night's speech needs counseling.

Karl said at May 15, 2006 4:28 AM:

Mr. Auster is reading Hugh Hewitt's beads accurately. Two or three years ago, Hewitt had Michelle Malkin on his show. He was dismissive and rather snotty when she suggested we build a wall/fence across the border. Now he is blogging about a fence as if he's the guy who thought up the idea.

All of his advice for Bush and the GOP leadership boils down to this; "What is the most effective way to deceive Americans into believing we're serious about the border/illegals so they'll will stop paying attention long enough for us to grant amnesty?"

He calls it "fence now, regularization later". "Regularization"! Isn't that special?

Deceive America before the election, screw America AFTER the election. That's Hugh Hewitt.

Roy said at May 15, 2006 7:02 AM:

Stephen,
What would you suggest for closing the boarders? Preventing foreign invaders from entering the country seems like the kind of thing the military might have in its 'mission statement'.

And given the amount of "America stole this land from Mexico" signs I've seen at these recent protest marches, I think the term "invaders" holds more than a grain of truth.

Jorge D.C. said at May 15, 2006 11:55 AM:

Karl says:

...That's Hugh Hewitt.

Hugh Hewitt is a cultural marxist. In other words all cultures around the world are at least equal to traditional American WASP culture and quite likely superior.

Hewitt believes the USA is a proposition nation with no founding ethnicity or core culture that must be assimilated to. The fact that he is a respected "conservative" tells you all you need to know about Leftist penetration of the Right in America.

Check out his comments from the Chris Matthews Show last month and see how, without 9/11 and the resulting security concern, there simply would be no reason to enforce the US border. For Hewitt, it's all about the possibility of a dirty bomb.

This man is an intellectual lightweight and a groveling, obedient slave to the PC regime.

"HEWITT: ...the largest concentration of Mexicans living outside of Mexico is in Santa Ana. I live five miles from there; it does not bother me in the least. It does not bother most Californians. It's always-- California is a mixed society, majority-minority society. That's not the issue."

"The issue is the stress on social services. It's wildly expensive. Health care is extremely expensive. But more importantly, I think this immigration debate is being driven by the vast majority of Americans and certainly in the Republican Party by a concern that a dirty bomb is going to come over that border, and then it will be too late to change it, and then the wall will go up. We can stop that."

"MATTHEWS: I disagree. I think -- I think it's ethnic, I think it has to do with the change in cultural realities of this town like Watsonville in California that overnight changed completely, and the people don't want that kind of change."

Jorge D.C. said at May 15, 2006 12:54 PM:

Here is an article extolling the endless virtues of cultural marxism as it appears on the internet's leading "conservative" forum, Free Rebublic.

The Multiculturalism of the Streets

The author Joel Kotkin is ecstatic about the new, improved America and West overall. The election of a new people - the importation of the new non-white populace into the USA and other Western nations - obviously thrills his soul.

And the best part is there will be no frightening majority population of whites to contend with! But it's not disenfranchisement of whites. Or displacement of whites in their own countries. No! It's simply a matter of "survival" for the West. We need mass non-Western immigration in order to survive as a Western nation. Get it?

As per the marxist style guide for journalism in America, non-whites are described in the article as "dynamic" and "vibrant". While whites get the usual perjorative adjectives like "whitebread" and "lily-white".

And the "freeper" comments are greatly in approval!

Kurt said at May 15, 2006 1:56 PM:

I just read the Joel Kotkin article. BTW, Jorge, you did not include the link or URL for the article, I googled it.

What Joel fails to consider is the qualitative differences between the immigrants from East Asia (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese) and the Latinos. These qualitative differences are well discussed in Amy Chua's book "A World on Fire", where she discusses various people in terms of "market minorities" and "sons of the soil". Having the experience of travelling to and living in Malaysia, I am well familiar with the differences between the "market minorities" (i.e. Chinese) and the "sons of the soil" (Malay bumiputra). I can say that Amy does a very good job of characterizing these differences but, probably due to her inability to cast off residual political correctness, she fails to account for WHY these two groups of people are different.

As we all know, the "market minorities" are hard working, tend to do well academically, and tend to make good entreprenuers or successful professional people. In other words, they are modern, urbane, merchantile class (which the Chinese in Malaysia fit to a T). The "sons of the soil" are pretty much the opposite of the "market minority". They tend not to work so hard, their kids do poorly academically, and they are not as entreprenuerial nor do they become the sucessful professionals that the market minority types become.

The questions is: are the Latinos "market minorities"? Or are they more like the "sons of the soil"? The first generation of latinos tend to work hard. Their kids do not. Their kids do poorly in school and tend to form an additional underclass. What will the third generation be like? As anyone bothered to consider this question? If the recent Latino immigrants are a new "market minority", I can share the optimism of Joel Kotkin and other immigration enthusiasts. If they are of the "sons of the soil", they represent the death of the West. A death that could occur within the next 50 years, if the projections on immigrant population from the recent Senate bill are to be believed.

My experience is that "market minorities" and "sons of the soil" do not fit well together in the same society. The market people work hard and are successful. The "sons of the soil" increasingly resent the success of the market people to the point of demanding redistribution economic policies and worse. Malaysia is particularly bad for this. Two Chinese people want to start a business. They must include a Malay business partner or they cannot get a business license and start their business. Also, the Malays are out-breeding the Chinese and Indians. The breakdown in 1980 used to be Malay 53%, Chinese 35%, Indian 12%. Today the breakdown is Malay >60%, Chinese 25%, and India 8% or less. Will Malaysia remain a free, open society tolorant of its "minorities"? Or will there be increasing demand for the Islamization of Malaysian society over the next few decades. History and current experience shows an ugly reality for the "market minority" if it becomes a smaller minority in the society. As goes Malaysia, will also go the U.S.?


What bothers me about the "market minority" vs. the "sons of the soil" issue is the fact that the pro-immigration people refuse to even consider and discuss this issue. Is this because they are so sold lock, stock, and barrel on the fantasy delusion that we are all the same? That as long as we all have the "right" education that we will all magically turn into "market minorities"? Is there historical precident a "sons of the soil" population turning into a "market minority" in a short enough time period (say 30-50 years) as to benefit the U.S. for this occuring? If so, I would like to know what it is. In medicine, the operative principle is "first, do no harm". This translates into immigration skepticism for the immigration issue. We know that the current mix of people in the U.S. are largely "market minority". The burden of argument is on the pro-immigration people to show the evidence that the current (and future) wave of Latino immigrants are also "market minorities", not "sons of the soil".

Consider a more ugly possibility: Our intellectual class may be so contemptuous of the values of work, achievement, and creativity that they are willing to deep-six the Western world in their blind quest for "equality" over all else. A meritocracy is inherently unequal. Some people are smarter than others, some work harder than others, some simply dream bigger than others and are willing to do the neccessary work to make their dreams a reality. A society based on the idea that people should be allowed to try and success or fail on their own capabilities is going to be inherently unequal. Perhaps this is really what is behind the pro-immigration enthusiasts, especially the liberal-left. Perhaps Jorge W. Bush as well, given that he has little notable personal accomplishments to his credit, before becoming El Presidente.

The reality is that the Western culture is a creation by and for "market minorities". Examples in history (and personal experience of Malaysia) suggests that the West cannot remain as a driven, successful techno-culture if we allow large numbers of the "son of the soil" to become an increasing percentage of our population. For those of you who disagree with me, the burden of argument is now on you.

noone said at May 15, 2006 5:24 PM:

Half measures and business as usual.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©