I don’t think that’s true. Can’t the border patrol arrest and restrain people crossing the border illegally?

That depends on what you mean by “can.”
,
They certainly have the power to do so. But they haven’t got any legitimate right to. Neither they nor anyone else has the right to harass or forcibly restrain peaceful people, who are, after all, simply trying to move into a new town to find work, and aren’t interfering with anyone else’s rights to person or property. Moving should not be treated as a crime.

It’s a bad idea because the government has no right to shoot or restrain peaceful people just because they are trying to find a place to live in the United States.

I don’t think that’s true. Can’t the border patrol arrest and restrain people crossing the border illegally?

So, last night George Bush announced plans to have the National Guard “support” the Border Patrol until an additional 6,000 Border Patrol agents can be hired. …. this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

It’s a bad idea because the government has no right to shoot or restrain peaceful people just because they are trying to find a place to live in the United States. Ramping up the number of people working on making that a reality just means ramping up violence against innocent people.

There are lots of reasons why the means that Bush is proposing are unlikely to achieve his professed ends. But since the ends are themselves fundamentally immoral, the strategic and tactical mistakes he’s making in trying to pursue them are of secondary importance at most.

This was prior to Dept of Homeland Security, but nothing I’ve seen has convinced me that border patrol is anything but the military fetishists who can’t handle the real thing, and the desperate youths who would have enlisted if not for horror stories about Nam and about Gulf War Syndrome.

What about the Posse Comitatus Act which, generally, prohibits the use of the Armed Forces for police work? Won’t this require an act of Congress? Or is this just another inconvenient statue to be ignored at will by King George

National Guard can be used by the state governors in certain situations. And they’re (officially, anyway) only supposed to be used as advisors and trainers, right? I think that is legally acceptable.

What about the Posse Comitatus Act which, generally, prohibits the use of the Armed Forces for police work? Won’t this require an act of Congress? Or is this just another inconvenient statue to be ignored at will by King George

I suppose this time because he’s using the military against people who aren’t U.S. citizens, it might be considered legitimate. One thing you can count on: Republican Presidents (or any President, for that matter) never let dust settle on the Armed Forces while they’re in office.

It’s extremely irresponsible to think you can leave the borders porous because one group of terrorists came in (semi-) legally.

And yet it’s responsible to devote resources to security theater at the border that’s not a problem for terrorism when there are disasters to be dealt with? And it’s responsible to focus on Mexicans crossing the border to get jobs as domestics when millions of shipping containers go uninspected at the ports of major cities?

Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President’s obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.

Wanna bet this will be put under the category of “serious emergency” or the War on Terra?

Here’s a post at Balkinization that argues that the Bush people consider the Posse Comitatus Act essentially dead after 9/11.

Also, he said during his speech that the deployment will be “with the coordination of the governors” or something like that, which means that the units would at least nominally be under the authority of the governors and thus outside the scope of Posse Comitatus.

There are indeed exceptions (insurrection, etc.) but I don’t think this is one of them, not without the permission of Congress. To wit:

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

(emphasis mine)

So, I think this is another case of BushCo ignoring the law. The interesting thing is that Posse Commitatus is a BIG DEAL with the rightists, like the militia dudes. I think maybe Rove is too busy hiring an attorney to give the Chimperor good political advice on this one.