The governor has directed DPS to support law enforcement patrols with fixed-wing and rotary aviation assets. The Department of Transportation will assist operations with specialized equipment such as road barriers.
Additionally, the governor has authorized the deployment of the Texas Civil Air Patrol, an auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, to aid ground operations.
The Voice: Protecting Texas’ Border
:: This is a smart move. I would hope that the Governors of the other border states would also start spooling up CAP volunteers to help with what really is a massive job. I have it under good authority that there is more to come.
Lets hope that CA, AZ, & NM go along with TX. But question, If TX ok's CAP who picks up the fuel bill? TX or USAF?
Posted by: robg | May 17, 2006 at 06:43
My guess would be TX. The MD Wing flies bay bridge and bay patrol over the summer for the MD government, and to the best of my knowledge, this is paid for by the MD State Government. I imagine a similar situation. TX is the employer, and therefore foots the bill
Posted by: C.Fischer | May 17, 2006 at 08:06
I'm sure that the mission is a corporate one paid for by the State of Texas.
So... What codename are they calling it? Operation Alamo?
Posted by: JohnKachenmeister | May 17, 2006 at 09:40
Short time lurker, first time poster....
Shouldn't the very first question be to define "aid ground operations." Are we being directed to conduct aerial surveillance, which would likely be a violation of Posse Commitatus? Or are we going to be handing out water bottles to thirsty Guardsmen and Border Patrol agents and picking up their trash? (And is that a real use of our capabilities/training? In a DR setting, I'd of course answer YES emphatically to handing out water--that was our role for TWA 800 and I had no problem with it as it was a job that needed to get done.)
I also have a moral issue with this assignment. It's one thing to bomb Nazi u-boats, fly courier missions, tow targets, conduct SAR, surveille infrastructure for potential terrorist activities, etc.--activities directly related to a declared war, including the war on terrorism. It's a totally different animal to be providing assistance to law enforcement in this instance--these people, while entering the country illegally, are not drug/gun runners and terrorists--they're immigrants. Even with CD activities, we provide passive observation, not active surveillance.
Are they breaking the law? No doubt. But so is everyone on this list when they exceed the speed limit while driving to work, fail to signal in changing lanes. Should we provide air cover to the state police so they can catch speeders? Motor vehicle accidents kill some 45,000 Americans every year--I would venture a guess that this is many more people than the number killed by illegal immigrants (or even terrorists for that matter).
I think people need to sit back and think through consequences a bit better, not just on CAP's potential role on this front, but on our immigration policies in general. Yes, we can't have an open border without restrictions. But look at the longer view--when we don't have immigrant labor willing to take on the jobs most Americans won't do--will we be willing to pay $4 for a head of lettuce or $2 per peach? Hell, we're an obese nation as it is--can you imagine what's going to happen to America's productivity and health care costs if the cost of healthy foods shoots through the roof because American citizens are only willing to work in the vegetable farms if they're being paid $25/hour.
I'm all for the war on terrorism--I've been too close to bombings in Glyfada (March 1991) and London (April 1999) and WTC. I studied political violence in undergrad and graduate school. But I'm not big on the idea of CAP becoming involved with immigration enforcement.
Pete
Posted by: PeteT | May 17, 2006 at 11:26
Pete:
Your concerns are noted, and shared by many, including me.
But...
I am not so sure if deployment of CAP on the border is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Here's why I doubt that such is the case.
The PCA governs the military. The CAP is only a part of the military when called up by the USAF to perform a USAF mission. The legislation establishing CAP in the post-war era created a non-profit, government chartered corporate structure that allows us to perform missions for other government agencies when not called up into the service of the USAF.
Secondly, the PCA permits the military an exception to the prohibition against enforcing civil laws, that being the the President, as commander-in-chief, can direct the military to carry out any function of the federal government in an emergency.
In this case, the CAP is flying as a corporation in support of Texas, probably in direct support of the Texas National Guard. Since the TXNG is not subject to the PCA, a quasi-military unit called up in support of the TXNG is similarly exempt.
Well, that's what I would say at my hearing, anyway.
Another issue to consider is the illegals themselves. I have heard that about 1000 die each year trying to get into the US. CAP involvement in this mission is, in some measure anyway, humanitarian.
The third issue is, whether you accept it or not, the War on Terror. An unsecured border is an invitation for terrorists to infiltrate, and if it hasn't happened by now, I'd be very surprised.
Posted by: JohnKachenmeister | May 17, 2006 at 15:17
John--
Your points make sense--though I think the defining question for PCA purposes is what our actual mission would be? It's a bit of a slippery slope on the law enforcement issue. What was that silly program we had a few years back, "Operation Drop In," where aircrews (and apparently cadet ground teams) would go to an airport and copy down tail numbers of a/c, noting if any had grass/dirt stains that might indicate if they'd been flying out of dirt/grass strips? Boy, did that get us a lot of hatred among the flying community!
I think the humanitarian argument is a little bit of a stretch....if we were dropping water/food/space blankets, I could see an argument for humanitarian efforts. But causing someone to be arrested, presuming it's for their own good?
I concur with your third point--as I said, I'm all for fighting the war on terror. They're the most cowardly skunks out there--I wouldn't even dignify them to call them combatants.
That said, our Canadian border is much longer and we're not talking about fences/troops there. Yet we've caught actual terrorists trying to sneak through the borders in the Pacific Northwest only a few years ago....It gives an ugly appearance that racism may be one rationale in the equation--and that's not kosher.
Posted by: PeteT | May 17, 2006 at 16:39
From what I have been told by other CAP Pilots, I hope the Texas Wing Aircraft will hold together. THis came out of the Katrina arena.
Posted by: CAPWATCH | May 17, 2006 at 18:13
Pete:
The deciding factor with me was that this is both a traditional role for us (We performed this same mission during World War II) and it is a mission that we can perform that is one where light aircraft are useful.
Entry along the Canadian border has usually been by motor vehicle at established crossing points, using deception in the form of forged documents to obtain entry. That's not something that we can address with our assets.
Unfortunately, a major human smuggling operation has grown up on the southern border. Such a network does not exist in the north, so crossing from Canada across rugged terrain to enter the US has not developed. If it does, I hope Minnesota, North Dakota, and the other border states are ready, but I don't see that developing in the near term.
I am not sure that we should discount the humanitarian aspects of this mission so lightly. Being arrested and deported would be preferable to a slow death from dehydration in the desert. I can see the TX Wing racking up a huge number of "Saves" as a result of this mission.
But, you used the term "Slippery slope" and we have to be cautious, because that is what we are on. While I would not object to CAP taking on a greater role in the War on Terror, and I think there are things that we can do, I don't want unkind journalists from al-Jazeera (Or the New York Times) portraying our efforts as efforts borne of national desperation. In other words, I don't want people in foreign lands thinking that we are stretched so thin in terms of our military that we are down to "Old men and the Hitler Youth" left over to defend the homeland.
Posted by: JohnKachenmeister | May 17, 2006 at 18:32
TWXG would be wise to proceed VERY cautiously. First, there's the matter of a poorly-defined mission. Second, the issue of Posse Comitatus. Third, who's paying for this? Fourth, state taskings do not invoke our "Air Force Auxiliary" status without clearing several hoops first, which leaves this tasking without that oh-so-important federal insurance.
Posted by: Blackwing | May 18, 2006 at 00:13
how can any Governor "order" CAP to do anything? are we "State Air National Guard"? and Posse Comitatus applies to active Military, when flying for the US Air Force we are"Civilian Employees" (Unpaid). Some states give us Military leave time, while others "Zip", I think we should remove the USAF AUX from our aircraft and replace it with a big " Catch 22", Joseph Heller would get a laugh. We need Congress to give us status as military while flying for anyone (if we must wear a uniform) CAP has earned it, we have earned it.
Posted by: BobdKirby | May 18, 2006 at 04:18
Blackwing, we're working off a few lines from a press statement from the Governer's office here...
Let's not assume that just becuase you and I are working from incomplete information that any sort of actual mission TXWG gets would be "poorly defined."
You can bet issues such as PCA, instumentality, etc, will get worked out before a single CAPF 109 is signed.
Folks are working on this stuff as we sit and type.
Posted by: Rod "FANBOY" Rakic | May 18, 2006 at 07:08
BobdKirby and others,
To my mind, no one can effectively "order" a CAP volunteer to do anything. One (from C/flight sergeant to the US President) may issue an order but getting any CAP volunteer to heed or follow it --to go DO something-- is the real "trick."
As a former squadron commander, there were times when I would receive a call requesting the unit to locate an ELT at, say, 0200. I would have loved to have been able to call the unit operations officer or ES officer and "order" him or her out of his/her warm and cozy bed to find the pesky ELT so I could continue my slumber. I don't recommend any commander trying such an order. It won't work.
CAP works (as much as it can be shown to work at all) by the willing volunteer efforts of the individual and NOT by the order of anyone from squadron commander to our Commander-in-Chief in DC.
Let a govenor or the POTUS call and ORDER me out to do anything, it won't work.
Likewise, each and every member must search her or his conscience regarding the morality (ethics) of each call-out and their personal availability/willingness to participate.
Without "confirming or denying" any so-called "Operation Drop-In," I can say this. No member could be forced to perform such a mission -- if it existed at all (i.e. AOPA's public allegations). They must be willing volunteers for it or them.
As to any potential or actual border call-out, every member who is contacted about participating must (or should) give deliberate thought about their personal moral stance on the broader issue(s) (illegal immigration and/or homeland security) and elect to participate. No one can make them. No one can order them. No one can make up their own mind(s) for them.
I think of the moral decision-making process a bit like a weather briefing. I call the FSS and get the brief. I examine the data with deliberation and THEN decide to go or not to go. Similarly, as with any and all missions, members should carefully evaluate all of the integral aspects of any given mission and make a personal go/no-go decision.
Anything less than this isn't leadership or followship, it's robotics.
Posted by: Skypilot | May 18, 2006 at 07:50
Jeez, Girls, finally something worthwile doing comes along and the thread is dripping wet from all the handwringing and anguish.
You ladies out there just get comfortable in front of the telly and keep us all up to date on the soaps. The men will be out on the flightline.
Praise the Lord for the man that keeps his mouth shut, his eyes forward and gets a job done.
And by the way, sister, they are not immigrants. They are illegal invaders swamping the country and the infrastructure and it needs to stop now! The reasons are legion and I would be glad to provide educational references on the matter if you desire to become actually informed.
Posted by: aveighter | May 18, 2006 at 14:20
If the Texas Wing is tasked with anything...we will do as we are tasked and do it with the professionalism becoming CAP officers.
I am sure the task would be recon and report...not direct law enforcement. (remember some debate held here about Air Force Aux Versus Corporation? I think this will at very least end address that issue)
We will do nothing more or less than we are tasked. There will be no "crusaders," there will be no "Politics..." no LIBERALS nor CONSERVATIVES. Anyone with a problem with any of it can go home or not show up. Let history show that when the time came...their uniforms were hanging in a closet.
Crews will do as ordered and accomplish the mission (be it gather data or relay personnel to the frontier), as we have always done and will continue to do so long as we are the Civil Air Patrol.
'nuff said.
Major Carrales
Posted by: Major Carrales | May 18, 2006 at 21:13
UHRUH AVEighter and Ditto to Major Carrales!
Introducing politics on this board is not what we need. If you have moral misgivings then sit on the sidelines, I am sure that we can handle it without you and I for one do not want a guy like you on my crew anyway.
Posted by: Hammerhead | May 19, 2006 at 13:15
Pete,
comparing illegal immigration to a speeding ticket is ridiculous. Every illegal immigrant here has committed ID theft, forgery, welfare fraud, failure to maintain vehicle insurance and more.
Mexico encourages its citizens to illegally cross into our country in order to suck U.S. dollars into Mexico. Last time I checked, the act of one country illegally crossing across another's borders to plunder it was considered an invasion, which is a belligerent act of war.
We would be well within our rights as a sovreign nation to repulse further border crossings with force. This means killing every man, woman and child coming over the border. The Geneva convention, which govern s how we conduct wars, allows us to treat every person from Mexico in this country not wearing a uniform as an enemy agent. We would be well within our rights to execute as spies every man, woman and child here from Mexico under the rules of the Geneva convention.
So IMHO I consider patrolling and reporting border crossings a very benign effort on our part.
Salut.
Posted by: WTF, OVER | May 20, 2006 at 02:37
Dearest Mr. Mcaveigher Trollalot, & WTF Over Easy Too,
WOT are we really talking about here?
Once in every Blog, there comes a time like this. Pertinent topics start out like a blow, then threads end up in the abyss. And then a comment is made which is off-key-eeeee. It goes on and on and on. Oh this is a thread that goes- -like thissss. (JCGDI!)
Your comments are so becoming of what many people envision when they contemplate and meditate on the word ''paramilitary''. If you keep up the very effective work in reinforcing this image, I'm sure that Al, ass in, Al Jazzy Rah, might just select you to be be CAP's spokesperson.
Your leanings toward that of male-supremacy will tie-in very tightly as you PTL in the same breath projecting the airs of a Faith-Based Initiative! I'm sure that short payload must have packed quite a wollop in terms of CAP PA CM making any PAO work much harder for their hard earned blings in the area of CAP PA CCM. Did you forget to ask: ''and pass the ammunition''?
Mind if I use you as reference in the list of exemplary behaviours from which to contrast as we strive to attain more MoUs?
Any others out there ready to purport what CAP things are made of?
OK, gotta run and help those who have not naturally attritted protect them those Texas Oil Fields from potential strawberry pickers!!
There is a full specter of possibilities for CAP in this endeavor. I can see why some may consider getting a little hyper about it. Hey! As long as it ain't too intrussive. What the heck.
Too bad it may be too much to ask those who are able to post to Hither Send Images (HSI), 'cawz they may be too busy on what's going on down yonder rach over the heels and prairies of them there borders we are a fixin' to pro-
tect from the fern land. Xcept AMIO acids have beed detected as atmospheric suspended particulates hovering over the border due to what K-Cubed epidimiologists term as Borwn Fern Sydrome which is said to be highly contagious because it takes root and causes futurer geneologies to turn dag-nabbit brown! That would be against the grain of certain regions and high-level staffers are doing everything in their might, whilst also beckoning the grace of God, to prevent what has been deemed by them to be pervassive from taking wing.
If following known constructs, the continuum would go something like: Plan, Surveil, Detect, Assess, Control, Prosecute, Launder, Rinse Again. But some of those routines might be outside of CAP's legal reach. Some in fact may be out of everyone's legal reach. Sorry McVeigh. Sorry Over-E
Talk to you later. TTYL
See you later. CUL
See you next time.
~Oilygarch
p.s. It is always a privilege to beckon the Geneva Convention while finding oneself in words and deeds immune to it & the World Court at the Haig. It feels really shockin awesome to be able to exert supreme executive privileges over all else to ad-hoc extricate oneself of all wrong-doing and in doing so thereby rendering all else irrelevant. Must be REAL nice. But I may motion that it would appear to be against a law we all lernt in high-school when we were knee hight to the fin of a whipper-snapper: Newton's 3rd Law.
Yo Pete: I stumbled acrosst the following article that would seem to coroborate to your assertions:
Titled: ''A Job Americans Won't Do, Even at $34 an Hour''
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-jobs18may18,0,7635699.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
Posted by: Oilygarch | May 20, 2006 at 12:32
Since the link was trunkated, here it is again, but, you'll have to cut and paste it together again like Humpty Dumpty and our moral fibre as increasingly acceleratedly perceived before the eyes of the world.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-jobs18may18,0,76356
99.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
Enjoy!
Posted by: Oilygarch | May 20, 2006 at 12:39
I just read the above four times and I still don't know what you're saying here! Is it just me?
Posted by: NIN | May 20, 2006 at 13:41
NIN...I'm with you.....does what Oilygarch said make sense to anyone???
Maybe I need some strong meds to understand it.
Posted by: Smokey | May 20, 2006 at 20:13
I don't bother reading his posts. They are the intellectual equivalant of stepping in dogshit.
Posted by: aveighter | May 21, 2006 at 16:42
With apologies to Mr. Nicholson... "this thread needs an enema!"
Posted by: Civil Airman | May 21, 2006 at 17:31
REALITY CHECK:
The Mexicans coming across our border are NOT invading. They are, for the most part, trying to feed their children. WTF, who wants to kill them, needs to be given a strong sedative.
This is not an "Invasion."
Germany into Poland, 1939? Invasion.
Russia into Afghanistan, 1979? Invasion.
Japan into Manchuria, 1936? Invasion.
Iraq into Kuwait, 1990? Invasion.
Mexicans coming to America with their children in small groups... NOT an invasion.
If I were a Mexican, facing the choices of life in Mexico, I would do everything I could to get into America. These are desperate people, not invaders.
If it becomes our duty to stop them, then our duty is clear. But we are under no orders to leave out compassion at home with our civilian clothes, and we would do well to remember that given the situation they are in down in Mexico, risking death in the desert to come to America is a risk ALL of us would take in their place.
Posted by: JohnKachenmeister | May 21, 2006 at 20:01
My apologies John, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
Posted by: aveighter | May 22, 2006 at 21:18
Well, if these folks were coming in ones-and-twos at a time, I'd tend to agree with you, but some of these folks are coming in by the hundreds at a time.
Our invasion into Afghanistan started with 12 man teams, you know.
BTW 12 million illegals is a conservative estimate. Best guesses are that 10 percent of Mexico's population lives in the US now.
This is an invasion, we are being attacked and we should start treating it as such.
Posted by: WTF, OVER | May 22, 2006 at 23:03