• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Is funding a National Guard deployment with private donations legal?

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
There is no "open border" policy, whether Biden's or anyone else's.

Yes, there is. And criminal gangs and cartels are exploiting it.

There's just an acceptance of the fact that you can't close the border down with minefields and machine gun towers a la East Germany.

Please show me who has advocated "minefields and machine gun towers"? Name him.

Rational people can disagree as to whether enough is being done and, if more needs to be done, how much should that be but you can't just shoot folks down at the border and apprehension brings its own problems with the administration of detainees.

Who is advocating "shoot(ing) folks down"? Name him.

The US Border Patrol has some 19,000-20,000 agents of which 17,000 police the southern border.

The US-Mexico border is 3,145 kilometres long. That, by your numbers, is 5.4 Border Patrol agents per kilometre. Factor in shifts, leave, courses, sickness etcetera and the actual number on duty at any one time is closer to one per kilometre. Granted, some areas are impassable and many popular illegal routes of entry are now blocked by new or improved walls, but it is still a huge task.

And the numbers of illegal entrants has exploded, overwhelming processing sites. Disease and stress and sexual and non-sexual assaults are rising as a result.

Just how many do you think the US should allow to casually saunter in?

There are millions of legal border crossings every month from Mexico into the US.

Nobody is worried about legal entrants. They're fine. It's the illegal entrants causing the problems.

50 national guardsman from South Dakota will make no difference at all. A thousand additional ones from other states will make no difference.

So just give up?

US citizens are suffering because of this. Somebody has to pay the costs of supporting immigrants. Property and violent crime and drug overdoses increase because of this, and not only in border areas.

"Never enough" is no excuse to do nothing.

This is an economic migration and a much smaller one then it has been in the past.

Regardless of the causes, a country has the right to control who is allowed to cross its borders inbound, just as you have the right to control who enters your house. And the current numbers have shot up dramatically over the last few months.

It needs a better solution than some misguided millionaire paying for maybe two additional patrols on a 2,000 mile Texas border.

Yes. It requires the federal government to do its %#@*ing job.

In the absence of that, it falls upon others to do what they can, be those others states or private citizens using legal means.

This is crass politics and more importantly it sets a dangerous precedent when a political faction starts making use of military resources.

🍻

What's crass about it?

Lives and property are at risk, and the risk is increasing.

The only "political faction ... making use of military resources" are the states who administer and fund those military resources.

Any crassness manifested is that of those charged to defend the US yet ignore their responsibility.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,810
Points
1,040
No one is arguing that the US shouldn't guard their borders and attempt to stop illegal immigration. No one is arguing that the Feds can't call on the military to assist with that in a surge situation. There are in fact several thousand national guard troops still there doing mostly administrative backstop. That support, if I'm not mistaken, is to end in September and ICE, a Federal agency has already asked DoD to extend that. So far DoD has neither agreed nor denied the request.

The point here is that the Army is not a standing police force. It provides an emergency surge. If ICE or Texas USBP or Mother Macready wants to beef up the number of folks at the border then there's a couple of hundred thousand unemployed guys with AR 15s wandering the streets of the US who I'm quite sure would welcome the job hunting down down border miscreants or emptying slop buckets at detention centres. No one is stopping that.

The problem here is that this is a piece of political theatre to pretend that this little Republican cabal is the only group that cares about the country. Let them have all the theatre that they want. Let them hire 50 more Texas Rangers or Bubba's Bail and Bonds agency but stop using the Guard. They are not the Republicans' plaything.

🍻
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
The point here is that the Army is not a standing police force.

Neither I nor anybody in the article that kicked this off is talking about "the Army". Or a "standing police force". Under discussion is the National Guard, which are state entities that can be employed in what we call Aid of the Civil Power operations, whereas the US Army cannot. By all appearances, those states who are choosing to provide National Guard augmentation to border states are doing so within their mandates

It provides an emergency surge. If ICE or Texas USBP or Mother Macready wants to beef up the number of folks at the border then there's a couple of hundred thousand unemployed guys with AR 15s wandering the streets of the US who I'm quite sure would welcome the job hunting down down border miscreants or emptying slop buckets at detention centres. No one is stopping that.

So you would be entirely happy if this rich chap paid for random, disorganized, untrained mobs to do what the US government is failing to do rather than paying the cost of trained, equipped, and disciplined entities who exist, in part, for this sort of thing?

I'm sure the results would be much better as well.

The problem here is that this is a piece of political theatre to pretend that this little Republican cabal is the only group that cares about the country. Let them have all the theatre that they want. Let them hire 50 more Texas Rangers or Bubba's Bail and Bonds agency but stop using the Guard. They are not the Republicans' plaything.

🍻

What "problem"?

The state that will receive this kind donation doesn't seem to have a problem with it. The troops who will volunteer to go certainly won't. Whichever border state that receives the assistance will likely be ecstatic.
What "political theatre"? What "Republican cabal? It's ONE SINGLE GUY offering to cover the cost out of his own pocket, and providing that money to the state who "owns" those troops. Legally, in all aspects.

"The Republicans" are not using the National Guard as a plaything. The governments of the states who fund, administer, and train the National Guard are employing them within their mandates, just with a little private financial assistance in the case of one particular state.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
50
Points
330
Private citizens funded and built a small section of wall in one high-traffic area a year or two ago, although there is some controversy about the quality of the foundation.

Regardless, states have jurisdiction within their borders and most certainly get a vote in that, especially when the federal government fails in its duty to adequately protect national borders.

I believe that the federal government is limited in its ability to nationalize the National Guard and can only do so under certain circumstances.

ICE can certainly speak up about the circumstances that they face. Illegal entry into the US is just as illegal as it is into Canada.

It is not fear fear of "Mexicans". It is the uncontrolled flooding of thousands of people from many countries into the US. Who pays for their support once in? How do they support themselves? Criminal gangs and drug cartels are moving operatives and large quantities of drugs such as fentanyl across, and human trafficking is taking place. A small number of people on terrorist watch lists have been apprehended.

Legal Mexican immigrants are very concerned about this. They followed the rules and paid the fees and filled the forms and waited for their applications to be adjudicated, in many cases facing increased waiting periods because illegal entrants clogged up the system. They also do not like being presumed to have entered illegally.

The "sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment" is being bypassed and overwhelmed, and gangs and cartels are profiting from it.
The "sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment" would be something like Ellis Island for the 21st Century: it appears there's plenty of jobs available for not terribly well educated ESL migrants, not being filled by current US citizens, so either sort out why US citizens aren't taking the work (bet the appalling patchwork of dreadful labour laws, dire minimum wage(s), etc. is to blame), or accept the need for hungry first-gen immigrants and build an intake program that'll actually meet labour needs.

Effective aid to South American countries would also be a good idea.

If ICE personnel want to talk "unsafe working environment," go for it! Outside of that, they need to be absolutely, aggressively apolitical and never publicly comment on government policy, especially government policy they disagree with, or that limits their freedom of action, including if that means ignoring criminal activity.

Re: "fear of Mexicans," I was impugning the motives of those who are opposed to increased legal immigration to the US; the sort of idiot who gets stroppy if they hear something other than English.

Outside of very narrowly defined boundaries (civic amenities, education, infrastructure, and health*) the notion of allowing targeted donations or funding of government functions by private citizens is repellent, especially coercive government functions. Want more enforcement? Lobby for it, and for higher taxes to pay for it.

*Most of these should be paid for by government anyway, but there's no negative outcomes, other than enabling government neglect, related to more theatres, parks, libraries, pools, rinks, hospitals, schools, new bridges, repaired roads, etc.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
The "sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment" would be something like Ellis Island for the 21st Century:

Yes. Controlled.

But what is happening today is the equivalent of ships filled with immigrants landing on beaches along the entire coastline of the US and disgorging their passengers to fend for themselves.

it appears there's plenty of jobs available for not terribly well educated ESL migrants, not being filled by current US citizens, so either sort out why US citizens aren't taking the work (bet the appalling patchwork of dreadful labour laws, dire minimum wage(s), etc. is to blame), or accept the need for hungry first-gen immigrants and build an intake program that'll actually meet labour needs.

Overpayment of "pandemic support" by the current administration is a major factor. Why would people work when they can loaf around their apartments and rake in almost as much?

There are several bad things that will happen as a result of the: essential tasks will not get done, supplies of essential products will shrink, prices will rise for what is available.

On another thread on this Site there is a discussion about posting problems due to a shortage of packers and movers and drivers.

Wait until food is not grown, processed, or delivered to shops that lack the manpower to stock shelves.

And then there's the offensive sense of entitlement, that these people consider themselves free to suck off of the efforts of others and give nothing in return. The term is "parasite". Why should their hosts have to work harder to pay more taxes to support these parasites?

Many/most Republican states have stopped these unnecessary and harmful overpayments.

I am not so sure that US labour laws are any worse than ours, and, while minimum wages may be less, and vary from state-to-state, there are other compensations less visible - find a US state that charges 13% sales tax, for one (and I believe that some Canadian provinces charge higher).

Despite many similarities, Canada and the US are not the same. Neither are perfect, and each has advantages over the other in some areas and disadvantages in others. And there are differences between the various states as well, which enjoy far more autonomy than Canadian provinces.

As for "hungry first-gen immigrants", they essentially constitute a new serf-class that can be exploited by businesses and the parasites who consider themselves too special to work.

Effective aid to South American countries would also be a good idea.

Perhaps, but how many people in how many foreign countries should the US support?

What about the US poor?

In our case, what about our indigenous people?

On a smaller scale, how many homeless people should each of us be expected to directly support?

If ICE personnel want to talk "unsafe working environment," go for it! Outside of that, they need to be absolutely, aggressively apolitical and never publicly comment on government policy, especially government policy they disagree with, or that limits their freedom of action, including if that means ignoring criminal activity.

Just like those of us who comment on this Site about military and other government policy?

Freedom of expression.

Re: "fear of Mexicans," I was impugning the motives of those who are opposed to increased legal immigration to the US; the sort of idiot who gets stroppy if they hear something other than English.

Wherever I go in the US, I see signs in Spanish, especially in major businesses. I see people of Hispanic (and other) origin. I occasionally hear accented English and some Spanish. I have not heard any objection. Most Americans, like most Canadians, welcome legal newcomers, especially those who want to fit in and work hard to support themselves and contribute to society.

Outside of very narrowly defined boundaries (civic amenities, education, infrastructure, and health*) the notion of allowing targeted donations or funding of government functions by private citizens is repellent, especially coercive government functions. Want more enforcement? Lobby for it, and for higher taxes to pay for it.

Why is it repellent? Just because it is a novel concept for some? Americans have always had a greater sense of independence than Canadians have. Americans contribute more to charities than Canadians do. People here prefer governments to act as charities instead.

All government functions are funded by private citizens, ultimately. "There is only one taxpayer".

The hero of this tale decided to kick in a little extra, for a specific purpose - and the state willingly and gratefully accepted it.

"Coercive government functions"? Defending border regions from illegal entrants - criminals by the very act of crossing the US border uncontrolled - is "coercive"? It is protective. And legal. And a responsibility of governments.

Remember, crossing into Canada illegally is a crime as well.

"Lobby for it"? How about "put your money where your mouth is"? That is exactly what this generous and civic-minded person did. Bravo, him.

"Higher taxes"? He just paid them, on behalf of others. Bravo him.

And that's all that my eyes can take of this red screen. It is like typing in hell.

*Most of these should be paid for by government anyway, but there's no negative outcomes, other than enabling government neglect, related to more theatres, parks, libraries, pools, rinks, hospitals, schools, new bridges, repaired roads, etc.
 
Last edited:

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
What information do you have to indicate that it was not?
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
973
Points
860
The guy making the donation is a regular major GOP donor. Involving a fairly polarizing Governor. And doing it in an unprecedented way. As some people mentioned, if he truly cared there were many other more effective ways he could have contributed.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
The guy making the donation is a regular major GOP donor. Involving a fairly polarizing Governor. And doing it in an unprecedented way. As some people mentioned, if he truly cared there were many other more effective ways he could have contributed.

It appears to me to be quite effective.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
The guy making the donation is a regular major GOP donor.

So what?

He's politically active.

That is generally considered to be a good thing.

And doing it in an unprecedented way.

"Unprecedented" is bad?

Innovation and thinking outside of the box are generally considered to be good things as well.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
973
Points
860
So what?

He's politically active.

That is generally considered to be a good thing.



"Unprecedented" is bad?

Innovation and thinking outside of the box are generally considered to be good things as well.
Given most posts about politicians, donors, lobbyists and financial support on this site by you and many including myself I find your argument a bit odd.

but we’re all entitled to our opinions. I’m more of a skeptic when it comes to motivations when private money and politics are involved. It’s good to see you are an optimist when it comes to that.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
455
Points
1,030
It appears to me to be quite effective.

50 National Guard. With an undisclosed role. I’m not sure how you were able to assess that but ok.

But you are forgetting the first principle of war, selection and maintenance of the aim. The aim was to make the Biden administration (and Democrats generally) look bad to voters. There may be some blow back about legality or ethics but in the current American political climate legality and ethics, if considered at all, are very flexible. Will this stunt sway undecideds, probably not, but the Republican approach to everything seems to be about focusing on its base and this has favourite touchstones of illegal immigration and the military. The operational effectiveness of putting 50 Guardsmen down in Texas for a month or two, that's a so what. The outrageousness of the story has it being repeated and discussed on both sides of the political media. That's the win for the Republicans and a loss for democracy.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
277
Points
910
The article about Gov Noem and this one, hosted by Gov Abbott, I thought I'd put up to provide some fact and clarity to the discussion. President Trump and Gov Abbott Border Conference. Here you can hear from the Governor himself, and his top LEO'S, about the problems being experienced because of the Biden/Harris border policies, or lack thereof. Texas will also fund and continue the building of the wall in Texas territory. Concentrate on what they say, not Trump, the important stuff comes from the Governor and his people. If what they are saying is true, they have a huge national security problem, of which the actual illegal immigration pales in comparison. There's no reason to expect anything different happening in the other states bordering Mexico, so a lot of the Texas numbers can be extrapolated I would imagine.
 
Last edited:

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
277
Points
910

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
277
Points
910
ICE can certainly speak up about the circumstances that they face. Illegal entry into the US is just as illegal as it is into Canada.

It is not fear fear of "Mexicans". It is the uncontrolled flooding of thousands of people from many countries into the US. Who pays for their support once in? How do they support themselves? Criminal gangs and drug cartels are moving operatives and large quantities of drugs such as fentanyl across, and human trafficking is taking place. A small number of people on terrorist watch lists have been apprehended.
It is. Thx be, that Roxham Rd is but a mouse hole compared to the US southern border.

From about a month ago. Illegal immigrants from 52 countries crossed US-Mexico border this year
 
Top