if the southern border is such a serious crises and must
have a $28 billion wall built to save american lives, i
have a plan of my own to address that situation...

our combined armed forces personnel number about 1.5 million
soldiers at the present...of these one third (500,000) are
deployed in foreign lands... the remaining (1,000,000) are
currently stationed within our borders and territorial waters..

my suggestion is to utilize this asset of ours in an effort
to secure our southern border at no additional charge to
the taxpayer...they are already on our payroll and it is time
to put them to work where we need them...

i believe if we took only one tenth of the one million
stateside soldiers, a force of 100,000 and deployed them
along the 2,000 mile border setting up tent base camps
from which platoon and squads would fan out on patrols
operating on a 24 hour a day operation..

20 base camps 100 miles apart 5,000 soldiers per camp
mobile equip, choppers, jeeps whatever the commanders deem
necessary to fulfill the mission of securing that border..

i think that Wall is nothing but a giant pork-barrel scheme
to hand more lucrative government contracts to civilian
construction companies...

what do you think ? is this possible or am i just dreaming ?

your thoughts, comments, criticisms and new ideas are welcome..

LOL. why not?
Better yet...
Lets set up kill zones.
On the existing fence we place a sign in Spanish that says
"Lethal Force Authorized"
"Proceed at Risk of Death"

At all points along the border and for what, 3 or 5 miles inward, set up robotic sentry units that spray any contact with rapid fire machine gun fire. Additionally, lets mine the entire line with anti-personnel mines and booby traps.

Then, just to top it all off with some new technology, lets put drone assault vehicles in constant patrol.

Let the bodies of the offenders act as a deterrent.

Then, just in case some of those terrible infiltrators make it thru, lets have a secondary line of death a few miles in.

Better yet, lets just nuke the entire border so it becomes a radiation zone of death.

Federal law would have to be changed in order for that to happen.
Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines aren't allowed to be used for law-enforce purposes.

ah but, dodo david, The oath that all servicemen take is to protect the United States from threats both Foreign AND Domestic.
Protecting the United States from foreign occupation clearly fits within the intent of the oath.

Tell that to Congress and the Department of Defense.

Immigration cheating is a law-enforcement issue.

it still leaves the army national guard(340,000) and air national guard(105,000) , if the states governor requests.

I believe that is correct.

I took that oath, I know it exists.
I may be wrong but you don't build a wall (or a fence for that matter) on a border unless there is a threat to national security.
It just doesn't happen. If there was no threat, there would be no restriction. People could just freely walk between the countries like they do a state border. Someone, somewhere determined that our borders need to be protected.
To protect the United States against all threats (all threats) both foreign and domestic.
How can the influx of foreign people not be considered a threat to our established modis operandi? Taxes, burden of responsibility, population accounting relating to census statistics. Crime rates.

If any threat to the continental United States exists, it is illegal immigration. So much so that the very integrity of our nation hinges upon it. Even if that is not enough to justify military presence, there is the threat that other nationalities might gain access thru a weak border. Nationalities that have more dire intentions of gaining access to the homeland.

What's more...Other countries actively protect their borders with military units. Try entering Germany or any number of countries without proper papers. You meet a military presence. Enforced with deadly repercussions. They don't mess around, you either enter by allotment or you get shot, end of story.

Right now in the USA, immigration cheating is an issue for law-enforcement.

I am not opposed to federal law being changed so that all military personnel can be used to stop immigration cheating at the USA's borders.

thanks for the comments fellow night owls...

David you are right about that posse comitatus act
but it is kind of gray area as military are allowed
to "support" law enforcement action...

MsH also correct on border states using natl guard troops
both george dubya and obama have sent troops to the border..

my example was a somewhat facetious exaggeration my intent
being to point out the pork-barrel nature of a 28 billion
dollar wall that isn't all that necessary as it doesn't
begin to deal with overstayed visa's or those who cross
at regular checkpoints and dont bother to return..i believe
those make up about 50% of illegals...and the vast majority
of drugs arrive by vehicle through those same checkpoints

my essential point is the Wall is a big waste of money that
will go into the pockets of private companies and could
well be used for other important things...

man, i'm really *talkative tonight...

Interesting.

You classify it as immigration cheating?

Many, like myself, classify it as a national threat?

What really matters is how the NSC (National Security Council) classifies it.

In social media networks there are many opinions of illegal immigration. It ranges from 'so what' to 'OMG'.

What actually matters is how the government and the powers that be view it.

Trump's wall is a presidential program that embraces the national image of border protection. It is designed to appease the people's national interest.

When push comes to shove and the buck stops here, the actual decision is made by the NSC in the best interest of the nation's security.

If the NSC doesn't view the border as a national security issue, the wall will not be built. Period. The money will be blocked, if not directly, then indirectly.

The OP as posed by Argo is that the funding issues concerning the wall might be alleviated by military presence. It embraces the need for protection but offers an alternative to the expense.

The issue of topic is not the need for a wall but the expense and alternatives to a wall. The responsibility of it being a federal issue is not the issue.

"Immigration Cheating" as you so politically correctly put it is not a law-enforcement issue because the perpetrators are not US citizens that are granted rights under our justice system. They are foreign invaders to put it bluntly.

Our law-enforcement system is designed for dealing with US citizens who have US rights under our constitution. An illegal immigrant has no constitutional rights as far as I understand it.
I didn't and my ancestors didn't fight or die to protect our rights for non-citizens. Or...am I thinking wrong?
As far as I understand it, unless you are a United States citizen, you do not get our rights. That includes rights under our laws.

Technically, our law-enforcement is purely pertaining to United States citizens. Perhaps I am wrong but I don't think I am.

Technically, our CIA would be in charge of our borders. The FBI would take over for issues where invaders infiltrated our borders but the actual borders would be a CIA domain. Both the CIA and the FBI are superseded by the military.

If anything, the wall would come under CIA authority which is regulated by the federal government. Unless I am completely wrong?
The INS operates under federal authority. The FBI operates under federal authority. The CIA operates under federal authority. All those letters have military support under the foreign and domestic imperative of the oath. Even law enforcement agencies operate under the FBI authority.

"Immigration Cheating" is merely a civilian nomenclature expressly used to minimize the actual term related to national threat. A soft term to allow citizens to feel good about a very real issue.
Most American citizens know illegal immigration threatens our nation.

One thing that is sure is that we, as a nation, need to get control of our borders as soon as possible.

Tom you are wrong...illegals are protected under our
constitution with a few exceptions...the two i am sure
of are they cannot vote and they cannot legally own or
possess a firearm...there may a couple more, off hand
i'm not exactly sure...

I see your point, my initial reply was an attemp at the humor.

Personally, I don't see a wall as a solution to our national security issues.
I really don't know what the solution might be.
I do know that more security at the borders won't hurt.
I also believe there are better methods of security than erecting a wall.
While a wall might deter the feeble minded, it can easily be circumvented.

The only sure-fire way to prevent intruders is to adopt check-points like some countries use. Then, what happens to our sense of freedom?

While a wall may not fix the problen, it could reduce the severity and that is what I think is the driving force for Trump's wall. To reduce, not eliminate the threat.

I admit Argo that I don't have all the facts.
My comments are based on how I see things, given my limited knowledge.

What I do know is that the people of the United States have a knack for giving our sacred rights to people that have no business having them. It is an insult to all the American citizens that have fought and even died for those rights.
When I read about a foreigner being afforded our rights it hits me in the pit of my stomach. Like a punch.
Granted the United Nations has issued a bill of rights to be honored by all nations. I can accept that. But, only for those nations within the United Nations. And...Only for offenses that occur during legal occupation. A person that enters a nation illegally has no rights. They are not supposed to be here in the first place.
Technically, likewise, a person driving with no insurance has no rights under driving laws because with our mandate for insurance, if you're driving without it you shouldn't be, so you are automatically at fault. Because, you shouldn't be driving without insurance. You shouldn't be in this country without permission.

they have most of the rights afforded our citizens
this has been affirmed many times by our supreme court
for the facts you need only to google this...

does an illegal immigrant have constitutional rights

In some of my previous blog posts (not necessarily shared on this site), I have openly doubted the feasibility of building and maintaining an effective wall across the USA's entire southern border.

Constitutional rights pertain to every person who is within U.S. borders.

Aw, Argo, that just makes me feel like nothing really matters.
But, I know its true.
To me it is a sellout.
A smck in the face to every American citizen that fought and died in the name of our country's freedom and constitution.
I know it's true because I see it all the time in the NEWS.
It really Pisses me off.

Don't feel bad, There is a lot of reasonable logic that disagrees with the wall.
Many people agree that there must be a better way.
The main problen is that nobody of any significance has offered a better way.
So, as it sets, the wall is the most feasible way to achive the desired result.
It doesn't make it the right choice, merely the only one presented.

A border wall would not prevent legal immigrants from overstaying their visas.