Should active duty military be used to secure the borders and ensure the safety of our nation?

PO2 James Craig — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:55:33 -0400

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 20 at 2015 11:04 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:04:50 -0400

Let that boarding state take care of that along with federal assets and funding, but if there was oil there, we'd be there.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 1:35 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:35:13 -0400

Why not? After all, you're not targeting Americans but potential foreign terrorists. Posse Comitatus will definitely not apply in this situation. God bless America and keep our borders safe!

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 21 at 2015 2:44 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:44:09 -0400

Not without a change of mission statement!

Response by SFC Charles S. made Mar 21 at 2015 2:58 AM

SFC Charles S. — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:58:15 -0400

I believe the military are capable of doing this.... If asked it would be a congressional decision to make it happen which would be doubtful. But I think we need to do more than what is being done now.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 11:25 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:25:22 -0400

Definitely not, our active duty military should not be conducting any operation on U.S. soil unless it is to defend against an armed invasion. Illegal immigrants, however great the numbers, is not an armed invasion. Illegal immigration is a law enforcement issue. Worst case the national guard could help in extreme circumstances. The Posse Comitatus Act specifically limits the federal governments ability to use federal troops in domestic law enforcement. However it does not apply to the National Guard. It's a slippery slope when the federal government is allowed to use the military as a police force.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Mar 21 at 2015 12:32 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:32:52 -0400

The US Military is very capable of defending US borders. The question becomes one of law, mission, training and will. The first three can be handled without too much trouble, if the fourth (will) is in favor of actually securing the borders. It will take a President and Congress willing to recognize the influx of illegal aliens entering the US as an invasion--a clear and present danger to the nation. Too many politicians see illegals as potential voters right now.

The DOD knows how to secure a geographical area. The DOD has studied this mission in the past. In the 1980s we determined it would take several Army Divisions, Air Force Squadrons, and Navy and Coast Guard ships to do the job on the Southern border. The concern then was drugs more than illegal people entering the US. These wouldn't be force deployments, but repositioning and re-missioning of forces currently garrisoned in the US. Technology has improved, so the surveillance part of the mission may take fewer people today, but the enforcement part--catching the invaders--is still manpower intensive.

We must make potential illegal border crossers believe it is too hard and too expensive to cross the border and the flow will greatly decrease or stop. As pointed out earlier in this string, the use of deadly force is a major problem. The rules of engagement for US military personnel are very important. We don't want to indiscriminately shoot people crossing the border when we could capture them and return them. However, the military personnel must have the right to defend themselves. We also have to accept that there will be unfortunate instances of the excessive use of force and be ready to deal with them appropriately. Passive border protection means can be effective in stopping the "invasion." Fences, sensors, satellites, drones, etc., can be used to detect and possibly deter the invaders. Strategic communication to the populations in Central and South America can also help stem the flow. Would-be illegals must believe they will face great physical difficulty in crossing the border, and if they do make it across capture or death may result (we don't actually have to kill them, just make them think we would).

Finally, we have to effectively remove the factors that draw people to enter the US illegally (includes overstaying visa). Note that very few West Berliners tried to "escape" into East Berlin while many East Berliners risked their lives to escape to the West. We need to aggressively seek and capture illegal aliens and deport them at every opportunity in a very public way. The laws preventing hiring of illegals need to be enforced. We need to prevent illegals from getting Government hand outs, welfare, Medicade, etc., in a serious and effective way. And, we need to absolutely block any path to citizenship to those who are in the US illegally. If the incentive of a better life, good job and Government freebies is removed, the flow of illegals will greatly decrease making border enforcement easier.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 21 at 2015 12:37 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:37:29 -0400

Seems to be more of a National Guard mission to me personally.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 21 at 2015 2:35 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:35:57 -0400

PO2 James Craig, I can't think of a better use for the military. This would have to be in conjunction with a good, secure fence.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 7:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:41:54 -0400

I have no issue with doing a rotation on our borders.

Response by PO3 Jonathan Harp made Mar 21 at 2015 8:25 PM

PO3 Jonathan Harp — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:25:41 -0400

This sounds highly unlikely I mean seeing that we have leaders that want to open our border. Then again it sounds like something our contradictory leaders would do. They want to give more responsibility to our military but take away funding...

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Mar 21 at 2015 8:41 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:41:07 -0400

I voted no, though it's really a two part answer. The US military should defend the border when there is a threat from a foreign military or equally dangerous adversary. The US military should not be used to catch illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, and other activities that are criminal in nature... that is what we have law enforcement and other government agencies for. There are plenty of agencies better equipped to catch terrorists in the US as well... we don't need the active duty military doing that.

The military should be used to seek out the enemy and destroy it... not to sit on a fence in the United States... in my personal opinion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 8:43 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:43:26 -0400

Quit playing B.S. political games and make DHS and DOJ do their jobs and pull their weight in keeping this nation secure on ALL of our borders!

Response by SSG Stacy Carter made Mar 21 at 2015 9:10 PM

SSG Stacy Carter — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:10:23 -0400

It is illegal for the active military to enforce laws except on its own military bases. There is a law called The Posse Comitatus Act. The purpose of the Act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using its military personnel to act as domestic law enforcement personnel. While it does not specifically mention the Department of the Navy, the Navy's regulations adhere to the Act.

While I would love to see our borders secure, using our active duty personnel to do so would severely weaken our ability to react to threats from foreign entities.

Response by MSgt Michael Gaddis made Mar 22 at 2015 12:41 AM

MSgt Michael Gaddis — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 00:41:26 -0400

As long as they are actually carrying with a mag in and round chambered! And no ignorent ROEs...or firing on AMERICAN citizens.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 5:59 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 05:59:03 -0400

Around 50% of the illegals here originally came on a legal visa. And a wall will stop nothing. Prisons are about as secure as you can possibly get, yet prisoners have drugs, cell phones, weapons, etc. As long as there is a demand for illegal labor, there will be a supply.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 22 at 2015 10:39 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:39:42 -0400

Only if we are going to get serious about enforcing ALL the immigration laws currently on the books.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Mar 22 at 2015 12:01 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:01:47 -0400

Active duty does ensure the safety of our nation; however it shouldn't be used to secure the borders unless we are at war with Canada or Mexico and we actually fear a potentially devastating invasion. We merely need to increase the border patrol where needed to secure the borders.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 12:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:09:03 -0400

Seems like more of a National Guard mission to me.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 12:55 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:55:57 -0400

No...the boarder patrol needs the tools and the ability to do their jobs. If the military is securing the boarder that better mean that Canada is attacking

Response by SGT Beau Thomas made Mar 22 at 2015 8:27 PM

SGT Beau Thomas — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:27:59 -0400

I spent 6 months recently securing the borders in south Texas for the Texas NG. I will tell you that our borders are completely porous. The cartels control the Mexican side and much of the American side. The Drugs come through by the ton. DPS told me that they catch about 10% of what comes through. IMO, I believe that having NG troops work the border 24/7 is cheaper than paying the billions of dollars yearly for everything associated with illegal aliens including crime, prison, public defenders, medical care, welfare, etc.. And by the way, I really thinks it's funny when people say they don't want the border militarized....I would see Mexican Marines or police in full battle rattle all the time.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 12:45 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:45:02 -0400

In the short term it might seem like a good idea, but the militarization of any law enforcement office is not something that this Republic wants nor needs.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 23 at 2015 3:07 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 03:07:26 -0400

Absolutely not. All military except for the National Guard and Coast Guard have absolutely no authority to operate on U.S. soil except during times of martial law and/or if we are being actively invaded on CONUS soil. Using the military as something besides a force for fighting wars is the first step on a slippery slope in creating a military police state, which is completely unacceptable.

Response by SPC Dan McDowell made Mar 23 at 2015 6:28 AM

SPC Dan McDowell — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:28:24 -0400

We can also help keep BPH rookie wannabes under control from harassing (illegal search and seizures) U.S. citizens while illegals slip across the border

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 23 at 2015 8:14 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:14:47 -0400

I voted no, because those are two separate questions, and require different approaches.

First, although the military could be used to "secure" the borders, one must remember there is A LOT of border. Let's not fool ourselves. The Mexico US Board is about 1900 miles. The US border with Canada (excluding Alaska) is about 4000 miles.

Rhetorical Question of the day: How many men does it take to secure a border? How many to defend an equal amount of land?

Add into that the complexities of sea travel, air travel, tourist travel, and it quickly becomes overwhelming. It is not feasible with our current strength for the US Military to secure nor defend either border.

I seriously doubt we have the Capability (at present strength), if we want to be able to do anything else.

Combine that with mission. One could say border enforcement is a National Defense function, however it could also be stated to be a Law Enforcement function (Immigration & Customs Enforcement). As such, there are legal complexities that must be addressed.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 23 at 2015 8:42 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:42:43 -0400

You can't have the legions under arms on the border. They may be tempted to cross the Rubicon. Keep them safely in the contested territories and leave the homeland in the charge of the Praetorians. That's the best bet.

Response by SSG Christopher Parrish made Mar 23 at 2015 8:56 AM

SSG Christopher Parrish — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:56:05 -0400

US Military, no. They already have their hands full. Send the National Guard and any State Guard soldiers that are available. I know it would be tough for State Guard soldiers, in Texas we are only paid when activated and then it is a very small amount, but then again we don't do what we do for the money.

We could easily team up with the NG, they provide the security and TXSG performs the SAR. Not only would that help defend the border, save the lives of people who just want a better life, stop those who want to abuse our system or do us harm, it would also strengthen the bond between the various state defense forces.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 9:51 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:51:20 -0400

No, National Guard.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 23 at 2015 9:51 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:51:58 -0400

I posted my reasoning, I posted my reasoning in the wrong place as a response to a comment made by Sgt Aaron Kennedy rather than under the question itself by mistake.

Response by MSgt Allan Vrboncic made Mar 23 at 2015 10:00 AM

MSgt Allan Vrboncic — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:00:18 -0400

Yes. We need to secure our borders 100 percent, and bring our men and women home.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Mar 23 at 2015 10:43 AM

SGT Steve Oakes — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:43:52 -0400

I think it would depend greatly on how it was done. I think the Boarder Patrol would have to retain overall command and control.But I could see military units capturing groups of people identified by Boarder Patrol as having illegally crossing the boarder. Illegal aliens are a drain on our economy and a possible threat to our security.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 11:09 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:09:48 -0400

At this moment, with the size of the US Military and it's downsizing trend, I would say no. However, the National Guard under control of the affected states would be the ideal choice since the US government seems to be incapable of anything but petty bias interfering with the will of the people.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Mar 23 at 2015 11:12 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:12:43 -0400

My initial thought to this question was Check Point Charlie. Now be before everyone gets them in a bunch, I think we could use the MP's and deputize them and do it!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 23 at 2015 11:25 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:25:27 -0400

The US Navy and Air Force participate in daily patrols to maintain the sovereignty of the United States. Why shouldn't the Army as well?

However, there is a vast difference between prosecuting war and prosecuting criminals. One is the purview of the military and the other is the purview of the police. For the military to "secure the borders" against incursions by illegal aliens, they would require training and equipment appropriate to policemen. Sadly, equipping the police like soldiers makes me feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. I wonder if soldiers functioning as police would be any better. (And, yes, I will admit that there are military policemen and the Coast Guard performs both as a military and a police force. However, do they do both jobs equally well or does the dichotomy distract from doing either as well as if they focused on one or the other?)

Ultimately, it seems to me to be futile to argue over which agency should secure our borders without first establishing the will to secure them. That seems largely absent, especially in the District of Calamity.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 23 at 2015 11:33 AM

BG David Fleming III — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:33:00 -0400

Our nation's National Guard is ready, willing and responsive to any mission inside or along the border to protect this great nation! While I respect the AD, this is a mission the National Guard was born for!

Response by SFC Walt Littleton made Mar 23 at 2015 12:03 PM

SFC Walt Littleton — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:03:51 -0400

Complicated issue. Law states this is not a military function however, NG is able to operate in this environment.

If any military agency is used it should only be a temporary mission until the government uses new law to solve the issue.

Personally I feel illegal is illegal! Build the wall to slow movement and assist in the security. Right to shoot while attempting to cross illegally. This would stop the problem. Punish buisnesses that hire illegals if they are not reported to the gov agencies. Force illegals to come forward and start the process of documenting, processing and determining whether the person is detained or able to move forward in the immigration process. Special documentation issued at the time of processing which identifies the person and their status. Each illegal will have a timeline to complete the process or be detained (expiration date on ID).

Homeland Security will search all Visa's issued for work and or schools and if the visa has expired with no request to extend an arrest warrant would be issued for that person.

Government review of all schools receiving gov money to insure the institutions carriculem meets certain criteria. Private schools may have a more liberal approach to education as long as it is about education and not an ideology not representing the overthrow of our Constitution or government.

This will encourage them to come forward and be identified and with no identification will be detained and processed by ICE.

Just my $0.02

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 12:44 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:44:07 -0400

Seems like more of a National Guard mission, in my opinion.

Response by SPC Ramiro Magallon made Mar 23 at 2015 2:49 PM

SPC Ramiro Magallon — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:49:25 -0400

What would the United States Military be doing in regards of securing the borders? Because if we are afraid Isis terrorist attacks well then we should stop them before they even get off the planes with their U.S passports.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Mar 23 at 2015 3:08 PM

SSG Kenneth Lanning — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:08:05 -0400

We have National Guard and the Department of Homeland Security for a reason.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 3:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:37:01 -0400

The Active component is not at all able to complete this mission. They would do a horrible job IMO. As to weather the NG should...maybe is the best answer. It is a federal job to maintain the borders but the feds (way far away in Washington) do not give a c$#p. The states are stuck with the problem, as long as the funding was federal and not state I would have no issues. Something needs to happen to help tighten the flow of drugs, guns and illegals.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 3:57 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:57:30 -0400

I mean... The Coast Guard already does, at least on the water. Why not give some other services something to do in the homeland? Or, maybe expand the Coast Guard's authority? Eh... The former is a better suggestion.

Response by PO2 Christopher A. made Mar 23 at 2015 4:32 PM

PO2 Christopher A. — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:32:09 -0400

I don't think they should do it as a police action. I have always thought we should invade Mexico militarily and make them a US territory like Guam. Rid the country of the major drug cartels and government corruption. stabilize the areas. and move border operations to mexico's southern border. The southern border of mexico is about 700 miles long, ours is around 2100 miles. Maybe we could do a better job with less ground to cover.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Mar 23 at 2015 4:42 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:42:23 -0400

Other countries have no problem with using the military as border guarding and even police force.

However I think our founding fathers were a little skeptical about having the military throwing heavy weight in country. They really seamed to like to spread out the power.

Response by MSgt John McDowell made Mar 23 at 2015 5:13 PM

MSgt John McDowell — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:13:19 -0400

The question is worded in a way that may get many to respond yes, but actually, that's not the job of the active duty force. We have the the agents and the laws to protect our borders, but we don't have competent policy makers to enforce the laws we have. I personally know a former Border Patrol Agent who says finish the damn fence and oh by the way they could use some more predator drones. Our active force has been sequestered down to bare bones, they don't need this headache.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 5:51 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:51:00 -0400

let mexcans guard borders have there military dragon stand in rain next to pipes pump the niles rivers at um move farms out forest back n into desert

id deploy santa claws on point better known as aphrodtiee as dragon moves into region in oder to secure it Jason peruses old people two boys on point who were good trained escort

Jason herculee hit the titian in loot it always humans waves to your reverse hit um in heal one way hera Jason witchs persues

child of river sticks herds scope um out do they feed the child cow dung threw water many did were evil stuff those days Helen troy how to get people inside to open gates

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 5:55 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:55:55 -0400

who is the daddie of obaama why cnnot he ride
look this guy

not that I think hes the type of man no

ufo terform human terforming go ahead make my day plan it sliping from orbit ill fall pick up the mass graves exmplit the news for my own goals thank you please

ill fall back you humans keep terforming the place the plan it is sliping from orbit on that day of mas s extinction I will exploit the news of your actives in news to meet my own goals ha ha ha ha j j ufo id never ride an Obama camel lemon sales men of earth again ha ha ha ha

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 5:57 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:57:37 -0400

armys got salesmen sale f16 to um sell missles to army right who is selling boama used camels to men ask your self
his he has a daddie wont let him ride also

Response by SSG Alex Toulomelis made Mar 23 at 2015 6:27 PM

SSG Alex Toulomelis — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:27:42 -0400

We swore an oath to defend the nation from all enemies. This includes those that would enter our boarders illegally. We have the manpower and the equipment which could act as a stop gap or supplement to the current boarder patrol. We could be under the authority of the boarder patrol.

Response by MSG Phil Herndon made Mar 23 at 2015 6:56 PM

MSG Phil Herndon — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:56:04 -0400

God No!
1. We don't have the people
2. We have better stuff to do
3. There laws against it
4. If rule 2 doesn't apply, then do some SSD or something
5. Good idea fairy much?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 8:47 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:47:57 -0400

I think this would be an excellent mission for the National Guard. As others have said, Posse Comitatus law prevents federal forces or National Guard mobilized under title 10 from being employed in a law enforcement role. However National Guard troops mobilized under title 32 are exempt. The biggest issue would be funding, as Title 32 mobilizations are typically funded by the respective state. My second biggest concern would be the ROE and role ARNG troops would take. If we're not going to issue ammunition when dealing with drug cartels or allow actual arrests to be made there is no point.

Response by PV2 Violet Case made Mar 23 at 2015 9:51 PM

PV2 Violet Case — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:22 -0400

I live 6 miles from the Canadian border. I thought that was one of the reasons they made and put all that money into the drones that are up along the border to protect it. There are so many veterans that live up here that many of us keep our eyes and ears open. We fight to keep our gun rights so we can help protect our borders here too. And it doesn't cost the government money to do it. Maybe to have a few with one commander to do organized meetings would be ok. Then they could also attend our American legion meetings to keep us veterans posted as well. Even tho we are not still in the military a veterans heart is still the same as when he joined to protect the people and our country. But I would say a commander of the national guards would work and national guards could do it too.But I just got my Amercan Legion magzine and have a new discussion to make that may interest some of you who do not get the magazine or maybe have not read or heard of it yet.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 10:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:11:18 -0400

Activate the national guard, arm them, and use them. Their mission is protection of their states and the homeland. Posse comitatus forbids the use of federal troops. Granted holes big enough to drive a bus through

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 12:58 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:58:37 -0400

You need to understand the law. American military cannot be used on American soil. Hence the National Guard. Title X.

Response by SrA Marc Haynes made Mar 24 at 2015 7:44 AM

SrA Marc Haynes — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:44:09 -0400

I absolutely think it would be a good idea. It would also be good training on such skills as reconnaissance.

The problem is two fold politicians want more voters instead of safer citizens. The second problem is that big business wants cheaper labor so they can make bigger profits which in turn makes for bigger bonuses for the millionaires. We all know who REALLY runs the United States. So illegals will end up winning were as legal U.S. citizens will end up getting the short end of the stick (less jobs, more crime, bigger national debt.

Response by SSgt Kristian Montanez made Mar 24 at 2015 8:10 AM

SSgt Kristian Montanez — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:10:07 -0400

Other countries do why not us?

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 8:55 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:55:15 -0400

I shall first assume you are talking about illegal immigration since that is what most "securing the borders" rhetoric focuses around. If we actually enforce the laws on the books against the corporations that hire illegal immigrants and implement a system of worker visas/permit, the problem would quickly resolve itself. But that cuts into corporate profits and is bad for the big donors bottom line, so such enforcement activities have historically been quickly shut down.

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Mar 24 at 2015 9:11 AM

LTC Joseph Gross — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:11:03 -0400

Our first mission is protect our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. No one ever really means the domestic portion, but I would argue that illegal crossing (invasion) of our borders is a threat to our national security. Why not provide security where it matters most?

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 9:58 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:58:41 -0400

1. There is a balance, but freedom is more important than so called safety or security.

2. Under today's laws, one can easily argue that our founding fathers were terrorists, the revolutionary militias were terrorist insurgents, and the general public provided material support to terrorist groups.

3. Every civil rights movement in this country involved attacks of terrorism by either supporters or opponents or both and quite often the government was on the wrong side of history. So called "terrorism" is not anything new in the US, but the current climate of fear mongering is. It seems Americans do not know their history and do not understand that terrorism works through terror and fear, not death and destruction. In this global war on terror, we are often our own worse terrorizing enemy.

4. Security is a facade. Typically all it does is deter, detect, delay, and document. Some claim deny or defeat, but if you are at that point then the attack is already underway and the seed of terror is sown. Terrorism works through terror and fear to accomplish a political agenda, not death and destruction. Like driving a car or riding a motorcycle, the death and destruction is the price of freedom. We pay the price for the freedom to drive at a cost of nearly 40,000 lives each year. Why do we want draconian measures and lost freedoms in a doomed effort to prevent so called terrorist acts? For instance, all that was needed after Sept 11 was to harden the cockpit doors and tell the pilots now to open the cockpit no matter what some idiot was trying in the passenger compartment. But now we need government credentials to travel, warrant-less searches, pat downs and digitally strip searched, harmless possessions seized, and all travel forever archived. Meanwhile airport employees are stealing baggage contents and freely smuggling drugs and firearms.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 10:29 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:29:52 -0400

Yes, we should do it. And instead of activating an entire national guard unit to do this which would take away from the incentives such as being home and going to school, being strong leaders in their communities, and work place. Yes they are tasked with state issues however guarding the borders is a national issue. With that being said and with all due respect instead of spending more money to activate and give full benefits to the NG, and training them we should use our active members who we know for sure are physically ready for the demands. We have plenty of garrison soldiers not doing anything as we speak.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 10:58 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:58:34 -0400

There are at least a couple of us on here who have been sent to the border to "assist" the BP. It was a joke. We may as well stand there with banners saying "Bienvenido!"

The US won't take the radical steps needed to halt illegal immigration. We would have to completely de-fund every public program assisting illegals, impose outrageous fines on every entity, public or private who abets illegals through employment or housing.
We would have to seal the border completely, using freed funds to militarize it, with orders to shoot on sight.

Sounds easy in theory, but it isn't workable.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Mar 24 at 2015 11:06 AM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:06:33 -0400

No question about it! Great real world training on perimeter security. Great for ALL branches! Hooah!

Response by SGT John Wesley made Mar 24 at 2015 11:56 AM

SGT John Wesley — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:56:03 -0400

If ordered by POTUS, yes. But, this issue should be handled by Border Patrol and local units of Natl. Guard.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 1:09 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:09:38 -0400

We were created to defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic. It only seems fitting that we should help defend our physical borders.

Response by SPC Lee Burner made Mar 24 at 2015 3:07 PM

SPC Lee Burner — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:07:26 -0400

I totally agree with active duty protecting the borders. I've said for years that to fix the problem we should treat the border like we treat the DMZ in Korea. Mine it and they will not come! They would have to respect the legal channels at this point or it would at least encourage legal border crossings.

Response by Cpl Thomas Allen made Mar 24 at 2015 4:45 PM

Cpl Thomas Allen — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:45:04 -0400

Sounds like a job for the National Guard. I guess the NG could be considered active duty. But I think we should increase the members of the National Guard leaving full time active duty military to take care of the threats outside the US.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 6:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:20:58 -0400

That is why we have the National Guard and Department of Homeland Defense for that mission.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 8:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:05:16 -0400

IF--and a BIG if at that--If our military needs to secure our borders, it should be comprised of members of each border state's national guard.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 10:02 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:02:48 -0400

National Guard.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 11:12 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:12:15 -0400

We already have the Border Patrol bolstered by the National Guard from time to time as well as the Coast Guard. I mean, maybe if there was some serious s*** going down in out neighboring nations like a full out armed conflict . . . maybe, but we already have a pretty heavy active troop presence in the states anyway.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 11:20 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:20:36 -0400

Why not? Could be good experience and help the nation out at the same time.. Beats having joe sit around for another useless class or breifing.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 3:23 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 03:23:50 -0400

It is a national security issue. I do not care what country they are coming from I see it as an invasion. We have no idea who these people are. Are they spies, criminals, military, terrorists? I am not worried about the gardener, or construction worker, I am concerned about other with more nefarious intentions. I believe it is a military issue and not law enforcement.

Response by SGT Michael Hamrac, MBA, MRP, GRI, REALTOR® made Mar 25 at 2015 7:52 AM

SGT Michael Hamrac, MBA, MRP, GRI, REALTOR® — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:52:33 -0400

Perhaps another branch of service could be created. We have the Coast Guard...why not a Boarder Guard? Training and mission would be specific.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 25 at 2015 8:56 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:56:18 -0400

The ROE for the border patrol are a joke. A number of border patrol officers have been assaulted with rocks. What makes anyone think that the politicians (who make policy) will change those ROE just because the Military is on the border?
Until we have some sanity as relates to ROE and immigration I see no reason to put our soldiers into such a situation. Clearly, neither this administration, nor many previous has any REAL desire to secure the border, or they would have taken action to do so.

This administration won't even allow the Border States to enforce laws already on the books. It is my belief that our military should be used to kill bad guys and break all their stuff. We shouldn't be tied up on the border doing the job of Local, State, and Federal Border agencies. As much as I believe most of our Federal police agencies have no Constitutional standing, the Border patrol may be an exception as it IS the Federal government's job to secure borders. That being said, there is NO reason State and local law enforcement agencies shouldn't be proactively involved.

Lastly, there's nothing stopping the Border State's Governors from deploying THEIR National Guard troops to patrol the border..... except for the fact that they ALL want Federal funding to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/border-patrol-shooting-restrictions_n_4922598.html

Border Patrol Restricts Shooting At Rock Throwers

Border Patrol agents will face new restrictions on its ability to shoot at people who throw rocks, the agency’s chief said Friday. The new policy marks a reversal from Border Patrol Chief Mi

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Mar 25 at 2015 9:10 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:10:23 -0400

I wouldn't say Active Duty Members but National Guard and or the Reservists.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Mar 25 at 2015 11:59 AM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:59:41 -0400

On my list of problems besetting American progress, rampant illegal immigration is near the bottom.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 1:36 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:36:03 -0400

Good shore duty

Response by SSG Ryan Parkinson made Mar 25 at 2015 3:02 PM

SSG Ryan Parkinson — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:02:01 -0400

National Guard

Response by PO1 Jeffrey Stoddard made Mar 25 at 2015 3:10 PM

PO1 Jeffrey Stoddard — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:10:59 -0400

Absolutely!

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 25 at 2015 3:14 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:14:19 -0400

If that is what it takes to have effective border security, absolutely.

While I think there are other options (Border Patrol, National Guard), we need to do what we need to do to secure the border.

I have heard some say it would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus, however, that restricts the use of the military to enforce laws in our country, short of a declaration of martial law. Security of the border is just what it says it is ... "security". Use of military personnel/forces for security missions is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus.

Response by CWO4 Chiny Pena made Mar 25 at 2015 3:22 PM

CWO4 Chiny Pena — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:22:36 -0400

Why not, the Guard and Reserve are already being deployed. Make boarder patrol part of the normal rotation.

Response by LTC Herman Valentine made Mar 25 at 2015 8:16 PM

LTC Herman Valentine — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:16:29 -0400

This is an absolute ARNG mission. Posse Comitatus Act prevents the Army from performing this mission (way too many restrictions), however the ARNG can and does perform this mission in T-32 (State Active Duty) without Federal restrictions. The ARNG could perform this mission in a Year Round Annual Training (AT) status, with units responsible for delineated sectors of the borders and would fall-in on pre-positioned equipment and facilities. The US Border Patrol would maintain overall control and authority. These assets would include Aviation, Infantry, Combat Engineer, MP, TC, and MI, as well as other branches as needed. The entire border could be secured almost immediately, indefinitely and economically. Rally Point Members in the ARNG....Your thoughts?!?!?

Response by CPL Jesse Vasconcelos made Mar 25 at 2015 10:41 PM

CPL Jesse Vasconcelos — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:41:20 -0400

If border patrol needs the manpower so be it. The BP plus our military would have all our borders secure. It's such a large are for such few men and women.

Response by CPO Frank Pascua made Mar 25 at 2015 11:35 PM

CPO Frank Pascua — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:28 -0400

Every other country in the world uses their Military Forces to do it... And let's face it DHS is JUST NOT CUTTING IT... All they do is ask for more funding while the DOD Budget takes the hits...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 9:49 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:49:43 -0400

We have other missions to worry on. Border Patrol is designed for that function.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 1:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:10:25 -0400

Let the Active continue to do what they do; utilize the National Guard Soldiers for this mission. It gives the ARNG the chance to gain retirement points, helps with unemployment, and it allows the military to utilize their training.

Response by SPC Edward Scott made Mar 26 at 2015 2:37 PM

SPC Edward Scott — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:37:01 -0400

It should be a full time national guard position.the whole system needs to be updated with the new time.

Response by SPC Sean Bouchard made Mar 26 at 2015 3:09 PM

SPC Sean Bouchard — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:09:09 -0400

It is a difficult question to answer. While I do feel that the military would be a giant asset to securing the border I do not believe they should. There are many legal issues, one being posse comitatus. I feel that the federal government should give the border patrol more room to secure the border as well as better equipment. I've seen what they have and believe me, it is not much, most do not even have NVG. There are areas down there where there is only one agent per 50 square miles.

Response by Sgt S.P. Woodke made Mar 26 at 2015 3:44 PM

Sgt S.P. Woodke — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:44:50 -0400

That's our ROLE to secure the borders and the overall Safety of the Citizens

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 3:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:45:08 -0400

NATIONAL GUARD! The name says it all folks....

Response by PO2 Mark Zawadzki made Mar 26 at 2015 3:45 PM

PO2 Mark Zawadzki — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:45:09 -0400

The posse commitatus law prohibits this.

Response by SSG Birch Goodnight made Mar 26 at 2015 4:38 PM

SSG Birch Goodnight — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:38:35 -0400

Should be a job for each States National Guard or Reserve Unites.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 4:59 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:59:57 -0400

Yep. National Guard should guard the nation - it's in the name.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 5:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:28:44 -0400

This is a guard mission and i believe EVERY guard unit should be on a rotational basis (30-90 days) periodically encompassing there annual training time. If thats not enough to go around then active duty should take the torch with an assigned level of force to secure and stop all illegal traffic. The only thing that should cross the border freely out side of check points is the wild life. Establish a clear and defined ROE, and SOP. Ever solodier on duty is armed just like while mobed, using what ever equipment is needed to perform the task. Engineers could easily construct a road way and series of guard towers from california to texas, man them and in extremely isolated areas use automated survealance equipment, drones and remote operated fire towers. The canadian border should also be addressed as well as cargo vessels in ports. Our oceans and armed citizens ahve protected us for decades even from standing militaries, now our liberal society doesnt see it a priority to be self sustaining and defending. Its time for major changes.

Response by SGT David Felten made Mar 26 at 2015 5:43 PM

SGT David Felten — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:43:45 -0400

Mexico, and South and Central America MUST believe that our Nation is deadly serious in protecting our sovereignty and the safety, security and welfare of our citizens.

Response by Cpl Jim Price made Mar 26 at 2015 6:10 PM

Cpl Jim Price — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:10:34 -0400

I think the National Guard would work. They already do disaster relief and other civil unrest situations why not help support the boarder patrol? Heaven knows they need all the help they can get.

Response by SPC Timothy Smith made Mar 26 at 2015 6:25 PM

SPC Timothy Smith — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:25:53 -0400

Stupid question, of course they should, we should have been protecting it a long time ago. the real question is "why are we still asking if we should be"? lock it down, lock it down now.

Response by PO2 Christopher Foss made Mar 26 at 2015 6:46 PM

PO2 Christopher Foss — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:46:46 -0400

The military and law enforcement have different missions. LEOs, of whatever jurisdiction, are there to maintain the peace, and to try to de-escalate if possible. The military is there to enforce the will of the United States with the threat and, when needed, the application of force.

Bluntly, law enforcement are there to minimize loss of life, and the military is there to destroy the target, be it a person, a facility or a nation.

Response by MSG Greg Murry made Mar 26 at 2015 6:53 PM

MSG Greg Murry — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:53:23 -0400

Better to use the National Guard from the state on the border

Response by SPC Danieljay Stevens made Mar 26 at 2015 6:54 PM

SPC Danieljay Stevens — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:54:52 -0400

our active duty is there to protect us in times of war, our national guard is there to protect us in times of peace in my opinion, I believe the National guard should be helping the border patrol in securing our borders, by actively patrolling the borders, Both on foot and in vehicles.

Response by SGT Cary Taylor made Mar 26 at 2015 7:21 PM

SGT Cary Taylor — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:21:12 -0400

Why should our military be obliged to occupy enemy territory but not be utilized to secure its own country's borders? How much more common sense does this have to become??

Response by LTC John Wilson made Mar 26 at 2015 8:16 PM

LTC John Wilson — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:16:58 -0400

Yes, if given proper training and allowed to have law enforcement authority as federal agents through the Special deputy US Marshal program. With proper goals, and restrictions, the military can help close the borders to illegal traffic. The Training will also enhance their personal relations with other cultures and be valuable in other deployments.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 9:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:56:49 -0400

I think this would be a great idea, but I'm sure something would go wrong such as sooting an illegial immigrant and the civillian population would blow it out of proportion then soldiers are looked at even more disgusted by the ones who already don't support us.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 10:28 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:28:00 -0400

They will do a lot better job then Border Patrol

Response by SSG Jeffrey Monk made Mar 26 at 2015 11:14 PM

SSG Jeffrey Monk — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:14:44 -0400

Not active duty mission. It is a job for the Guard. Though instead of burdening the south western states it should be rotated through all 50 as the illegal alien issue is a national issue. The Guard should be given more options than just calling ICE. We have already seen that the government isn't willing to fulfill its agreement to the states or up hold the laws already passed.

Response by LCpl Robert Pultz made Mar 27 at 2015 1:11 AM

LCpl Robert Pultz — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:11:47 -0400

it would help the border patrol. and maybe use it as in deployment work up in crowed control or something. most other countries in the world use the military for this why not us? yes there will be "incidents". sorry but no matter how well your trained "STUFF" happens. and the better liar wins. oh wait lawyer, same thing
the idea is to send them back before the get set up and living here with out "papers". you want to become and American cool. fallow the rules to start with.

Response by LTC Lewis Cox made Mar 27 at 2015 4:19 AM

LTC Lewis Cox — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:19:27 -0400

We train our troops to kill or capture people. Let's not confuse the situation by having them perform "Police like" duties. Stay with our primary reason for "being"!!!

Response by SN Vickie Stone made Mar 27 at 2015 9:22 AM

SN Vickie Stone — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:22:32 -0400

Yes but I also believe that the border patrol should also be considered a part of the U. S. Armed forces.

Response by CW3 Paul Fitch made Mar 27 at 2015 11:12 AM

CW3 Paul Fitch — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:12:29 -0400

The role of the "General Government" is very limited (at least on paper - the Constitution) to 18 specific items. One (the main one in my opinion), is the defense of the nation from invasion.

While I appreciate the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, I don't believe it was an open invitation to everybody everywhere. Yes, they are welcome to come to America AND ASSIMILATE, but we have rules (in spite of the efforts of the President, DHS and the Attorney General) and many (most) are not following those rules. Hence they are invaders and should be repelled in any way possible. I don't necessarily advocate a "Berlin Wall" with machine gun posts every 100 meters with orders to shoot to kill anyone who approaches, but I do want a way to keep these invaders out unless and until they 'follow the rules".

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Mar 27 at 2015 12:38 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:38:30 -0400

All components (active and reserve) should be used. A good answer was that about Title 10 and Title 32 ant the Posse Act. However, just like the Navy being used in drug interdiction, they have no power of arrest. The Navy or Army adds eyes and ears. The Border Patrol will be called in for the arrest. As would the Coast Guard.

Response by SSG Michael Chenault made Mar 28 at 2015 12:59 AM

SSG Michael Chenault — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 00:59:25 -0400

The active component has enough on their plate, the national guard/reserves should carry this mission.

Response by SFC Michael MacLuskie made Mar 28 at 2015 10:32 AM

SFC Michael MacLuskie — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:32:47 -0400

Only if they would be granted the power to apprehend the illegals and/or neutralize those illegals smuggling weapons and drugs into our country. To have them posted simply as another set of eyes and ears who can only report what they see to ICE and hope that the short staffed Border Patrol might actually be able to get there on time is useless and to leave our troops out in the desert unarmed when there are heavily armed smugglers crossing who our troops might encounter is just wrong on all counts. That would be like deploying our guys to Iraq with just a set of binoculars.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 6:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:00:18 -0400

No, because border enforcement is a matter of law enforcement. As such, it would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids using the Army as law enforcement and states as such;

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[6]

Response by PO2 Bruce Mckay made Mar 30 at 2015 1:35 PM

PO2 Bruce Mckay — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:35:41 -0400

Good idea,while boarder patrol is a police agency and subject to the whims of political funds the military .Has advance funds that do not.

Response by SFC James Tihanyi made Mar 31 at 2015 5:37 PM

SFC James Tihanyi — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:37:10 -0400

I am an Immigrant! I arrived in this the, Greatest Nation/Country the world has ever known in February 1961. I was 18 years old. Before I was allowed to enter the Us. I had to undergo a complete Physical Examination, I also head Background Investigation, since I still had all my relatives behind the Iron Curtain from where I escaped as a 14 year old, alone, in November1956. On top of that I needed a Sponsor, that turned out to be a Hungarian Community/Catholic Church, in Youngstown, OH. The Sponsor/s, had to sign a document, that stated; 'This person will never become a Ward of the State!' I consider the titles, like; 'Illegal Immigrant' or 'Undocumented Immigrant' just ORWELLIAN Double Speak! No such Creature! You are either an IMMIGRANT, one who fulfilled the requirements laid down by the LAW of the Land, or you are an, "ILLEGAL ALIEN", as such you must be deported!!

Response by MSgt Mike P. made Apr 2 at 2015 12:13 AM

MSgt Mike P. — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 00:13:14 -0400

Posse Commentadus (SP?), i.e., it currently is against the law, so forgive me the spelling, I'm old and forget a lot!

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 2 at 2015 2:19 AM

SPC Angel Guma — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:19:33 -0400

I would have a separate survey on how this became a debate. Soldiers should have been at the border a long long time ago. Its not a racism thing or an anti-immigration mindset. Protecting national territory is a military job, protecting our borders and shores is a duty.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 8:46 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:46:56 -0400

I would say maybe National guard should cover something like that, now if they decided to get rid of the civilian employees and it was strictly military manning the borders then I might agree in a sense. As long as you were given the ROE that are similar to a deployment. I don't know how it would work orders wise when you PCS... And they would probably need a separate MOS , otherwise who would be tasked? Infantry? But then they would not be training to standard for overseas combat.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 1:38 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:38:33 -0400

National Guard and Homeland Security. This should be the standard.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 11:34 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:34:36 -0400

If you put a special operations unit on the border mission ICW the CBP and local and state LEA, there would be some issues the cartels, immigrants and others would have to reconsider!

F3EA targeting cycle can be used in any environment.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 7:11 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:11:18 -0400

All military fall under the Department of Defense, and what are we in "defense" of if not our country's invaders/threats (foreign and domestic)? At the same time, is it really necessary, let alone moral for a military to fill law enforcement role(s)? I mean, isn't that why we have Boarder Patrol, FBI, etc.?

Response by Cpl Karl Gleason made Apr 9 at 2015 7:12 PM

Cpl Karl Gleason — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:12:52 -0400

JTF6 Been there done that.........:) Was dangerous though.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 9 at 2015 8:02 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 20:02:03 -0400

I voted no at this time as there are likely better solutions overall. I'm also concerned about the slippery slope we can collectively slide down by mucking with the Posse Comitatus Act. Of course the Guard can be used but that likely isn't in the optimal mission set. Since a robust mission of securing the border would take resources i.e. money, people, equipment, facilities, etc. the question becomes who gets it. I haven't seen an analysis that would take a look at a beefed up Border Patrol vs. a beefed up Guard, etc. and what is more optimal. This task is large and can be very distracting to other missions and subject to the "what gets funded" game and who loses. I did enjoy LtCol Jim Coe's commentary along with everyone elses. There certainly is a desire to do it. We just have to be ready to handle the unintended consequences regardless of where it lands.

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 11:51 PM

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 23:51:34 -0400

Only if they are allowed the same ROE as the Border Patrol.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 8:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:18:25 -0400

It is utilized; just in a very specific capacity which is not known by all.

I do believe that we should just resort to using the resources we have and stop trying to fix the world. Not everyone will convert to a democracy. Furthermore it will not guarantee us all to get along.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 12 at 2015 8:42 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:42:03 -0400

Posse comitatus might be an issue. I don't know enough about that law to elaborate.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 1:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:07:54 -0400

There are very strict Constitutional laws regarding the use of Active Duty Military within the borders of the US.

That is the reason that the National Guard exists. I think the border States can call up the ARNG to secure thier borders without running afoul of those laws.

Response by MAJ David Kline made Apr 15 at 2015 1:38 PM

MAJ David Kline — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:38:49 -0400

"Yes" as long as they are not constrained by ROE that puts them in danger.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 2:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:29:23 -0400

Sounds like a job for the National Guard and should be voted on by states.

Response by SMA Ray Chandler made Apr 15 at 2015 3:46 PM

SMA Ray Chandler — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:46:00 -0400

there is absolutely no reason for AC Soldiers to be on the border. Since the Army Guard and Reserve are operational units they can fulfill this need. Posse Comitiatis (sp?) prevents this now and would have to be repealed.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 4:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:01:19 -0400

The guard should do it. Regular army troops would cause fear among local populace. Since regular army doesn't fit in with civilians in general. NG would be better suited and are doing it now in Texas on SAD orders. AD troops IMO would treat the area like a deployment overseas. Most NG have the army on/off switch and realize we're around our own citizens. If AD does the mission would cause more trouble then positive outcome. But that's my opinion as a Texas NG Cav scout.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 5:56 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:56:00 -0400

It could be handled by the National Guard and Reserve Force on their two-week annual training a revolving schedule along with Border Patrol making the arrests to make it legal.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 7:07 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:07:19 -0400

Hell yes.
Part of the military goals is to defend this nation. Nothing like watching our borders.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 9:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:48:06 -0400

Not without weapons!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 10:27 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:27:21 -0400

I think this would be a great job for the National Guard. Active Duty should only roll in if stuff gets way more out of hand or if any critical threats are imminent.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 10:32 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:32:07 -0400

We have LRS units, part of their mission is boarder security. If we focused their training more on that and made a few more LRS companies it would be realistic. On the other hand we have boarder patrol, let's let them do their job. As it stands no but if we thought border patrol need more help LRS units could be used.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made Apr 15 at 2015 10:37 PM

SGT Michael Touchet — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:37:37 -0400

Absolutely, who better to defend our borders but our military? Additionally I would suggest employing the Army Corps of Engineers to build a proper fence at the border that will stop the flow of illegal border crossings so that we can control who or what comes into our country.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 11:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 23:51:37 -0400

Absolutely... We are supposed to protect our country from enemy's both foreign and domestic.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 6:48 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 06:48:30 -0400

National Guard missions

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 2:20 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:20:32 -0400

Each and every military member takes an oath to support and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Although not all illegal immigrants are an enemy of the state in the since of someone the government is completely against, they are an enemy to our economic state based on upon putting an additional strain on the social services that our government chooses to provide. This in turn diverted tax dollars away from infrastructure projects and defense and therefore they are an enemy in sense. Anything that weakens are defense or infrastructure should be considered an enemy.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 4:09 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:09:58 -0400

Of course, I believe it to be an issue of national security. If those illegal immigrants can get in the U.S. with the numbers that have been reported, how can we protect ourselves from what may be a military invasion. We can't say for certain who is coming in and who isn't so ISIS or whomever is an enemy of the state may be infiltrating our borders through Mexico.

Just one of my personal opinions on this subject. The issue concerning illegal immigration has a severe impact on our nation and as such should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Response by SSG Michael Bryant made Apr 17 at 2015 11:37 AM

SSG Michael Bryant — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:37:54 -0400

Either National Guard or Active Duty should be used. They wouldn't be policing US civilians but preventing, possibly hostile, foreigners from infiltrating our country. Ask any Border Patrol Agent if they have seen armed persons escorting drug carriers. An Agent that was getting physical therapy at Fort Bliss tracked three unknowns for miles before he got eyes on, that's when he saw the escort with an AK47. He had only his sidearm, talk about being outgunned. I heard this from him, I can't provide a link, and I know many people don't believe first hand accounts, so any nay-sayers can just save your breathe. Having people that are trained to covertly observe, provide intel, take direct action would be a huge benefit. I would do it if I was still in or fit (medically) to qualify for Border Patrol service.

Response by PFC Alex Rivers made May 5 at 2015 7:47 PM

PFC Alex Rivers — Tue, 05 May 2015 19:47:36 -0400

Other countries do it, why not us?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 7:41 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 May 2015 19:41:00 -0400

We are Department of Defense!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2015 11:41 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:41:17 -0400

Qualified no.

First we need to decide as a country what our policy is on immigration. Personally, I favor a guest-worker policy, because you don't need to be a citizen to work here, nor do you need to be a citizen to get a fair wage.

Once we have a policy, it will be time to figure out how to secure the border. I point out that a guest-worker policy will have two important benefits:

1) It will decrease violations of the law. If the response to DWI or lack of insurance is to lose your guest-worker privileges ...
2) If there is a way for people to enter the country legally, it will decrease the people that drug trafficers and terrorists hide in.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2015 12:42 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:42:43 -0400

At least the National Guard, almost every other country has their military as their "Border Patrol"

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Dec 18 at 2015 5:56 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:56:52 -0500

This is not a good question, reference Operation Noble Eagle, it has already been done.

Response by SFC Carlos Gamino made Jan 9 at 2016 4:22 PM

SFC Carlos Gamino — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 16:22:02 -0500

As a BPA and former soldier. I have witnessed how the dollar has been mispent with the NG supportting BP. At times there were four to six soldiers operating one scope truck. Something that only takes one agent.

Response by MSgt Billy McDonough made Jan 10 at 2016 10:09 PM

MSgt Billy McDonough — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 22:09:02 -0500

I think there are some serious legal questions for this...but Im not sure of the exact statutes or US Code. Perhaps a JAG could weigh in on this?

Response by SFC J Fullerton made May 19 at 2016 10:46 AM

SFC J Fullerton — Thu, 19 May 2016 10:46:08 -0400

See the Ezequiel Hernadez incident

Response by TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn made May 19 at 2016 2:05 PM

TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn — Thu, 19 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400

If we are in to wars all over the world, to secure the borders and ensure the safety of our nation, than we damn sure should being doing the same at our borders. We are fighting terrorists over seas can than allow them cross untouched in this country, NO.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Oct 29 at 2018 4:46 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:46:08 -0400

Traditionally they always did. "Border Patrol." is a fairly recent addition designed to keep us out of wars with our neighbors.