Mexico Border [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Airbornelawyer

10-18-2004, 18:06

For a frame of reference, here are the deployments as of August 1914, when US forces were deployed to enforce the neutrality laws on the Mexican border. The border states except for California were part of The Southern Department, while California and the Western states were part of The Western Department. The entire Army at the time was 4 divisions (including The Cavalry Division), each of two brigades of 2-4 regiments of 3 battalions/squadrons.

The Southern Department (HQ, Ft. Sam Houston, TX) -

- The Cavalry Division (HQ San Antonio, TX) First Cavalry Brigade (Ft. Sam Houston, TX)
3rd Cavalry Regiment (Ft. Sam Houston, TX; Brownsville, TX)
14th Cavalry Regiment (Ft. Clark, TX; Ft. McIntosh, TX)
15th Cavalry Regiment (Ft. Bliss, TX)
Second Cavalry Brigade (Douglas, AZ)
9th Cavalry Regiment (Douglas, AZ)
10th Cavalry Regiment (Ft. Huachuca, Nogales, Naco, Yuma, Osborn, AZ)- Second Brigade (HQ Atlanta, GA; deployed to Laredo, TX) 9th Infantry Regiment (Laredo, TX)
17th Infantry Regiment (Eagle Pass, TX)- Eighth Brigade (HQ San Francisco, CA (Western Dept.); deployed to El Paso, TX) 6th Infantry Regiment (El Paso, TX)
12th Infantry Regiment (Nogales, AZ; Yuma, AZ; Mexican Interns Camp at Ft. Rosecrans, CA)
16th Infantry Regiment (El Paso, TX)
- 12th Cavalry Regiment (less 2nd Squadron) – (Harlingen, TX; Ft. Wingate, AZ)
- 13th Cavalry Regiment (less Troop I) – (El Paso, TX; Columbus, NM)
- HQ and 1st Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment (Ft. Sam Houston, TX)
- 6th Field Artillery Regiment (El Paso, Ft. Bliss, Laredo, Brownsville, Eagle Pass, TX)
- 20th Infantry Regiment (Ft Wingate, NM; El Paso, TX)
- Company I, Signal Corps (El Paso, TX)

The Western Department (HQ, San Francisco, CA) - a brigade and a regiment were detached to the Southern Department, and most other troops were spread out over the West. In Southern California were: Troop A, 1st Cavalry (San Ysidro, CA)
Troop B, 1st Cavalry (San Ysidro, CA)
Troop D, 1st Cavalry (Calexico, CA)
Troop K, 1st Cavalry (San Ysidro, CA)
Troop L, 1st Cavalry (Calexico, CA)
Troop M, 1st Cavalry (Tecate, CA)EDITED TO ADD: Los Angeles Battalion, 7th California Infantry, California NG, called up in April 1914 and deployed to Calexico.

In addition, companies from the Coast Artillery Corps were detached for Mexican border service: 28th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Rosecrans, CA; deployed to Tecate and San Ysidro, CA)
29th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Winfield Scott, CA; deployed to Tecate, CA)
39th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Morgan, AL; deployed to Brownsville, TX)
57th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Winfield Scott, CA; deployed to San Ysidro, CA)
61st Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Baker, CA; detachment deployed to San Ysidro, CA)
66th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Barry, CA; deployed to Tecate, CA)
91st Coast Artillery Company (HQ Jackson Barracks, LA; deployed to Brownsville, TX)
115th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Rosecrans, CA; deployed to San Ysidro, CA)
128th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Crockett, TX; deployed to Brownsville, TX)
147th Coast Artillery Company (HQ Ft. Winfield Scott, CA; deployed to San Ysidro, CA)
164th Coast Artillery (HQ Jackson Barracks, LA; deployed to Brownsville, TX)

Airbornelawyer

10-18-2004, 18:41

To give a somewhat better picture of what level of resources this represented, in August 1914, the US Army consisted of 31 infantry regiments, 15 cavalry regiments and 6 field artillery regiments.

Mexican border service: 6 infantry, 7 1/3 cavalry, 1 1/2 field artillery
Vera Cruz, Mexico (and en route to Vera Cruz): 10 inf, 1 cav, 1 arty
The Philippines: 3 inf, 2 cav, 1 arty
Hawaii: 3 inf, 1 cav, 1 arty
Other overseas: 3 inf (Canal Zone, China, Puerto Rico)
Other CONUS & Alaska: 6 inf, 3 2/3 cav, 1 1/2 arty
So at the time, more than half the army's combat units were either patrolling the Mexican border, or deployed in or deploying to Mexico. And this was, for all intents and purposes, the quiet period. There were a few incursions and there was a lot of tension over the presence of US troops in Vera Cruz, but fighting was minimal.

The big mobilization began in May 1916, with the call-ups of the Texas, New Mexico and Arizona National Guards, and in July 1916, when other states' National Guards and militias were called up. Some 150,000 state troops would be deployed, but they did little more than drill and cough dust for several months. President Wilson, having launched a desultory punitive expedition earlier against Pancho Villa,* really had no intention of using the troops for more than a show of force.

* The Punitive Expedition, from March 1916 to February 1917, involved about 10,000 troops in total.

echoes

10-18-2004, 19:14

I am hearing a lot of talk about securing the US-Mexico border with troops. I would be interested in hearing any kind of mathematical estimate on how many troops this would take and the reason for the number - if anybody's game.

Greetings...I am only speculating from the 2 busiest crossings I have been through, Tiajuana, and Otay-Mesa...Right now, there is a 1-4 hour wait to cross...with I counted 15 stations opened in T and Otay. I would triple it in the least.

6 hour shifts at 24 hours...thats 4 men per shift per station...thats um...225 agents, I believe that would be desireable. ;)

Holly

NousDefionsDoc

10-19-2004, 12:12

Nobody here thinks we should use troops to close the borders?

Guy

10-19-2004, 12:29

Nobody here thinks we should use troops to close the borders?

We are short on troops as it is, in this GWOT.

Any guest on where we can find some more?

NousDefionsDoc

10-19-2004, 12:34

Well, the libs seem to think the troops shouldn't be in Iraq, they should be guarding the border with Mexico. So I guess the idea would be to bring the NG and reserves home from the GWOT and put them on stake out.

Team Sergeant

10-19-2004, 12:40

Nope. I don't think it will work at all, we would have better luck stopping the rain. ;)

Here in lovely Arizona we just busted a government run Dept of Motor Vehicles forgery service. Anyone could get an Arizona drivers, forged by the best in the business, the Arizona DMV. There were DMV’s around the state involved, hundreds of people.

Besides the AZ Gov wants to give them jobs here in the US and is working on an “open” border agreement with Mexico.

(Besides, just mention proof of citizenship here in AZ and you’d better prepare to face the ACLU for violating someone’s rights.)

My point, local and state government is already corrupt, we put ten’s of thousands of troops on the border they’ll just fly over, boat over or take the trains over or cross over on private land that the US military or Federal Government cannot patrol anyway. We cannot stop the flood, we’re too corrupt and their too well-established.

Goggles Pizano

10-19-2004, 13:14

Add to that TS the lack of enthusiasm of the lower courts to prosecute offenses (traffic, misdemeanor crime) that could lead to deportation, or at the very least get individuals on the Government radar. I have had more than one Immigration officer tell me that unless it's drug trafficking or a major felony they will NOT pursue the matter and prefer to pass it onto the magistrate courts. More often than not I'll stop Mexican/Dominican/Jamaican/etc. nationals who believe it's perfectly legal to operate motor vehicles without international drivers licences, and never insure those vehicles.

It does not surprise me that AZ has that problem. Frankly, it's everywhere and the State governments are dropping the ball. If we use the military to "seal" the borders (regardless if it is plausible) does this not play into the isolationism argument?

Achilles

10-19-2004, 13:26

Without cheap immigrant labor, your groceries would cost 10 times more than they do already. Why would we want to close off the borders entirely? Think service jobs that even the majority of blue collar America would never do. These people do these undesirable jobs, put their kids in school here in the US, then they go and get a better job than their parents. Whats wrong with that? They do the jobs we don't want to for a shot at the American dream. They do not threaten the jobs of all but the most uneducated here. Then whos at fault for losing their job to a harder working person?

The entire idea of closing out our borders seems more an effect of paranoia than anything else.

As far as security concerns go, our borders are so vast that if a tango really wants to get in the US, he can. No matter how many troops we put on borders, they will find a way. IMO we will mitigate the most risk by bringing the fight to them rather than trying to police boundries. Weren't the liberals against policing the borders like this in the first place? :confused:

The Reaper

10-19-2004, 14:50

Sacamuelas

10-19-2004, 14:52

I say keep the troops where they should be… hunting and killing jihad terrorists and the rogue states arming, supporting, and financing them.

Think service jobs that even the majority of blue collar America would never do. These people do these undesirable jobs, put their kids in school here in the US, then they go and get a better job than their parents. Whats wrong with that? They do the jobs we don't want to for a shot at the American dream. They do not threaten the jobs of all but the most uneducated here. Then whos at fault for losing their job to a harder working person?

You point out the benefits of how "cheap" they are for labor wages, but you conveniently ignore the higher costs to our nation that they demand in other aspects. After all, did wages or healthcare costs go up higher last year? Why do you think that is?

Who pays for these illegal aliens's kids public education? BTW, just k-12 education for illegal aliens is estimated to have been a 7.4 BILLION dollar cost to blue collar Americans just this year. Who do you think pays for their healthcare when they show up at ER's needing all their primary care and emergency care with no insurance or assets to cover their expenses? Who pays for their medications and long term care after being in an accident? Who pays for the person who is in a vehicle accident with an illegal with no insurance protection?

I say....make the game fair for the American Blue collar worker…
Pass tort reform provisions giving legal immunity to all public and private hospitals and all other healthcare practitioners to allow refusal of treatment to ALL illegal aliens no matter what the condition or circumstances. Then let's see them be happy coming and working for low wages when they are responsible for themselves and their family and paying their share of the real cost of living just like "blue collar" Americans. Concurrently pass law that requires immediate deportation once confirmed that a person is an illegal alien, be it in a hospital ER, public housing office or inspection, LE action, traffic accident, or whatever it is that brings the individual into the light of day concerning their status.

Let's have them completely removed from all welfare, housing, and social program access including public schools unless they can prove citizenship or legalvisa worker/student status, tax registration, and even valid Selective Service registration for those covered by the act. After all, this is required of all blue collar Americans to goto public universities.

Now, after doing that... let's see how many are willing to take these jobs and work so "cheaply" without having access to the amenities that we as a nation of citizens pays for with our taxes. :munchin

Achilles

10-19-2004, 15:21

The jobs most of them do pay far less than minimum wage. And you expect them to pay taxes? They can't. If you kick them out, the price of many services and especially the price on produce will absolutely skyrocket.

I will have to respectfully disagree, Sacamuelas. The amount of money saved by their cheap agricultural / service labor alone is estimated to be more than worth their "damage" to the economy. However, you are right on many points. There are two sides to this issue and both have statistical backing, albeit different methods of gathering data.

My view is that they put in more than they take out.

The flow of immigrants recently, to the best of my knowledge, has not been absolutely overwhelming. TR does have a point about controlling the flow of immigrants, though. If Mexico gets into a major depression, more immigrants could flow in than we can find work for. This could pose a major problem, as you pointed out Saca, by draining our healthcare system. In that case it would be imperative to control immigration. Maybe such a case could be anticipated through historical data, and we could call up NG units much like we do for a natural disaster. Ideas?

echoes

10-19-2004, 18:40

[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]Nope. I don't think it will work at all, we would have better luck stopping the rain. ;)

Here in lovely Arizona we just busted a government run Dept of Motor Vehicles forgery service. Anyone could get an Arizona drivers, forged by the best in the business, the Arizona DMV. There were DMV’s around the state involved, hundreds of people.

Besides the AZ Gov wants to give them jobs here in the US and is working on an “open” border agreement with Mexico.

(Besides, just mention proof of citizenship here in AZ and you’d better prepare to face the ACLU for violating someone’s rights.)
__________________________________________________ _____________
Agree Sir! I would not take Our troops and think They should guard 'ol Mex... :o
Holly

Guy

10-20-2004, 07:48

I almost freaked out, when a mi amigo took my order in a Sushi restaurant. :)

Para

10-20-2004, 08:24

brownapple

10-20-2004, 10:57

How long a border are we talking about? 2000 miles?

And what do you intend to secure it against? Illegal immigrants? Or armed terrorists who are willing to cause casualties and are well armed who wish to insert small groups to conduct terrorist activities?

In my opinion, any money spent on securing the borders as security against potential terrorists is wasted money. Border Patrol changes to control the flow of immigrants, that might be a valid issue... but we will never be able to entirely stop some illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

East Germany was never able to close their border (even East Berlin wasn't able to) to entirely shut off those who were fleeing, and they had significantly more lethal systems than we can realistically expect to use. South Korea is not able to entirely stop the infiltration of North Koreans into the South, even with our help (note that we cannot ignore the possibility of waterborne infiltration that simply bypasses the border between the countries). And in both of the above situations, those who are crossing from one country to another are generally not working in groups, with an operations plan, and willing to inflict casualties (at least not a lot of them).

Now, let us look at the border issue as John Kerry seems to be discussing it, as an issue of Homeland defense, defending ourselves from terrorists.

First, let me remind everyone of how much effect the Atlantic Wall had on the conduct of OSS and SOE Operations before June 6, 1944 (close to none). Yet, terrorists do not even need to work to that scale to be successful. They can chose their place of entry, their means of entry, their time of entry. They can inflict casualties in order to force entry, or they can inflict casualties in order to draw defenses to them in order for another element to cross. With a bit of expertise in operational art, they can conduct many of the same infiltration techniques that we are trained for... using land or water obstacles to mask entry, or even entering via parachute. It simply isn't that hard to get a small group across a border (any border), and our borders are far too long to even consider it a viable alternative.

Airbornelawyer

10-20-2004, 11:16

So if I am reading this right, a Division has 2-4 Regiments, which has 3 Battalions each. What are we talking number wise? Where the Battalions comparable in personnel as they are today?The entire Army in 1914 had about 80,000-90,000 men.

Divisions had 2 brigades. Most brigades had 3 regiments. Some had 1 regiment more, some 1 less. The Cavalry Division had 5 regiments. The First Division had 1 cavalry and 5 infantry regiments. The Second Division had 1 cavalry and 7 infantry regiments. The Third Division had 1 cavalry and 6 infantry regiments. The First Hawaiian Brigade had 2 regiments.

The infantry regimental structure was reorganized during the Spanish-American War. Previously, a regiment consisted of 10 companies. The new structure had a regiment of 3 battalions of 4 companies each. Over the course of the next decade and a half, various smaller changes happened, including the addition of a machine gun platoon (later company) to each regiment, and the formation of a standing regimental headquarters (later a headquarters company).

By the early 1900s, the upper limit set by law for company strength was 127 men. But the size of the various infantry regiments differed depending on duty and location. As of 1912, US-based regiments had 870 men, with 65 enlisted men per company. The 8th, 13th, and 24th Infantry in the Philippines were authorized 1,836 men, with 150 enlisted men per company. The Hawaii-based 1st, 2nd and 25th Infantry and the 10th Infantry in the Canal Zone had 954 men, with 72 per company. The Puerto Rico Regiment had 591 men (65 per company).

Cavalry regiments had 12 lettered troops in 3 squadrons. US-based regiments had about 70 enlisted men in each lettered troop while Philippine-based regiments had 105 per troop.

The organization changed over the years, but WW1 and WW2 infantry regiments averaged between 3,200 and 3,900 men, with companies around 200. Regiments were eliminated in the Pentomic era. The ROAD division of the early 1960s, which is essentially what we have today (until the current reorg is finished), has 3 brigades, with the main unit of maneuver being the battalion. Over the years and depending on type, infantry battalions averaged 850-900 men.

NousDefionsDoc

10-20-2004, 11:20

Its funny, people cry that the gov will use the Patriot Acts etc for nefarious purposes, yet they have no problem trying to use the GWOT as an excuse to punish illegals who cross for economic reasons.

I agree that the illegals are breaking the law and should not be rewarded for it.

I also know first hand what a pain in the ass the process for that law is.

The INS, the visa process etc., is, in IMO, one of the greatest failures of our government and has been for a long time. It keeps out the people we want and lets in precisely those we don't want. When the system makes it easier for an Arab radical to get a visa to "study" at Harvard than for a wife of a veteran to immigrate - things are very wrong. When males 18-45 from radical terrorism-sponsoring states have the same visa requirements as people that want to work - we are not doing it right.

"Fixing" this is akin to "fixing" the intelligence problem to me. The whole thing needs to be scrapped and started over.

mumbleypeg

10-20-2004, 13:17

When an illegal has a job it is (in my experience) because they have shown "documentation" to the business owner. I do know of cases where brothers/cousins/friends all have the same ss#. This means that the business is taking deductions and paying taxes and in many cases the Social Security card holders actually pay taxes.

This is a huge economy and obviously everyone isn't doing it this way. I do think that contributions made by this segement are over looked.

I have always found it interesting that when conversation turns to illegal immigration, Mexico becomes the topic of converstion. I understand that it is a long a porous border but several different continents provide illegal immigrants. The Mexico topic ignores any other ports or borders we may have.

I would be happy to have the Border Patrol fulfill their duties and leave the military to their already full agenda. I have a hard time seeing it as agood expenditure of assets to have professional soldiers working the Border.

Airbornelawyer

10-20-2004, 13:33

I would be happy to have the Border Patrol fulfill their duties and leave the military to their already full agenda. I have a hard time seeing it as agood expenditure of assets to have professional soldiers working the Border.

One problem in this regard is the size of the Border Patrol. The BPS has 9,500 employees. Maybe 8,000 or so are agents, and they are responsible for the Canadian and maritime borders as well as that with Mexico. Assuming, given its higher priority, that one half to two-thirds of agents are assigned to the 9 Border Patrol districts on the Mexican border, that's still 4,000-5,000 or so agents for a 3,100 kilometer border.

pulque

10-20-2004, 14:39

One problem in this regard is the size of the Border Patrol. The BPS has 9,500 employees. Maybe 8,000 or so are agents, and they are responsible for the Canadian and maritime borders as well as that with Mexico. Assuming, given its higher priority, that one half to two-thirds of agents are assigned to the 9 Border Patrol districts on the Mexican border, that's still 4,000-5,000 or so agents for a 3,100 kilometer border.

The figure I saw was for 9700 Border Patrol Agents for 2001, and 11249 Border Patrol Agents for 2004. Its possible my source is bad, and that they confused "agent" with "employee". The 2004 number for Canada BPAs is ~1000. That leaves 10249 for Mexico (3.3 BPAs per kilometer). Too bad the figures dont tell if all of those agents are on duty at once.

Air/Land/Sea Inspectors are supposed to number 18700 in 2004 (up 4900 from 2001).

Airbornelawyer

10-20-2004, 14:40

I am hearing a lot of talk about securing the US-Mexico border with troops. I would be interested in hearing any kind of mathematical estimate on how many troops this would take and the reason for the number - if anybody's game.
Well, since the original question was not whether it was a good idea, but what it might take, here is some additional information:

In the 1970s and 1980s, US Army Europe was responsible for 1,036 km of border, which included about 600 kilometers of the IGB and the border with Czechoslovakia. V Corps had 385 km and VII Corps had 651 km. Each allocated one armored cavalry regiment for the border patrol mission. The 11th ACR was responsible for the border zone on either side of the Fulda Gap, while the 2nd ACR was responsible for the southern border of East Germany and the border with Czechoslovakia.

This was, of course, much different terrain from most of that which obtains on the US/Mex border. It ranged from hilly to mountainous. So multiplying this force by 3 (for the 3,000 km of the US/Mex border) isn't necessarily the best measure. Still, 6 cavalry regiments would actually put you close to what we had on the border in 1914. I am also not counting the Federal Border Guard Service (BGS) (there were I believe 3 BGS battalions in USAREUR's sector).

As for how they actually patrolled the border: USAREUR OPORD 1-73, Annex K required daily patrols of the entire sector, permanent manning of OPs along main avenues of approach, and use of GSR and other surveillance means. USAREUR OPORD 2-81, Annex H, relaxed this and allowed each corps to determine its own patrol policy. 11th ACR patrolled 1/3 of its sector on a daily basis (covering the entire sector each 72 hours). It also maintained 24-hour watch from OPs on four main avenues of approach. 2d ACR covered its main avenues of approach once each 24 hours and patrolled the rest of its sectors at least once each 96 hours.

This, BTW, was a reduction from earlier periods. In the 1950s, three ACRs, the 14th, 2nd and 6th, patrolled the border. The 6th swapped out with the 11th ACR and the 2nd with the 3rd (but the 2nd returned a few years later). So in 1960, it was the 14th, 2nd and 11th ACRs.

Attached are maps of the 1950s USAREUR sector deployments and the 1980s 11th ACR and 2nd ACR sectors.

Airbornelawyer

10-20-2004, 14:43

More than you ever wanted to know on border operations in Germany: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/BorderOps/content.htm

Airbornelawyer

10-20-2004, 14:59

Another comparison?

Iraq has about 3,600 kilometers of borders. The Iranian and Turkish borders are mostly mountainous, while the Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi and Kuwaiti borders are mostly desert. The Iraqi Border Guard Service currently being built is supposed to have 32,000 border guards manning 300 forts.

Goggles Pizano

11-25-2004, 09:28

NDD,

Seems the ante has been raised.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041125-011203-8282r.htm

From an LE perspective this must be addressed. The question returns to resources and the lack of state funding for this type of operation be it supression or direct action. What do you gentlemen think?

NousDefionsDoc

11-25-2004, 09:50

I don't know how, but it has to be addressed on their side. If it is anything like Colombia, to say they are in maximum security prisons is a joke.

It goes back to the conversation about Guzman. Incarceration means nothing. The corruption is so rampant, they can sometimes run their organizations more erfficiently from inside.

If you look at the Escobar case, it was a joint effort military operation. What put him on the run was Los Pepes. The narcos in Colombia didn't really have a problem until other bad guys got after them. If Escobar had not been facing extradition, he probably would have surrendered and he would probably be back in Medellin today, running his show. A judge turned the Rodrigues Orejuela brothers loose - outrageous. I suspect the same will be true in Mexico.

The best thing you can have is competing groups. Then they take care of each other. We, and by example everyone else, have become so concerned with human rights that there is simply no penalty to deter crime and terrorism.

Ecuador has a kidnapping problem. The max penalty that I know of for a conviction is 2 years. I wonder why they have a problem?

Need to bring back chain gangs, the death penalty should be automatic for cop killers, etc.

Sigi

06-25-2005, 16:52

I am hearing a lot of talk about securing the US-Mexico border with troops. I would be interested in hearing any kind of mathematical estimate on how many troops this would take and the reason for the number - if anybody's game.

I did a search here and did not find anything on a group of Mexican troops named Los Zetas.

Los Zetas were trained as elite commandos by U.S. forces to combat the drug cartels, but they have switched sides and are working for the drug smugglers in the border area posing a special hazard to American law enforcement and Border Patrol agents, according to a U.S. Justice Department memo.

Link to article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44598)

I heard about this group, coincendently, as I was driving through Amarillo, Texas (on my way to Las Vegas) while listening to Glenn Beck. Seems they are responsible for the rise in murders in the border town of Nuevo Laredo that we have been hearing so much about, i.e., where two Sherriff's have been slaughtered.

I would say we need troops on the border.

magician

06-26-2005, 06:08

In case folks have forgotten where I stand on the issue, I advocate the use of the US military to improve security on the borders.

I also advocate an overhauled and revamped comprehensive program of immigration control, and the administration of guest worker programs.

I also advocate the draconian prosecution of those firms which hire illegal workers.

I further advocate the merciless prosecution of those politicians and bureaucrats who conspire with firms hiring illegal workers.

If you fear the rising cost of lettuce, or beets, or tomatoes, learn to grow your own, or modify your diet.

Of course....we could just do nothing...and in fifty years, the United States of America will be more Mexican than anything else, and the take-over will be a fait acompli.

brownapple

06-26-2005, 18:33

Well, since the original question was not whether it was a good idea, but what it might take, here is some additional information:

In the 1970s and 1980s, US Army Europe was responsible for 1,036 km of border, which included about 600 kilometers of the IGB and the border with Czechoslovakia. V Corps had 385 km and VII Corps had 651 km. Each allocated one armored cavalry regiment for the border patrol mission. The 11th ACR was responsible for the border zone on either side of the Fulda Gap, while the 2nd ACR was responsible for the southern border of East Germany and the border with Czechoslovakia.

This was, of course, much different terrain from most of that which obtains on the US/Mex border. It ranged from hilly to mountainous. So multiplying this force by 3 (for the 3,000 km of the US/Mex border) isn't necessarily the best measure. Still, 6 cavalry regiments would actually put you close to what we had on the border in 1914. I am also not counting the Federal Border Guard Service (BGS) (there were I believe 3 BGS battalions in USAREUR's sector).

As for how they actually patrolled the border: USAREUR OPORD 1-73, Annex K required daily patrols of the entire sector, permanent manning of OPs along main avenues of approach, and use of GSR and other surveillance means. USAREUR OPORD 2-81, Annex H, relaxed this and allowed each corps to determine its own patrol policy. 11th ACR patrolled 1/3 of its sector on a daily basis (covering the entire sector each 72 hours). It also maintained 24-hour watch from OPs on four main avenues of approach. 2d ACR covered its main avenues of approach once each 24 hours and patrolled the rest of its sectors at least once each 96 hours.

This, BTW, was a reduction from earlier periods. In the 1950s, three ACRs, the 14th, 2nd and 6th, patrolled the border. The 6th swapped out with the 11th ACR and the 2nd with the 3rd (but the 2nd returned a few years later). So in 1960, it was the 14th, 2nd and 11th ACRs.

Attached are maps of the 1950s USAREUR sector deployments and the 1980s 11th ACR and 2nd ACR sectors.

There is a significant difference between securing a border against military attack and securing it from the infiltration of individuals.

Books

07-01-2005, 10:03

One issue that hasn't been brought up yet is that without immigration, illegal or otherwise, the US population would decline. The simple economics implication of this is that without a service class, the wealthier middle and upper classes couldn't exist as they do to day.

Guy

07-01-2005, 10:29

Casper

07-02-2005, 17:36

If you want to stop arterial bleeding, you don't just keep putting a bandaid on it, cross your fingers and hope. You have to do some serious internal repair work.

I believe, IMHO, that America is applying the bandaid solution to illegal immigration. Why do we not have this problem with Canada? Because their people want to live there.

To help ourselves, we need to focus more help into helping Mexico reform itself, to become more economically viable, and able to care for its own people.

brewmonkey

07-02-2005, 17:42

I believe, IMHO, that America is applying the bandaid solution to illegal immigration. Why do we not have this problem with Canada?

Because thier southern neighbor is the U.S. not a third world country...

Casper

07-05-2005, 15:14

Because thier southern neighbor is the U.S. not a third world country...

I believe that you are helping prove my point. If we can help Mexico become more stable economically and improve their quality of life, won't that help us with the illegal immigration problem?

I also believe it would help us in dividends if we can help the Mexicans secure a stronger country for themselves. We could eventually push this War on Drugs we are having a little farther south as well.

Roguish Lawyer

07-05-2005, 15:31

We could eventually push this War on Drugs we are having a little farther south as well.

Good idea. In fact, here is some recent imagery of a particularly dangerous cartel we have not yet targeted:

Peregrino

07-05-2005, 16:31

Good idea. In fact, here is some recent imagery of a particularly dangerous cartel we have not yet targeted:

Wait a minute - isn't that the group that got caught smuggling leutefisk into MN? :munchin Peregrino

JGarcia

07-08-2005, 09:14

I know for a fact that persons crossing the border are once apprehended checked for wants and warrants, if they don't have any, the person is released after given a summons to appear. Usually the persons they paid to smuggle them across are waiting outside the station in a vehicle to pick them up.

Lately Chinese nationals are paying coyotes to smuggle them across from a few popular places.

There are enough troops to enforce the border, we did it before we can do it again. It is a national security issue. These people shouldn't be given amnesty trials or hearing dats. The visa program is broken by design. There are numbers assigned to each consulate to advise them how many from each nation are allowed in. When we offer visas in significant numbers to countries that do not espouse our culture, way of life, etc. We arent doing any good.

brownapple

07-12-2005, 11:06

I
There are enough troops to enforce the border, we did it before we can do it again.

When did we do it?

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-12-2005, 14:21

Wait a minute - isn't that the group that got caught smuggling leutefisk into MN? :munchin Peregrino

Nah, that is the faculty picture from Front Sight's high school :)

Roguish Lawyer

07-12-2005, 14:29

Nah, that is the faculty picture from Front Sight's high school :)

You know, Colonel, I think you're on to something.

FS:

You need to take some photos of some HAKs concealed in those little plaid skirts.

:munchin :D

RL

echoes

05-08-2010, 13:11

Was just reading about Our current situation in AZ, and this old thread popped up! Great read, with very intelligent posts...from six years ago...:lifter

Holly

kgoerz

05-08-2010, 13:44

I think the Border Patrol has tripled in size and budget since this thread was created. Until it's proven that the Terrorist who pull off the next big attack on U.S Soil came across the border. I don't think anything is going to be done seriously to secure the border. If the 911 Hijackers had come across the border there would be completed wall and mind field there now. The current wall is a joke.
My brother lives in Bisbee. He told me one time they constructed a ladder. Painted it the same color as the wall. It was over a month before it was discovered.
I don't think the Military should be tasked with the job. Just increase the size of the Agency that is already responsible for securing it.