Cutting border security: Another Obama misfire
The Obama administration puts up quite a fight when one of its priorities -- crony capitalism "investments," Big Labor initiatives -- is threatened. But an existing program that's made a difference in national security• That's a different matter.
The White House says National Guard troops, assigned to beef up security along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, will be cut by at least half next year and the remainder will be reassigned, Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter tells The Washington Times. The administration blames budget cuts.
That's a pathetically lame excuse when the 1,200 guard troops deployed in 2010 have demonstrated their effectiveness.
Homeland Security officials report that since the arrival of the National Guard, border arrests have dropped considerably, from 447,731 in fiscal year 2010 to 327,577 in 2011.
Mr. Hunter says that in his home state of California, the assigned guard troops would drop from 264 to 14.
By curbing the number of illegals entering the U.S. at the border, the National Guard initiative reduces the myriad problems and costs associated with illegals who, once in the U.S., get arrested, face prosecution and have to be deported. Gutting the National Guard deployment makes no sense.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.