Senators Push for National Guard on U.S. Border
Law enforcement officers hand out photos of a man to other officers at the scene of a shooting at Erie Count Medical Center in Buffalo, N.Y., Wednesday, June 13, 2012. A police official confirms that a woman was killed Wednesday morning on the grounds of the Erie County Medical Center, which he describes as being in "complete lockdown" as SWAT teams and other officers cordon off the 65-acre campus.(AP Photo/David Duprey) / David Duprey
Homeland Security and Pentagon officials are at loggerheads over a plan to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, even as President Obama is pledging to bolster security there.
The National Guard stalemate has festered for nearly a year, and frustrated lawmakers are demanding action to stem the spread of violence and drug trafficking that has spilled across the border into their states.
The inaction raises questions about whether the White House is convinced the federally funded deployment is necessary, or whether border states will be forced to bear the costs of dispatching the National Guard troops on their own.
Speaking at the White House on Wednesday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said the U.S. is committed to standing with Mexico against the drug cartels.
"As your partner, we'll give you the support you need to prevail," he said, adding that through increased law enforcement on the U.S. side of the border, "we're putting unprecedented pressure on those who traffic in drugs, guns and people."
Obama, Calderon Slam Arizona Immigration Law
Obama Avoids Tough Questions from Press, Again
State Dinner: Beyonce, Ceviche and Please, no Salahis
Fueling the discord over sending the National Guard to the border was the U.S. response to the Gulf oil spill, which has included federal authorization for deploying up to 17,000 National Guard troops.
Those costs, however, are likely to be borne by oil giant BP PLC, which leased the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon that exploded off the Louisiana coast April 20, killing 11 and releasing a huge, continuing oil spill.
The oil spill notwithstanding, border state lawmakers say they need help too.
"If you'll indulge me, we think we have another crisis on the border," Sen. John McCain told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano at a hearing this week. "I want to know about whether you're going to send the Guard to the border or not."
When she tried to explain other Homeland Security improvements along the border, the senator from Arizona cut her off.
"People's homes are being violated, and their families can't take kids to the bus stop," McCain fumed. "And you are very familiar with the issue, because you yourself asked for the Guard to go to the border back in 2006."
Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, responded that the request involves the White House as well as the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department, and is still in the interagency process. While she said she would like the decision to be made as soon as possible, she added she could not say when she would have an answer.
"We don't have a resolution on that yet," Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart said in an interview with The Associated Press. Renuart, who headed the U.S. Northern Command until his retirement Wednesday after 39 years of service, added that while money is a point of contention, the greater disagreement centers on what missions the National Guard would perform.
He said the discussion between the Defense and Homeland Security departments continues, and some of the requests "have evolved a bit in this interim period." He did not provide details.
First floated last June, the idea was to use 1,500 National Guard troops temporarily to supplement border patrol agents. The Pentagon and Homeland Security drafted a $225 million plan, but disagreed over who would pay for it and how the troops would be utilized.
Pentagon officials, worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border, argued that the National Guard could only be used for particular duties. Military leaders said they did not want National Guard troops to screen vehicles at border points or perform any law enforcement duties, and said the program should be temporary and not tied to any existing program that could get extended.
Defense officials have said that possible missions for the National Guard soldiers could include surveillance along the border, intelligence analysis, helicopter transportation support and aviation surveillance, which likely would involve unmanned aircraft.
In a letter to Obama this week, McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl, also an Arizona Republican, said sending at least 6,000 National Guard to the border - with half focused on the Arizona portion - would immediately improve the safety of Americans there.
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the administration has taken a number of steps to improve security at the border, including adding more law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, and increasing cooperation with the Mexican government.
"The president is firmly committed to ensuring that our Southwest border is secure," Shapiro said. "The administration continues to evaluate additional law enforcement options as well as the use of the National Guard, as needed, along the Southwest border."
AP The National Guard stalemate has festered for nearly a year, and frustrated lawmakers are demanding action to stem the spread of violence and drug trafficking that has spilled across the border into their states.
The inaction raises questions about whether the White House is convinced the federally funded deployment is necessary, or whether border states will be forced to bear the costs of dispatching the National Guard troops on their own.
Speaking at the White House on Wednesday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said the U.S. is committed to standing with Mexico against the drug cartels.
"As your partner, we'll give you the support you need to prevail," he said, adding that through increased law enforcement on the U.S. side of the border, "we're putting unprecedented pressure on those who traffic in drugs, guns and people."
Obama, Calderon Slam Arizona Immigration Law
Obama Avoids Tough Questions from Press, Again
State Dinner: Beyonce, Ceviche and Please, no Salahis
Fueling the discord over sending the National Guard to the border was the U.S. response to the Gulf oil spill, which has included federal authorization for deploying up to 17,000 National Guard troops.
Those costs, however, are likely to be borne by oil giant BP PLC, which leased the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon that exploded off the Louisiana coast April 20, killing 11 and releasing a huge, continuing oil spill.
The oil spill notwithstanding, border state lawmakers say they need help too.
"If you'll indulge me, we think we have another crisis on the border," Sen. John McCain told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano at a hearing this week. "I want to know about whether you're going to send the Guard to the border or not."
When she tried to explain other Homeland Security improvements along the border, the senator from Arizona cut her off.
"People's homes are being violated, and their families can't take kids to the bus stop," McCain fumed. "And you are very familiar with the issue, because you yourself asked for the Guard to go to the border back in 2006."
Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, responded that the request involves the White House as well as the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department, and is still in the interagency process. While she said she would like the decision to be made as soon as possible, she added she could not say when she would have an answer.
"We don't have a resolution on that yet," Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart said in an interview with The Associated Press. Renuart, who headed the U.S. Northern Command until his retirement Wednesday after 39 years of service, added that while money is a point of contention, the greater disagreement centers on what missions the National Guard would perform.
He said the discussion between the Defense and Homeland Security departments continues, and some of the requests "have evolved a bit in this interim period." He did not provide details.
First floated last June, the idea was to use 1,500 National Guard troops temporarily to supplement border patrol agents. The Pentagon and Homeland Security drafted a $225 million plan, but disagreed over who would pay for it and how the troops would be utilized.
Pentagon officials, worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border, argued that the National Guard could only be used for particular duties. Military leaders said they did not want National Guard troops to screen vehicles at border points or perform any law enforcement duties, and said the program should be temporary and not tied to any existing program that could get extended.
Defense officials have said that possible missions for the National Guard soldiers could include surveillance along the border, intelligence analysis, helicopter transportation support and aviation surveillance, which likely would involve unmanned aircraft.
In a letter to Obama this week, McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl, also an Arizona Republican, said sending at least 6,000 National Guard to the border - with half focused on the Arizona portion - would immediately improve the safety of Americans there.
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the administration has taken a number of steps to improve security at the border, including adding more law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, and increasing cooperation with the Mexican government.
"The president is firmly committed to ensuring that our Southwest border is secure," Shapiro said. "The administration continues to evaluate additional law enforcement options as well as the use of the National Guard, as needed, along the Southwest border."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Oklahoma tornado victim search efforts winding down
- Tornado's destructive path 17 Photos
- Children rescued from two elementary schools in Oklahoma 19 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado victims mull next moves
- Up-close video of Moore, Okla., tornado Play Video
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
- Deadliest U.S. tornadoes 10 Photos
- Brigadier general suspended over altercation with woman
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
is a non-profit tax exempt educational organization in the United States that advocates changes in U.S. immigration policy that would result in significant reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal. It was founded on January 2, 1979 by John Tanton who is known as the founder of many anti-immigration and environmentalist groups. FAIR has its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and has been called to testify in front of the United States Congress, on immigration bills, more than any other organization in the country. The president of FAIR since 1988 is Dan Stein. The organization estimates more than 250,000 members and supporters.[2] FAIR describes itself as non-partisan. It is described as conservative in dozens of press reports and books,and, according to Andrew Wroe, a lecturer in American Politics and author of The Republican Party and Immigration Politics,it is viewed by many as an extremist group
Its mission statement states:
It is the Center's mission to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.
M
any of these so called "think tanks" are run by the same groups and even the same borad of directors. They are far from bastions of truth in what they profess
Regarding your cis "verification"
then throw their bullet riddled bodies back across into Mexico.This will serve as a warning to all illegals that THIS WILL BE YOUR FATE if you so dare enter our country by illegal means.
Problem solved
If they can't "find" the funds in their budget, then bring units back home from Afghanistan NOW!
But, it MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL to be protecting and securing the borders of that country, when this President AND Congress refuse to do the same thing for America! It's outrageous!
Many people would make the claim, with compelling force, that this failure to secure and protect America from illegal incursions could and should be considered treason!?
The argument is achieving "traction"!
people incentives to enter and remain here illegally. If they can't make a living here, they won't stay here.
Good afternoon to you all and have a good day.
by larrryshrine May 20, 2010 10:20 AM EDT
Then repeal the unconstitutional Arizona law that encourages racial profiling.
________________
Can you please indicate which clause or section is "unconstitutional" of the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 that I'm looking at.....Thanks
-----
Hello Empire. I have a problem with Article 8 11-501 B, which used the term "reasonable suspicion." That is the crux of my argument. For decades "probable cause" has been the standard for the law of this land. I purport that "reasonable suspicion" after "lawful conduct" puts an extreme amount of power in the hands of individual police officers, and is very, very vague. I can see many instances in which civil rights of Americans who don't carry "papers" can result. This is a complex argument for both sides. It was hard to read the bill but I waded through it. Respectfully submitted.
Make drugs legal and regulated and taxed. Take this money and the money waste annually fighting this so-called drug war and housing these "criminals" and use it to find and deport ALL the illegals in the US...not just the brown ones.