With a new Republican majority and a different governor, a veteran state lawmaker is resurrecting plans to create a state civilian militia that could be called out to patrol the border.
Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said Monday he wants a group of trained civilians that the governor could call out in times of emergency such as natural disasters. And he said the governor also could place the volunteers on the border.
But Harper, who is moving to the state House in January, said that is only part of the plan. He also is crafting a second measure so that, once the Homeland Security Force was established, the governor would have to deploy not only the volunteers but the National Guard to the border if the federal government reduces the number of federally funded Guard soldiers now based there.
That is all but inevitable: The current assignment of 524 soldiers to the Arizona border is temporary. National Guard officials said they will be at full strength only for three or four months, and gone entirely by June 30.
Harper got colleagues to approve the first half of the plan in 2007, only to have it vetoed by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano. She called it unnecessary, saying the Arizona Constitution already authorizes her to call out a volunteer militia.
Harper, however, said neither she -- nor current Gov. Jan Brewer -- has done that. He said this measure would not only clarify the power but provide funding as well as the authorization for the state adjutant general to proceed, complete with an oversight committee to help him set up the rules for training.
Brewer said Harper hasn’t consulted her on his latest plan. But she gave the concept a cool reception, saying she is focused on forcing the federal government to do more to secure the border.
She said that means not only leaving the existing Guard soldiers in place -- at federal expense -- but adding to the force as well as increase the number of Border Patrol officers in Arizona.
“At this point in time, I think the best thing to do is to work with the federal government,’’ she said.
Part of the problem, Brewer said, is who picks up the tab.
“It’s pretty obvious that the state doesn’t have a whole lot of money,’’ the governor said. “There’s probably no way we’re going to be able to afford anything like that.’’
Harper, however, said initial training costs would be minimal. He said while an actual border deployment would cost more, whatever the state has to spend is far cheaper than the alternative.
“When illegal aliens bring their families across the border, we end up educating their children,’’ he said.
“When they get caught (committing a crime), we end up paying for their incarceration,’’ Harper continued. “So there’s a vested interest in stopping them at the border.’’
Harper said more than two dozen other states already have provisions allowing the formation of volunteer militias.
This group would be made up of volunteers who agree to undergo training at their own expense. Harper said they would have their own weapons for self defense.
He said he envisions the volunteers watching the border and calling Border Patrol when they spot suspected illegal immigrants, comparing the militia to a volunteer posse like some sheriff’s departments have, or civilian volunteers that assist local police departments. The fact they would be deployed along the border, Harper said, doesn’t change any of that.
But that second phase of Harper’s plan involves more than just volunteers watching. If and when federally funded Guard troops go away, it would require the governor to deploy state-funded Guard troops “to handle any kind of armed incursion across our border.’’
“Obviously, they won’t be checking people’s citizenship status,’’ he said, saying they would call Border Patrol to apprehend those crossing illegally. “But you’d have a military force enforcing the border.’’
Harper said he doesn’t see a problem with militarizing the border.
“The role of the National Guard is to protect the nation’s borders,’’ he said. “The only thing that’s left to be debated is who should pay for it.’’
Matthew Chandler, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said his agency does not comment on pending state legislation. But he questioned the need for it, noting that, aside from the temporary deployment of Guard soldiers, there are about 4,500 Border Patrol agents stationed in Arizona.
“Over the past nearly two years, this administration has committed unprecedented manpower, infrastructure and technology to the Southwest border,’’ Chandler said. “Today, the Border Patrol is better staffed than at any time in its 86-year history, seizures of illicit goods are up across the board, illegal crossings are down and the Southwest border is more secure than ever before.’’
mlimberg posted at 3:25 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
Here's Johnny![wink] Sign me up!
Slabside posted at 6:23 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
This is a great idea! [beam]
rrjenn posted at 8:00 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
Seems like a good idea. I wonder why Brewer is cold to the idea? He says that this group would be made up of volunteers who agree to undergo training at their own expense. Harper said they would have their own weapons for self defense. Can't get much cheaper than that, and I'm betting they get more people volunteering than they can use.
Rich posted at 9:30 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
It'd sure keep me away from the border. A bunch of trigger happy yahoos are bad enough in uniform. The idea of a militia is to control politicians, not be controlled by them. We'd be better off with Harper in their sights, not helping them to aim.
Slabside posted at 11:12 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
Americans that are willing to help stop the illegal border crossings and Rich calls them "trigger happy yahoos". Rich, you sicken me.
Slabside posted at 12:07 am on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
Drunks and criminals? I think you are drunk Rich. Just how old are you anyway?
wdgnas posted at 5:55 am on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
the people that are in favor of this should start contributing to a fund set up by jack harper to cover any costs...
rrjenn posted at 9:09 am on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
Rich, I'm curious about your motives. Are you just against anything that might help stop illegal immigration or just against law makers and enforcers in general? Are they all drunks and criminals?
"The idea of a militia is to control politicians, not be controlled by them." Are you serious? You really believe that?
In reality it's about half right being that we the people are the militia spoken of in the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," Protection from an invasion would come under that clause.
Wait a minute, aren't you the one a while back who tried to assert that illegal immigration was just an infraction and not a crime?
wdgnas, didn't the article say that all volunteers would pay for their own training and weapons? Whatever other costs the state may incur should be offset by savings from decreased drug and human smuggling.
EmperorSmith posted at 1:39 pm on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
A regulated militia is to preserve American freedom on a local scale from any threat that may unveil itself.
Rich posted at 2:21 pm on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
Rich, I'm curious about your motives. Are you just against anything that might help stop illegal immigration or just against law makers and enforcers in general? You're not going to stop immigration, legal or illegal, no government ever has, Chinese built a dang wall, didn't stop anything. It's a silly cause to influence ignorant people. Especially across an area people have been crossing in both directions to go to work for about three centuries now. Are they all drunks and criminals? Have been for a while, the positions are so corrupt at this point only crooks or drunks want them. "The idea of a militia is to control politicians, not be controlled by them." Are you serious? You really believe that? Yes, so did Thomas Jefferson which is where I got the idea. Wait a minute, aren't you the one a while back who tried to assert that illegal immigration was just an infraction and not a crime? Sure, it's a misdemeanor. The term illegal is merely used in this case to enflame the ignorant.
Edited by staff.
rrjenn posted at 3:47 pm on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
The Israelis seem to be doing a pretty good job of stopping illegal immigration there. Suggesting that we can never stop immigration, legal or illegal, when we have never even tried seems a bit defeatist. Mind if we try for a while and see what develops?
There may be a few drunks and criminals in our government, but we have to make do with what we have. If more than 55% of the eligible voters voted, we might get the government that we want.
Yes Jefferson said that, but that wasn't the only thing he said, and even you must agree that the militia was and is for much more than just keeping our government from taking our liberties from us.
Would it sound less inflammatory if we called it misdemeanor immigration? Personally, I'd like to be able to call it felony immigration, but we can't have everything. I just love how the pro open border people want us all to call illegal aliens undocumented immigrants as if they didn't commit a crime their very first foot step onto America soil. Well, most of them anyway. Rich, a criminal is a criminal, and no matter what semantic games get played it all boils down to the same thing.
Those so called inflamed ignorant people aren't so stupid that they can't see the tremendous cost illegal immigration is to us all. I think the fact that 30% of the Hispanic voters voted republican is a sure sign of that. They weren't fooled by the rhetoric.
Rich posted at 10:55 pm on Tue, Nov 30, 2010.
The israelis actually do a lousy job, but at times a showy one. "There may be a few drunks and criminals in our government," there is nothing but has been for quite a while politicians are our native criminal class. "...even you must agree that the militia was and is for much more than just keeping our government from taking our liberties from us." No, I really mustn't. That is what it is for. "Would it sound less inflammatory if we called it misdemeanor immigration?" It would be more honest, though it's not necessarily even immigration, may just be commuting.
wdgnas posted at 6:02 am on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
a well regulated militia?
from section 8 of the us constitution: powers of the congress
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
there is also a provision for the militia to be called into service by the president.
rrjenn posted at 10:55 am on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
wdgas, how can it say that the president may call the militia into service when Rich only just now taught us that the militia's only job is to protect us from politicians like the president? And you say it's the congress's job to organize, arm, and discipline the militia that is only for protecting the people from that same congress? I guess there is a compelling reason to read such documents before passing them (HEALTHCARE REFORM!!!). I suppose Rich should read the constitution a we bit more before making comments on what it says.
Rich, I know several politicians on a personal level that do not drink and are very honest to a fault. Whenever a statement says always or everyone or something along those lines you can usually dismiss it as the nonsense answer to the question.
Israel has built double walls along the West Bank where there were problems and has virtually stopped all undocumented terrorists [wink] from those areas. They are at this time starting to build another wall separating Egypt from Israel that will stop undocumented terrorist [wink] coming from that are as well. We could build a human wall along the entire southern border with the troops that are stationed in Europe, who are protecting Europe from who? That would also virtually stop all drug and human smuggling along that border and be cheaper than keeping all those troops stationed in Europe.
So now you don't know about our immigration laws that outlaw people commuting across the border in either direction? You can bet our friends to the south sure do. Try commuting to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Mexican immigration laws are oh so much more harsh than ours are. Try it just once and I guarantee no one but the insane will try it again.
hillstreet posted at 1:06 pm on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
Typical Jack (Loony Tunes) Harper legislation. Have anyone here ever met this dude? I have. He is nuttier than a fruitcake. Am sure Pierce, Kavanaugh et al will be signing up behind this non-sense too. The state is broke, people are unemployed, and these morons spend their time passing stupid laws. Of course, most of them have no clue on how to deal with the budget mess so they use these silly bills to distract the loony right (much like you can distract a toddler with your car keys) to get attention away from the fact these "legislators" are clueless on how to effectively deal with our problems.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:42 pm on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
Why don't we ask someone who actually works on the border patrol to chime in? Here is my proposed question. Would you welcome or run away from "volunteers" carrying or not, running around the border?
Judging from the way local law enforcement uses their volunteers, I would guess the response to be "Thanks but no thanks!"
Rich, I'm confident you would agree. No border patrol officer would want slabside side any where near his side!
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:56 am on Thu, Dec 2, 2010.
"That is all but inevitable: The current assignment of 524 soldiers to the Arizona border is temporary. National Guard officials said they will be at full strength only for three or four months, and gone entirely by June 30."
Gee, why am I not surprised that King Obama would pull something like this...
rrjenn posted at 1:38 pm on Thu, Dec 2, 2010.
Ah, the usual crowd of law enforcement hating, pro open border, Mestizo lovers has joined the fray. How delightful. HillDale, the two forky sock puppets. Any moment forky himself will chime in on why he thinks we shouldn't let the law do it's sworn job. Wonderful. Ya Rich, tell Dale all about how you agree, and don't forget to tell him how you read the constitution and it says the militia is only to protect us against all those drunken criminal politicians. I'm guessing Hill thinks all politicians should do is sit around worrying about jobs and money. Hey! Do ya suppose that sending 20 million criminals packing back to Mexico might help with jobs and money? Just a thought.
rrjenn posted at 2:45 pm on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?
The Israel Parliament voted to build a massive 10,000 person detention center for illegal aliens from Africa. Sounds like a concentration camp to me. Israel is already building a massive wall along it’s Egyptian border and working with Egyptian border police to thwart illegal aliens from sub-Saharan Africa. In the past year Egyptian border police have shot and killed 15 sub-Saharan Africans illegally crossing into Israel.
Ironically, many self-described Jewish organizations in the United States and Europe remain on the forefront of defending open borders and illegal immigration.
Whaaaaa??? US Jewish groups denounce Arizona while ignoring aggressive right-wing anti-immigration laws in Israel?
America is being invaded and everyone just wants to bury their heads in sand. Our enemies are already nested into our culture.
And now without further ado, the race calling lefty will display it's ugly head, denouncing me as an evil racist who hates anyone who isn't white, christian, and republican.
rrjenn posted at 9:34 pm on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
Mestizo is a term traditionally used in Latin America for people of mixed European and Indigenous heritage or descent. The term originated as a racial category in the Casta system that was in use during the Spanish empire's control of their American colonies, it was used to describe those who had one European-born parent and one who was member of an indigenous American population. In the Casta system mestizos had fewer rights than European born persons called "Peninsular", and "Criollos" who were persons born in the new world of two European born parents, but more rights than "Indios" and "Negros". During the colonial period, mestizos quickly became the majority group in most of Latin America and when the colonies started achieving independence from Spain, the mestizo group often became dominant. In some Latin American countries, such as Mexico, the concept of the "mestizo" became central to the formation of a new independent identity that was neither wholly Spanish nor wholly indigenous and the word mestizo acquired its current meaning of mixed cultural heritage rather than racial descent.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:18 am on Mon, Dec 13, 2010.
Rich and hillstreet seem to forget there are already "trigger happy" people on the border. They are called DRUG RUNNERS.....