Dems push back against deploying National Guard to border


From The Hill:
House Democrats are lining up in staunch opposition to the Republicans’ push to send the National Guard to the southern border.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called on President Obama to use those troops to help personnel already on the ground. On Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry ® deployed the Guard to his state’s border, and a GOP border working group is soon to release policy recommendations expected to include similar plans.

But the Democrats contend the use of the Guard would do little to help a situation in which many of the new arrivals – thousands of them unaccompanied children – are surrendering to the authorities in hopes of qualifying to stay in the United States.

On the other hand, per Texas’ Lt Gov David Dewhearst:

Texas Lt. Gov: 80-85% of Illegals Aren’t Unaccompanied Kids

“Our effort in Texas is not focused on the unaccompanied children…we are focused on-the unaccompanied children represent some 12%-20%. We’re focused on that 80, the 85% of which a quarter according to the border patrol, have a criminal record” he said about Texas’ recent deployment to of the National Guard to the southern border.

Dewhurst also attacked the federal government for refusing to provide resources to secure the border, declaring “I gave up on the federal government seven years ago.”

(video of him making that statement is at the link)

I would like to fact check his statement (as that would be dramatically different than what has been reported in the MSM to date), but, I’ll have to wait until actual numbers are published…and that will be a while.


It’s merely a political stunt by Perry. They can’t actually shoot or capture anyone. I’m surprised Republicans and the Tea Party would support such a total waste of money just to have them standing around.


Ummm, have you not seen the precendent with the President?

The National Guard can do whatever it wants to, and there is little anyone would or could do to stop it. If someone objects, they can file an amicus brief with the Suprmere Court, and have it addressed in two or three years.

The phrase “can’t actually” doesn’t have an meaning in public policy in 2014.



Ohhhhh wait. You mean taking executive action like Republican presidents have done long before Obama? Oh yes I’ve seen that. It’s even more important today to at least get some things done with the inaction of this Congress. They won’t even put things up for a vote .


That is one aspect, sure. But if you think that this is something unique in history, you are mistaken.

And your ire should lay at the feet of Harry reid, the primary cause of inaction. Do you know how many bills sit on his desk sent from the H.o.R. never to be allowed to be voted on by the Senate?

There is also the issue of selectively enforcing which laws he will enforce, moreso than at any time in history. Why would Congress want to pass more laws when the Preisdent will choose which ones he will enforce anyway?

You can’t justify Presidential misbehavior and over reach or COngressional misbehavior and over reach by saying “well, someone had to do something!” That isn;t how the US form of government is set up to work, on paper.

If that is what you believe, so be it, but as I said in another post, it makes you wonder what people were upset about when bad intel in the Iraw War, the Valerie Plame scandal., and Watergate. Because, the President can do whatever he thinks needs to be done, correct?


You linked to a story that’s behind a pay wall. We don’t know what the story says


Can you point out any executive action ever that instructed the Justice Dept to not enforce the law?


Try this:

(same story, just reprinted at another paper)



closed #10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit