Building on my recent post about self-sufficiency and reliance for individual security , I’d like to begin laying out a proposal for the US adopting small decentralized solutions to the problem of border security. This is not so dissimilar from what the US is attempting in Afghanistan.
The Problems:
- The United States government is either unwilling or unable to adequately patrol and secure the nation’s borders.
- A large number of Americans feel that their wish for a secure and better patrolled border is not being met.
- Insecure borders allow easy infiltration of illegal immigrants, organized crime, and terrorists into the United States. It also increases the ease of the smuggling and trafficking of drugs, weapons and people.
The Reaction
- A proliferation of self-organized groups like the Minutemen.
- This has led to:
- Government, media and left wing hysteria that ordinary people would take responsibility for their country into their own hands.
- Potential problems and miscommunication with law enforcement.
- Potential legal questions.
Solution:
The solution to this problem is neither more CBP people, bigger government or more centralization. In fact these are surefire ways to make matters worse. The solution lies in harnessing the sizeable numbers of citizens who are willing to volunteer their time, effort, and even assume some risk in order to protect their communities and country. Moreover, the militia, as meant in the Bill of Rights (every adult male with a firearm) has been called up before and in recent history. During WWII, the militia was called up on the West Coast in 1942 to guard against Japanese landings and I believe on the East Coast against German ones but cant find a link on that at the moment.
Beyond the borders, we are starting to see more private law enforcement assistance with the rise in armed citizens.
This is an excellent idea.
Perhaps we should also endorse inner city gangs to patrol the streets instead of police. That would save a lot of money. We could also deputize local paintball leagues and do away with the national guard. We could save billions by outsourcing all of our martial control mechanisms to amateur entities because there’s no need for professional peace keepers when you’ve got millions of beer’d up hillbillies with shotguns.
All snark aside, the majority of the minutemen, regardless of what their press kits say, are motivated, not by concern for the security of the nation but by racism and xenophobia. Likewise other vigilante organizations are rarely motivated by altruistic ideals. This plan simply sanctions dangerous behavior.
Thomas: It would seem that your extreme comments coupled with lack of hard data to back them up points to your being motivated by prejudice.
Moreover, you clearly are not familiar with current laws surrounding owning and carrying firearms. Citizens of most states can openly carry handguns without a permit in most places. The legal basis for having volunteer patrols already exists. This just adds a touch of organization, legitimacy and better communication.
You also seem to overlook the absolute failure of the USG to fulfill a basic constitutional principle, protecting the American people. The people are best suited for this.
What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the “United States government is either unwilling or unable to adequately patrol and secure the nation’s borders”? How do you define “adequately patrol and secure”?
It seems to me that the US devotes enormous federal, state and local government resources for protecting sovereignty, in one form or another, e.g., armed forces, coastguard, border patrol, federal, state and local law enforcement, intelligence agencies and so on. In theory, there shouldn’t be a better protected country in the world.
If there is a problem with the system of border security, then better to figure out what the problem is, and try to fix it, rather than further complicate the situation by throwing in untrained militias.
Peter: The millions upon millions of illegal immigrants that live here combined with the billions of dollars worth of illegal weapons and drugs that cross the border are more than enough proof our system doesn’t work.
And by the way, untrained militias gave us our freedom.
I like this idea…as a stopgap to be sure. The government is unwilling to do what is necessary to secure the border; frozen by political motives and special interest.
To few people are looking at the basic function of government and it’s failing in that regard. Sure its a difficult place to patrol, but our continued good nature shown towards illegal immigrants plants the seeds for our undoing.
Sure the low wages, lack of participation in law-abiding society, and defacto second/third-class citizenship make our cantelopes cheaper and keep our McMansions lawn’s manicured for under $20. “Is [this a] Western democracy, or Ancient style Greek oligarchy?”
Close the border. Assimilate good future Americans already here. Control the inflow. Continue to be a beacon for immigrants. Protect the society for those who can already call themselves American.
OK, let’s assume for a moment that either the US’s vast border protection system is broken and can’t be fixed or that the US government doesn’t want to use if effectively.
How do we know that Chirol’s alternative, of untrained bands policing the border, will do any better? One way of gauging this is to see if a similar system is in use elsewhere. If it is, how successful has it been?
The US has very long borders. It makes no sense to go to great lengths to secure them without tackling demand for illegal crossings.
Legalize drugs and jail people employing illegals and your problem is solved.
The US does have large borders,…but when those borders are mostly with Canada (taking into account its low population density) on the other side, it shouldn’t be much of a problem for a developed country like America concentrating resources on just the Mexican border.
Take into consideration India’s geography on the other hand and its neighbors, many of which are failing states and others which have strong militaries. Apart from Bhutan and maybe the Maldives, the other regions have varying levels of instability. Hundreds of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh cross into India every month. Nepal has its own power struggle between the Maoists and other Government factions. Sri Lanka is still recovering from its war against the LTTE.
Burma is under military rule. Pakistan is in a bad situation now (not that it would be helpful to India in a better state anyway), and people from the Tibetan Autonomous Region occasionally cross the heavily militarized borders with their own stories.
Thanks to this unfortunate political neighborhood, India has to spend large amounts on its military, even though it’s still a developing country in a relatively early stage.
Government is responsible for the crappy security situation we’ve got now. So why extend that model by making this a government thing? Let’s have folks working together without the government, volunteering on a community or block level, with control happening at that same level, or even have enterprises like home security providers expand into patrol for a reasonable price. Government will just screw it up again.
There is another option. A group could be formed that would collect non-tax deductible donations. The money would be used to purchase land 10, 20 or 30 miles from the border. The land purchased would be a contiguous strip 30 feet wide for as many miles long as necessary (perhaps along the Southern or Northern border of a property owners current holdings). Then build a fence – 10+ feet high. Sure it would have to stop for roads; there would be gaps; etc. However it would stimulate massive discussion. Consider: the government is unwilling to build a fence at the border so private citizens are banding together to build a fence further in. I believe you might even have some land owners contributing land to the cause! Hold the land in the name of the foundation. Remember you’ll have to pay taxes on it at some point. It would be a rallying point for pro-security forces. Folks could donate labor/material and come away at the end of the day knowing they made a lasting difference. Any zoning issues you get into would just provide more publicity. At the end of the day you’d probably only serve to channel traffic a bit towards more controllable choke points. But the ultimate goal is to shame the government into defending the borders (plural) properly – and this is a means to that end that has not yet been tried. Comments?
Think about it this way, traditional (i.e. pre 20th century) militias worked well enough and efficiently enough because they they tapped into the social networks and structures already present in a community. The men that would comprise a militia would have been talking, playing, and working together anyway, and the militia just gives them an official standing and a focus for training and procurement.
Modern security forces are more expensive because you have to construct wholly new social networks, and teach them to get along not only with each other, but with the community they are policing.
Now most of Thomas’ post may have been facetious, but he is right. Working out an arrangement with organized crime syndicates is a great way to reduce petty crime, because the mob bosses/gang leaders already have a strong network operating within a community.
Of course, if one of these gang was embroiled in a violent conflict with another gang, they would just whatever official standing or power they had to persecute their rivals, making the whole situation worse. And that’s the problem with modern militias, our communities are already so fractured and wrought with conflict that creating an organic militia would just mean arming/training/licensing one faction so they could go out and terrorize all the others.
Vejadu: I like your idea, some kind of non-profit border defense foundation. Even without the land idea – which is good – you could still make these groups non profits and thereby avoid having to create any new tax deductions.
McKeller: Your point is well made which is why I was thinking of local groups doing this, i.e. communities in the border states. THose from elsewhere could come and donate their time as well of course.
Tim: what in the world does India have to do with any of this?
Your historical examples make no sense at all. Since when USA consider Mexico as an enemy state?
I spent a year near the Turkish-Iraqi border and I think the last thing you need near a border is a warlord. Do you honestly think civilians will make better border guards? They will not run things more efficiently or are not less prone to corruption.
Sahin Beh: Nobody says Mexico is an enemy state, but the unsecured border IS a security threat given the illegal movement of people, guns, drugs, money etc.
As for the Turkish/Iraqi border, it’s not like the Turks do a great job, Kurdish fighters go back and forth and have for years. Plus, I’ve crossed at Silopi and the guards weren’t good. They didnt search me or my stuff and there were tons of beggars and riff raff hanging around. The Kurdish side was far more professional and thorough. But that’s what happens when locals who have a strong interest in their own security are involved.
Securing borders depends a lot on geography too. Since the border with Mexico is mostly arid desert-type land over about 3000km, constant patrolling is difficult anyway. It would be better to concentrate most of the security around border towns and secure those passages.
Actually, the very nature of the United States to accept immigrants from
everywhere might be a reason why Mexican immigrants find it relatively easy to settle here.
Chirol: Nothing. Just an example of why the States should have an easier job securing its borders than most other countries. Think of the potential problems Russia has.
Lesser problems. The main problem the US has is that it wants to solve the control issue at the physical border. A country with functional national identity databases and compulsory ID cards is much better at this. So don’t feel sorry for Russia.
Leaving aside the rule of giving the children of illegal immigrants citizenship.
Thomas: As an Anglo-American of Scottish descent, I find your use of the term “beer’d up hillbilly” as offensive as a Hispanic American might find the term “lazy spick” and I demand you apologize.
Further…the precedent for drawing members of the community as citizen policing is well established. Certainly you’ve heard of the Guardian Angels, formed in NYC in the 70s?
Lamentably, it’s bigots like yourself who will likely prevent a citizen militia from being formed, and what will eventually happen may be far worse than citizen policing.
GUardian ANgels is a neat program and definitely a good precedent for this type of idea. Only difference is GA’s weren’t armed.
What happened to the National Guard?
Iraq and Afghanistan for starters.