Debunking the Idea of Deploying National Guard to the Mexican Border

When discussions arise regarding the deployment of the National Guard to the Mexican border, it is crucial to understand the legal, logistical, and financial implications such a move would entail. This article delves into why experts believe using the National Guard for border enforcement is not only illegal but also unnecessary and highly expensive.

Legal Concerns Surrounding the Use of National Guard

Beyond the ethical considerations, the legal framework surrounding the deployment of the National Guard plays a significant role in shaping policy. One of the central laws that must be considered is the Posse Comitatus Act. This law, passed in 1878, prohibits the use of U.S. military forces for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, it is illegal for the U.S. military, except the Coast Guard, to engage in law enforcement activities within the United States. However, there are exceptions under this law that allow for the use of the National Guard. These allowances are quite limited and come into play only if the National Guard is under the command of a state's governor and the state is footing the entire bill.

For instance, if the federal government nationalizes the National Guard, it cannot be used for law enforcement. Additionally, state authorities cannot usurp federal law enforcement roles, as seen in a previous incident where Arizona faced legal issues for attempting to use state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. Any attempt by National Guard troops to enforce immigration laws would likely be a violation of federal law, making both the soldiers and their commanders liable for criminal charges.

Financial Implications of Deployment

Ignoring the legal and ethical concerns, the financial implications of deploying the National Guard to the Mexican border are staggering. The costs associated with long-term active duty deployments for tens of thousands of soldiers would be astronomical. Even though these troops would not be deployed overseas to conflict zones, they would still transition from part-time to full-time active duty status.

Additionally, significant logistical challenges would arise. Troops and their equipment would need to be moved to distant duty stations, logistical support would be required, and forward supply and operations bases would need to be established. These costs could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, contributing to a significant budget deficit.

Considering the current fiscal year, the total cost could exceed $1 trillion for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, and potentially continue at similar levels until the situation is resolved.

Implications and Alternatives

Despite the substantial financial and legal hurdles, one might question what such a deployment would achieve. The National Guard would be constrained to provide only passive support, such as communications, surveillance, training, and equipment lending. Any active role in detaining suspected illegal immigrants would be illegal and result in severe financial and legal repercussions.

Given the high costs and limited benefits, it might be more prudent to let the National Guard continue their civilian jobs and reserve active duty only for situations where they are truly needed. This would be more cost-effective and would not have such detrimental impacts on the soldiers' personal lives.

Conclusion: Deploying the National Guard to the Mexican border is not only problematic from a legal standpoint but also highly impractical due to its cost and limited effectiveness. There are far better and more cost-efficient solutions to address immigration and border security concerns.