Thread: Armed Mexican troops turned back illegal aliens at U.S. border Why can't we

Armed Mexican troops turned back illegal aliens at U.S. border

Why can't we put our troops on our border?


Mexican soldiers check for a visa from Manuel Alejandro Alvarez Gomez, center as he and other Cubans stranded in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico try to cross the international bridge following a rally and marching from Plaza Juarez to the International Bridge, on Saturday, April. 8, 2017


"Mexican soldiers armed with rifles turned them back, but a dozen slipped past the soldiers in a second wave"


@ Immigration officials at Laredo turn back protesting Cubans

We can. We always could. Every country in the world uses their troops at their borders, ports and airports when circumstances warrant. When I flew to Italy and Greece many years ago, there were armed soldiers all over the airports. In Greece they tried to steal our camera because my husband took pictures of them.

Many of US have called for troops to the border for over 10 years. It's just common sense. The reason why we haven't is not because we couldn't, it's because our government has been in cahoots with the drug cartels behind this disaster. You can believe it or not, but there's no other explanation for this mess being unattended to all these years.

Personally, I'd rather have troops or a Wall of Americans guarding our borders than a Wall, mainly because of the duality of the Wall. With the Wall you still need personnel to guard the Wall. Why not just put troops and a Wall of Americans on the border, something that doesn't require dual functions, wall + people, just people. Also, you avoid all the problems with the farmers down there and perhaps as important as anything, you avoid the adverse impact on the environment. Plus it creates nice jobs for Americans who need them and would work their hearts out protecting our country.

In an effort to stop the opioid epidemic specifically heroin, I can see a real justification for troops on the border to stop the flow of drugs from Mexico. Drugs have become epidemic and the majority are coming through Mexico and the Fentanyl from China.

From the Business Insider December 7, 2016.

Mexican cartels are expanding their control over the US heroin market
https://www.alipac.us/f12/mexican-ca...7/#post1548670

Absolutely. But I think not only for the drugs but to stop all the invaders. But the killer narcotics is certainly a reason no one should be able to argue about. Come On!! Lets get smart and get troops to the US border with Mexico. NOW.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Personally, I'd rather have troops or a Wall of Americans guarding our borders than a Wall, mainly because of the duality of the Wall. With the Wall you still need personnel to guard the Wall. Why not just put troops and a Wall of Americans on the border, something that doesn't require dual functions, wall + people, just people. Also, you avoid all the problems with the farmers down there and perhaps as important as anything, you avoid the adverse impact on the environment. Plus it creates nice jobs for Americans who need them and would work their hearts out protecting our country.

An efficient border wall or fence is a force multiplier. The more quality fencing provided, the fewer people necessary to secure the border. Your proposal of a "wall of Americans", while sounding good in theory, is not practical and would be less cost effective than a border wall with all the bells and whistles. Heck, we're having a hard enough time trying to get funding for a quality border wall. Could you imagine trying to get funding for hundreds of thousands, or maybe even a million, new BP agents? You're talking about an awful lot of money when you consider salaries, pensions, healthcare, dental plans, etc.

On sending active duty military to the border, that would not be a permanent solution. Besides that, our military is already spread thin and at the first sign of trouble elsewhere in the world the troops would be yanked so fast it would make Mexico's head spin.

Like I said, a quality wall is a force multiplier. It is more or less designed to be a permanent fixture. Securing our border will require a combination of quality fencing with all the bells and whistles and an ample supply of BP agents to patrol and monitor necessary sensors and surveillance equipment.

Oh, and one last thing regarding your troops to the border solution. Let's not forget the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Sending active duty military to the border would require an act of Congress. Good luck with that.

Yes, we have the troops now - use them. We have NG, we have seasoned active military - a lot of them right here in Texas.
They could serve on a rotating basis and not be far from home.

We have air bases in Texas that could be used for surveillance.

Bottom line, we have the personnel, we have the laws to fix the illegal problem and a lot of our drug problem.
What we lack is some spines in Washington.

Why do we need an excuse for putting troops on the border. It is our first line of defense. They should have been there for the last 60 years.

We did have NG on the border then a 16 year old 'goatherder' - read that lookout for drug carriers - got shot and this country rose up with all it's halo polishers and declared that just shouldn't happen.

The idea we can't have troops on the border is one of those subtle lies the media/our government has been slipping in for decades. Somehow they really have convinced us we can't put troops on our very own border. We can apparently put them on ever other border in the world, just not ours.

Where else in the world should our troops be? - But on our border.

They should be no where else - BUT on our border.

Drugs are certainly part of it - again the profits go all the way up the food chain. Drugs, in my opinion, serve a dual purpose for the powerful. They are more lucrative than oil. They keep a large and getting larger percentage of our young people
useless and manageable. Young people generally are the ones who rebel or at least begin asking the questions. They are the ones who feel they can do something. A good way to keep a country under control is to keep those people hooked on drugs, dependent on the government or crime, or keep them working in meaningless jobs at low wages.

Just me, though, I think drugs, in large amounts are coming in other than across our land borders.

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles paid $40,000 a year with 25% benefits for $50,000 a year total package is $2 billion a year. I've always added another $1 billion for supplies, supervision, equipment, camping gear, vehicles and so forth. So an annual cost of $3 billion a year.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection today with 45,600 agents is almost $14 billion a year. So my deal is a bargain by comparison. You would simply add the $3 billion to this budget for the Wall of Americans and it would be $17 billion instead of $14 billion. The benefit is better enforcement without interfering with the environment, dividing farms, impacting the Indian Reservations and ruining the views.

If it's ultimately decided there's 500 to 1,000 miles that doesn't need 24/7/365 coverage, then possibly that 40,000 can be reduced to 30,000 which would reduce the cost to $2.25 billion a year. Or if 20,000 would make a huge difference, then $1.5 Billion a Year. Either way, it's a huge bargain over the wall.

But like I said, for some strange reason people like you don't like it. It's plain befuddling if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles paid $40,000 a year with 25% benefits for $50,000 a year total package is $2 billion a year. I've always added another $1 billion for supplies, supervision, equipment, camping gear, vehicles and so forth. So an annual cost of $3 billion a year.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection today with 45,600 agents is almost $14 billion a year. So my deal is a bargain by comparison. You would simply add the $3 billion to this budget for the Wall of Americans and it would be $17 billion instead of $14 billion. The benefit is better enforcement without interfering with the environment, dividing farms, impacting the Indian Reservations and ruining the views.

If it's ultimately decided there's 500 to 1,000 miles that doesn't need 24/7/365 coverage, then possibly that 40,000 can be reduced to 30,000 which would reduce the cost to $2.25 billion a year. Or if 20,000 would make a huge difference, then $1.5 Billion a Year. Either way, it's a huge bargain over the wall.

But like I said, for some strange reason people like you don't like it. It's plain befuddling if you ask me.

Either you and nntrixie didn't bother to read what I wrote or you've both decided to ignore most of it. If you guys are set in your mind and don't care to listen to reason, that's on you. Moreover, I can't figure out what you really want anyway. One minute your support Trump's wall and the next you don't.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Oh, and one last thing regarding your troops to the border solution. Let's not forget the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Sending active duty military to the border would require an act of Congress. Good luck with that.

First off, if we have a law that states our military CANNOT defend our own border - then that needs to go.
I believe it was designed to keep the federal government from using the military against it's own people, not from defending us from invaders or drug dealers.

Now today, with our government of the last 50/60 years, I could believe they would pass a law that states we can't defend our own border, but not in 1878.

Also, I have read that deterring drugs is an exemption from the law.

A wall is just as good as the people standing behind it. It may be something to slow them down in order to be caught, but it will not work alone.

I believe our politicians know this, therefore, they keep talking about a wall, as if that is their only solution, knowing it will take 2 years or more to put in place.

They can play a lot of havoc with this country in 2 years time.

Lots more time to get more 'dreamers' into places of power and decision making in this country.

Remember, we were promised a fence after the failure of amnesty under George Bush.

As to our military being spread thin already - I have a very good solution.

Let's bring them home, and let them defend what is most precious to us - our own country and the future of our children and grandchildren.

The idea we can't defend our borders, the idea we CAN defend every other border in the world, is mind bogglling. We can't defend our border because our troops are all around the world, in other countries? They are fighting in wars that have no benefit for the US - has nothing to do with our freedom and safety - just the opposite. Those wars are being fought to make corporations and politicians wealthy.

So -- maybe it makes sense to keep them over there fighting for corporations, rather than guarding our border making us safe. Keeping the illegals out will be cutting into the profits of the corporations, and the income of the politicians - so in that case it makes sense - right?

18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code
• Notes
• Authorities (CFR)

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(Added Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, § 18(a), 70A Stat. 626; amended Pub. L. 86–70, § 17(d), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 144; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385