The Place Where Ludington Talks

Obama to send 1,200 troops to U.S.-Mexico border

Not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, any help at the border will be appreciated but the timing just seems to be a little odd. Wasn't all that long ago the DHS Secretary Napolitano said that the border was as safe as its ever been although it could be safer. Her suggestion would make one believe that the last thing we'd be seeing is troops going to the border. It just makes you wonder if some our officials in Washington know what's going on. We shall see what happens I suppose.

By Alan Gomez and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
A month after Arizona passed an immigration law that reignited a national debate, President Obama is sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

The troops will be a "bridge to longer-term enhancements" on the Southwestern border, helping with intelligence and surveillance while additional Border Patrol agents are trained, Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, said in a letter to Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said.

The decision came to light after Obama met with Senate Republicans to discuss immigration legislation — a package that could be difficult to pass this year without Republican support, White House spokesman Bill Burton said.

Asa Hutchinson, the first Homeland Security undersecretary for border security under President Bush, said, "The numbers that they're going to add will help, but it's not going to fix the problem."

Frank Sharry of America's Voice, a group that supports tighter borders as well as a way for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship, said Obama seemingly gave in to Republican leaders without assurance on more comprehensive immigration legislation.

"Talk about one step forward and two steps back," Sharry said.

Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, a group that wants to reduce legal and illegal immigration, was pleased but called the action a minimal response and based on politics.

"I think the White House people are watching the polls and seeing how incredibly popular the Arizona law is," Beck said. The law requires police to check immigration status if they suspect that someone they detain is in the country illegally.

Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization, said the decision to focus first on border security rather than fix immigration law was "deeply disappointing."

Arizona's Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, pointed to the 6,000 troops President Bush sent in 2006 as an example of the manpower needed. Arizona's Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, called Obama's move a "good start."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose jurisdiction includes the busy human- and drug-trafficking corridor between Tucson and Phoenix, said he appreciates the troops. "But it's not enough."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-25-obama-immigratio...

"Miss Napolitano, who last year kicked off the immigration debate by saying the border was secure enough and it was time to turn to legalization, said Tuesday there's still more work to be done.

"It is as safe and secure as it's ever been, but it can be more safe and more secure," she said at a joint event with Mexico's interior minister at the Brookings Institution in Washington."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/napolitano-border-c...

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mary A. on May 26, 2010 at 3:42am

I'm guessing this is more an attempt to decrease the drug trafficking and the violence that results from it rather than stop the flow of job seeking people crossing the border illegally. It's one thing to have thousands of Latinos crossing into the U.S. for a better life, but I would equate the drug cartels with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - an insidious force that is spreading out of control and wreaking destruction in its path. I only wish Mexico would take some responsibility here and close the gaps on their end, but it's obvious they're not with us on this. At this rate, they need an army to stop the drug activity.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sweater Cows! on May 27, 2010 at 4:08am

I think you may be correct. Things are getting pretty crazy down there with the cartels. I am glad I don't live in a border town.

Or it could be just to make himself look good.

I think the only way to undo the power the cartels have is and economic solution. Use supply and demand.

We can't get rid of the demand no matter how hard we try, the drug war has been going on for over 40(?) years now and has not done a thing it is supposed to do in that regard. (that is if you really believe it is supposed to stop the drug trade, the gov't makes a lot of money off the illegality of it.

So over saturate the market so that the value of the drugs the cartels are getting very very rich from no longer give them the huge profit margins. So how to do that?

Put companies like Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson [USA] ( see top twelve worldwide here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies) could produce the same stuff that the cartels are getting rich from and distribute and market it somehow for say one quarter the price the cartels get and then the cartels wouldn't be able to compete. Now I know that isn't an ideal solution, I would hate to see what it would do to people, but if we are only looking at putting the cartels in the red then I think it would work. No matter what the social ills may be we could overlook that to stop the cartels and bring those profits into the US by USA drug makers. Definitely not ideal but plausible from an economic standpoint.