Should the US border with Mexico be militarized? US Army divisions stationed all along the border?

Question

To prevent illegal border crossings, should 100,000 or so US troops be pulled out of Iraq and sent to patrol the US southern border? Should anyone attempting an illegal crossing be shot on sight? Should cruise missiles be used to disperse armed units of the Mexican Army that attempt to cross the border escorting drug runners? (Yes, this DOES happen). Would a declaration of war against Mexico be appropriate?

There have been many documented incursions into the US by units of the Mexican military, and the number is something like 100 or so border violations over a two-year period by armed Mexican Army soldiers into US territory, many times in support of drug runners. US Border patrol agents have been fired upon by Mexican Army soldiers. It seems that from what has been reported that the army units stationed in the north of Mexico are more under the control of drug lords than the central government in Mexico City. This is a big problem and has been written up many times. It is a violation of US sovereignty by the Mexican military, regardless of who is controlling it.

Answer 1

At this point I believe so. We are in a war on terror officially. Any country that does not take our concerns seriously, need a wake up call. Mexico is one of them. We have every right to militarize our border when we are being invaded. And we are being invaded. The invaders carry drugs, diseases and are by their very nature counter culture. They cost the US billiions of dollars in untold ways and they threaten the culture in general. They are also, outside of the law of this country by entering in the way they do. All that said, I'm sure many are nice people.
I would ask the question, "if someone put a gun to your head and blew your brains out, would it matter to you if they were a nice person?"
We ARE at war with these people and in a sense with Mexico and while it is not traditional, it is being fought for the same old things most wars are fought for. Power, control, money.

Answer 2

Yes, I would. Especially since the drug runners have been hiring the Mexican Army to help them smuggle across the border. They are armed with Hummers with 50 cal. machine guns. Law enforcement don't stand a chance.
8 to 10 K troops would be fine and I don't think they need to be pulled from Iraq when we have millions of military men and women now. The national guardsmen who report their 2 weeks per year can report to the border. That would dramatically help.
Regular Army can have men stationed all up and down the Border. Shoot first ask questions later would be my motto, but the PC crowd would hate that.

For the one who want to talk with Mexico and have Mexico assist, they are assisting. They are assisting the Illegals on HOW to cross and stay here. Remember the comic books that Mexico put out?

Answer 3

I think that a lot of the outcome is going to depend on Mexico.
Mexico's got problems, one of those problems is recognizing where their country stops, and ours starts. The map really hasn't changed much in the last 80-90 years or so, but they seem to have a problem figuring out where that border line is. I really don't think it'd hurt to have markers, and the fence, as much as some people hate the idea, has already had a positive impact in a lot of areas that were suffering from a lot of crime etc.

I think that having the military at the border isn't inappropriate,
if people are breaking the law or the army in mexico ends up in america 'by accident' or otherwise, it'd be better to have a way to deal with it besides selling your house and moving away from the worst parts of the problem. I don't think you should have to move, I think it's a reasonable expectation to have the government go ahead and 'help' Mexico to see the light of respecting our border, and our laws, and stuff. We know Mexico's got problems, but
letting em run right in and ruin our southern states probably really isn't the right answer, in my belief. I don't dislike mexicans, or guatemalans, or even el salvadorans, for that matter, but at the end of the day, it's not the people, it's the countries they're from that seem to have a severe problem figuring out the difference between legal and illegal immigration, for example. If we don't have laws, or those laws don't have enforcement behind them, then people will largely just do whatever the hell suits their needs at the moment. I vote AGAINST letting Mexico enter the US with impunity until and unless they prove they're going to be good partners with our country on crime etc.

Answer 4

"No. No. No. No- and No.
We don't have any of that for Canida- or do we? "

HAHA! What can I say to this? First of all, it's CANADA. Second, the only reason military border control would be installed is because of the mass illegal immigration problem, which is not a problem at all in Canada. I believe that US troops should be used to guard our countries borders, but not necessarily to shoot Mexicans on sight, unless they were not complying with the commands to turn back (in which case, they asked for it). Yes, I believe that drug runners escorted by military should be fired upon by US troops, because that is highly detrimental to our country. However, adeclaration of war would be inappropriate because the government had not instigated any of these illegal actions, and they are not encouraged by those in power.

Answer 5

It would be appropriate,the way million of illegals are crossing as we speak,but it will never happen under this administration and this senate because we have a government that is dependent on cheap labor to satisfy the many companies that rather hire an illegal than a US citizen,cheap labor also weakens the labor unions and strengthens government control over it's citizens.George W Bush and the senate already have made it clear that they rather go against the majority of what the american people want and would never militarize the border since it's not in their best interest

Answer 6

America wants to be free. America wants to show the rest of the world how freedom can ring. By having a civil government, we show the rest of the world that a government need not be primarily military.

However, there is something called La Reconquista. That of Mexico wanting through both legal in illegal immigration several states it lost/sold in the mid 1800's. They want the gold and oil that their leaders denied them. They want to colonize and recognize the best way to reclaim land without firing a shot. From what I understand in California, site after site tells me has ceded it board of ed to illegal aliens, who teach that the white man stole mexican lands and it's there right to get it back. Amazing how we have a law that says we can teach evolution but no federal law that states we cannot teach hate in the classroom.

We may never declare was on mexico, but given the fact that our jobs have been sent overseas and our money purposely been driven down in value to have a high value overseas, now it appears that our citizenship is going that way next. I say it's not for sale by our leaders and businesses and further a lie that American's don't want to do their work - we've created a class of people that have preference over us now.

What mexico wants is to win by votes - but that would lead to another civial war, and the question is would our leaders protect the individual states?

I don't see from what is going on is an immigration issue. What I see is a colonization issue, and a citizen's rights issue versus a non-citizen. Even if enough come here legally to colonize and cede states back to mexico, that's not good enough either.

So the question is, why do we have to ask about why we have a right to protect our borders and appropriate the necessary funds and resources to do it? That is the greatest trick against the American people to date, to have convinced us it's not worth protecting.

Now we must militarize our border, and I don't perceive this as a bad example of freedom. It's amazing that when the mexican army comes over the border here to protect any mexican interests against us it's not an act of war. I wouldn't be surprised if the mexican army shot and killed any americans on our soil like Poncho Villa did in 1916.

Why do our leaders insist that it's ok for American's to get hurt this way and rather make all citizens to colonize than look at it the same way the mexican's do, as La Reconquista?

Oh my goodness, the Berlin Wall!!! Sir, the Berlin wall wasn't to keep people from coming in, it was to keep people from getting out! Not even close to the same thing!!!!!

Answer 7

I think 100,000 troops would be much more than what is needed for the job.
But yes I think it is well within this countries rights and responsibilities to secure and protect our borders in any way we deem necessary.
Importation of drugs,and illegal aliens crossing illegally into our country must be stopped.No more saying we have laws to cover this and we have border patrol to handle this because obviously they are not handling it and are overrun.
Yes our military should have the right to fire on anything or anyone who may present a threat to the USA,be it Mexican Govt or otherwise.
It is time for us to take a real stand and use military forces to firmly and effectively defend our borders!

Answer 8

Yes to all the above. The fact is there is one way to solve all of our problems with Mexico. First we need to assassinate Fox. The invade Mexico. Then we need to carve it into 2 new states, Old Mexico and Tejas. Then extend California south. After this is done, we need to declare the mexicans as Americans. Institute Minimum wage laws, health care and income taxes. This will creat a boom for both economies because people will have opportunity, something they have never had. Construction boom would be sonic, new buildings, roads, streets, cities and towns. Business would spring up everywhere, property value would soar, houssing market would skyrocket, intrest would go up. There would be needsw in cleaning the enviroment, getting cars and other things up to standard to give them a cleaner country to live in. It is endless. And in the same process we could drive out the corrupt cops, judges and military, the drug dealers and drug runners would see thier business evaporate. And most important, it would solve the immigration issue as we would all be American and have opportunity.

But I am sad to say, this cannot happen. The US is not in the business of anexxing countries. Fox would have to realize the benefits would help his people and his country. But he would not care because he is pouring money into his pockets while everyone else suffers. if Mexico ever elsects a man who could see this opportunity and act on it, life could improve for 10's of millions of people.

Answer 9

I do not think any lives should be taken in America efforts to maintain a strong illegal free border. However i am well aware of Mexican military incursions into America. I would not tolerate for one second a foreign military presence in America. Not even one armed soldier. I would issue one final warning to the Mexican government to keep it's troops clear of American soil or America will seek and destroy any and all military personal.

Answer 10

Yes, I agree, (anyway, it wont affect the reality---)
People that live in the border will be crossing every day to work in the US. US patrol officers will still allow some undocumented inmigrants to sneak in, as they have for the past 10 years, when the US farmers need some cheap labor in the fields.

So I guess is great to militarize. As with so many issues, most of the time, the government spends millions of dollars to create the idea of security.

It's nice to see the government burning million of dollars and people applauding it.

Answer 11

As a minister I do not condone excessive violence. But your sentiments are felt among the vast majority living along the border. Including my self.
the Texas southern border is no longer a safe place to live I live a little north of Laredo where drug runners , killings , property destruction are a daily way of life here.
I do support a closed border with military action if needed.