Posted on Mar 20, 2015
Should active duty military be used to secure the borders and ensure the safety of our nation?
87.2K
889
267
24
23
1
Physical Security
Homeland Security
National Security
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 150
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I wouldn't say Active Duty Members but National Guard and or the Reservists.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Perhaps another branch of service could be created. We have the Coast Guard...why not a Boarder Guard? Training and mission would be specific.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
They have that, it's called the border patrol. It's a law enforcement agency not a military service.
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Hamrac, MBA, MRP, GRI, REALTOR®
In the past, border patrol was utilized to stop illegal immigration from Mexico while also attempting to be a pain in the ass to the drug cartel. Most of the people seeking to cross the boarder were hard working individuals looking for a better life. The world has changed quickly and motives for entering the U.S. are different. We need a military branch of service in charge of our boarders. At this point, this is a military mission and it should be treated as such.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No question about it! Great real world training on perimeter security. Great for ALL branches! Hooah!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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?
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
What sort of numbers are you looking for? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? Remember too that most agro businesses (farms, orchards, livestock, poultry, pigs, etc) are run by big corporations. But there are a lot of other corporate blue collar jobs out there...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/12smithfield.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/280088602.html
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/agribusiness_rev2013.pdf
"Unauthorized migrant workers have consistently accounted for roughly half of all jobs in farming since 2000 and their wages have been lower than that of the legal workforce for all tasks surveyed and across all farm types."
"In 2007, the farming, fishing and forestry occupations had both the highest proportion of migrant workers (36 percent of the workforce) .... It was closely followed by Meat/Poultry/Fish processing operations where 33.9 percent of workers employed were immigrants ...
"Those farm operators who are using the highest number of unauthorized workers are also enjoying the highest profit margins, while opposing increased enforcement that would tighten the labor market and increase wages for agricultural workers. They argue that if laws against hiring unauthorized workers were enforced, an acute labor shortage would arise resulting in crops rotting in the field."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/12smithfield.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/280088602.html
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/agribusiness_rev2013.pdf
"Unauthorized migrant workers have consistently accounted for roughly half of all jobs in farming since 2000 and their wages have been lower than that of the legal workforce for all tasks surveyed and across all farm types."
"In 2007, the farming, fishing and forestry occupations had both the highest proportion of migrant workers (36 percent of the workforce) .... It was closely followed by Meat/Poultry/Fish processing operations where 33.9 percent of workers employed were immigrants ...
"Those farm operators who are using the highest number of unauthorized workers are also enjoying the highest profit margins, while opposing increased enforcement that would tighten the labor market and increase wages for agricultural workers. They argue that if laws against hiring unauthorized workers were enforced, an acute labor shortage would arise resulting in crops rotting in the field."
Crackdown Upends Slaughterhouse’s Work Force - New York Times
The federal effort to flush out illegal immigrants is having major effects on workers and employers alike.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
There is a migrant worker program for some jobs but I think utilization is well under 10% so I don't see it as a very effective program
(0)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
That is because it is so easy to sneak over the border there is no reason to bother with the proper method. Solve one problem and you solve the other.
(0)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
The reason this plant and a few others stand out is because they are exceptional, not the norm. I'm not saying we don't crack down on businesses of any size found to be breaking the law, but before you fumigate, you fix the doors and windows!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SA Harold Hansmann The faster you go, the less you border you actually cover. The more time that each section is "unsecured." It's counter intuitive.
(1)
(0)
SA Harold Hansmann
I guess it's a matter of having the eye trained to see. I spot deer and turkeys in the edges of the woods and fields at various distances while driving down I94 at 78mph. Granted, man has a better tendency at hiding, but unless you are using thermal optics, walking or driving, you will still have a tendency to overlook that which is well hidden.
(0)
(0)
SA Harold Hansmann
Of course, as my grandfather had a saying, I could be talking out a paper asshole. (Pardon the language)
(1)
(0)
SrA Paul Pfeil
Sure we do. Reserve components could do weekend drills and there two weeks on the boarder then fill in gaps with active duty. Then the money is already accounted for in training costs.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google