A GOP Consensus Emerges: Militarize the Border
In last night's Republican presidential debate, candidates floated various forms of military action against drug cartels.

Among GOP hopefuls at the first debate of the campaign season, militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out drugs and undocumented immigrants emerged as an overwhelmingly popular position—and as the surprising default answer to unrelated questions.
When moderators asked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis whether he'd support sending U.S. Special Forces into Mexico to target drug cartels, he replied, "Yes, and I will do it on day one." DeSantis claimed that the president should "use all available powers as commander in chief to protect our country and to protect the people."
"Yes, we're going to use deadly force," he continued. "Yes, we reserve the right to operate."
Not every candidate was willing to go as far as DeSantis. (Former DEA chief and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, for one, argued that "the military has to be limited in its use.") But the debate showcased an interventionist instinct that's entered the GOP mainstream, even among Republicans who otherwise oppose U.S. entanglements abroad.
Though they differed on the details, the debate participants broadly agreed that what the U.S. needs is a hyper-militarized and hardened border. Former Vice President Mike Pence pushed for the U.S. to partner with the Mexican military to "hunt down and destroy the cartels that are claiming lives in the United States," while Hutchinson argued that "lethal force would be needed to protect the border."
Border militarism wasn't just an important topic last night—it was a topic that candidates brought up to answer unrelated tough questions. "What does a President Ramaswamy do about guns?" asked moderator Bret Baier in a section on crime. One of Ramaswamy's proposed ways to "address that mental health epidemic in the next generation that is directly leading to violent crime" was to "close the southern border where criminals are coming in every day." When asked whether he favored sending Ukraine more aid, Ramaswamy not only said no—he said he'd rather see those resources used to "protect against the invasion across our southern border." Responding to a question on China, Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) said that the government cash funding 87,000 new IRS agents should instead be used on Border Patrol agents.
Even when the candidates weren't calling for direct military involvement in or around Mexico, they argued for a bolted-up southern border and unforgiving immigration system. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said "you have to" deport the undocumented people already present in the U.S., who number roughly 11 million. One of the only positive mentions of immigration came from Ramaswamy, who held up his own immigrant parents as an example of America's promise.
Combining the war on drugs with the war on terror is a recipe sure to provoke costly engagement abroad and do little to reduce the demand for drugs at home. Similar counternarcotics efforts in Latin America have failed miserably. Neither unauthorized immigration nor drug smuggling will be solved by the tactics the candidates suggested on the debate stage. That will require a dual approach of a liberalized immigration system and a restraint-based foreign policy, along with some humility about the realities of supply and demand. Unfortunately, none of that came up during last night's debate.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think it's fair to say we should do SOMETHING with the social construct at our sothern-ish side of the "country".
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Yes, but sending troops into Mexico is a military invasion. Certainly, we would see it as such if Mexico sent uninvited troops into the USA.
Trump played this one perfectly - he got agreement from the Mex government to keep them in Mexico. No troops. No body bags. No civilians killed. Why can't these guys just say "Trump taught us what to do, and I will follow much the same playbook."
“if Mexico sent uninvited troops into the USA.”
Ummmm…
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-agents-briefly-detain-14-mexican-soldiers-el-paso-2021-09-25/
Yes, Trump did get this right.
Russia has shown a small investment in defensive lines can easily stop the most advanced NATO tanks. Should be easy to have a few lines of mines, automatic machine gun bunkers and thousands of low cost drones over the border....no one comes in...
While i cant say i favor these positions i would accept hardening the border if the intent were to drive people toward a fast and effective legal immigration model.
When it comes to illegal immigrants already in the country perhaps they don't need full citizenship but most do need and deserve some type of legal status which allows them to stay and work in this country without having to resort to lurking in the legal shadows to find work.
Fuck 'em. What did they expect when they hired a human smuggler to sneak them in?
How about no.
Fiona, show me where on the immigration form that these Republican candidates for President touched you.
Poor Charles Koch. 🙁
Look at all these large green numbers in the YTD change column. Biden's economy might not be great for American families with sub-10-figure net worths, but he sure is taking care of his real base: the 20 richest people on the planet ...
... Except for Reason's sugar daddy, who just can't seem to make a buck. Not enough desperate Mexicans and Ukrainians moving here to work for poverty wages, apparently.
#HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer
Oh for the halcyon days of Obama and Bush...
I'll take any of these ridiculous border panic proposals over the globo-slavery DEI communism of the democrats.
I would think that our new LGBTQQIP+ Army would be champing at the bit to enforce border security. Aliens vs Predators is a natural franchise opportunity.
I still can't comprehend why controlling a national border, something that almost every country on this planet does, is such a problem for people. Sure, we need to make legal immigration less time consuming, expensive, and cumbersome, but that's honestly a completely different matter.
Legal immigration to this country is easier than probably every other country.
We take in the most immigrants. But we aren't the easiest to get into.
Correct. For example, it is incredibly easy for example to immigrate to Mexico. And it has universal healthcare. It has become a really popular retirement destination for Americans.
Bullshit. It's virtually impossible to "immigrate" into Mexico. Yes you can lease property there and live there. But you will never own that property. You will never be a citizen.
No it's not. There's big business in legal immigration. It's almost impossible to do without an immigration lawyer. Those lawyers and others making money from legal immigration make large donations to Democrat politicians to keep things as they are.
Much simpler method to solve all the problems. Return to the pre 1965 rules for the Western Hemisphere. Don't even bother showing up at the border without a visa. Go to the US Consulate in your country of birth and apply for a visa. Unless you are a criminal or likely to become a public charge, you are issued one. No numerical limits on the numbers of visas issued
A large number of dumb things going on right now have to do with rich white progressives desperate to fool everyone (including themselves) into thinking that they're not racists.
So who cares one way or the other....except other racists. As for most normal people, we don't give a shit cuz there's no end to the grifting in the race game. We totally ignore it.
Reason believes that any non-inclusive impediment to movement is bad. They cannot separate the two.
Article IV Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion
So the "Southern Border" is the new "Benghazi" where the talking heads can't end a sentence without uttering the buzz-phrase du jour.
It seems the Mayors of Chicago, New York, and Martha's vineyard agree with doing SOMETHING about the southern border problem.
We need to direct the buses towards Boston, LA, Portland, Seattle, and other major Dem-controlled cities until we get them on board, as well.
"Hardening" the U.S.-Mexico border will not work. One of the most hardened and militarized international borders in history - the "Iron Curtain" - operated by one of the most dedicated corps of tyrants and secret police in history, couldn't keep anyone in or out. Apparently, no one in the GOP has ever heard of official corruption! It should be alarming that even prisons don't seem to be able to keep drugs out of prisons in America because of that one factor alone. Add to that the fact that drugs shouldn't even be illegal in the first place and the stage (although it's not a "debate" stage) is set for the perfectly clueless candidates and the perfectly clueless audience.
Bingo!
Do you lock your doors and windows at night or when you leave home? If so why? After all determined criminals will find a way in won't they? Of course hardening the border of your home won't 100% guarantee that nobody can break in but it reduces the odds that they can get in. Hardening the border would be the exact same where it might not stop 100% of the illegal aliens trying to enter the USA but it will greatly reduce the number who do get in to a more manageable level. Then other solutions could be found to deal with those who did find a way to sneak in( and those solutions would need not be as extreme because the problem wouldn't be as extreme). We do not need the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Berlin wall was to keep people in, not out.
"Berlin wall"
First, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain were completely different things. The Berlin Wall was in Berlin, hundreds of miles away from the Iron Curtain.
The Iron Curtain ran the entire border between the Second World countries (Eastern Europe) and the First World countries (Western Europe), from Finland to Greece. It's almost a direct analogue to our Southern border.
"was to keep people in, not out"
I'm baffled as to why you think a barrier designed primarily to prevent people from crossing from east to west is substantively different than a barrier designed to prevent people from crossing from south to north.
Oh, it's Jesse? I take that back. That level of pretzel-like logic is 100% on-brand for her.
The Iron Curtain didn't work. Creating a new one (including guard towers, soldiers, and shoot-to-kill orders) on our Southern border is Einstein's definition of insanity.
You do realize that the phrase "Iron Curtain" was a metaphor and not a real physical barrier? As to the effectiveness of the Berlin Wall I would point out that prior to it's fall it was quite effective at helping prevent border crossers from either direction. After it fell border crossing was virtually unstoppable.
“You do realize that the phrase “Iron Curtain” was a metaphor and not a real physical barrier?”
You apparently don’t realize that it was both. You know there was a militarized border with guards, razor wire, and other physical barriers that ran the length of the border between the Warsaw Pact countries and the West, right?
“The Iron Curtain described hard borders between Eastern Europe and the rest of the continent during the Cold War.”
– http://www.alphahistory.com/coldwar/iron-curtain/
“The term referred to both the physical blockade that ran for thousands of miles across Europe – including the intimidating Berlin Wall – and the ideological barrier.”
– www .historyextra .com/period/cold-war/iron-curtain-definition-meaning-where-when-who-popularised-term/
“political, military, and ideological barrier that cuts off and isolates an area.
Specifically, often capitalized : one formerly isolating an area under Soviet control”
– www .merriam-webster .com/dictionary/the%20Iron%20Curtain
The barrier (and the shoot-to-kill orders of the guards posted along it) was well known.
“As to the effectiveness of the Berlin Wall I would point out that prior to it’s fall it was quite effective at helping prevent border crossers from either direction.”
The Berlin Wall was somewhat effective at preventing people from entering West Berlin. However, since West Berlin was 100 miles from West Germany, even if you escaped into West Berlin you still had to get to West Germany.
Crossing the Iron Curtain somewhere like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or the East German countryside was much more common because, as with our southern border, you can’t stop everyone, everywhere along the border, from crossing. It’s literally impossible, even with a completely militarized border like the Iron Curtain.
Nelson 8 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“Berlin wall”
First, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain were completely different things.
Nelson 2 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
“The term referred to both the physical blockade that ran for thousands of miles across Europe – including the intimidating Berlin Wall – and the ideological barrier.”
You’re not good at this.
And yet, there was 100 miles between the two.
I consider "part of" to mean "contiguous with". Obviously they consider "part of" to mean "part of a system of barriers". It's almost like there isn't only one definition of each word in English. Can you believe that?
Either way, the Iron Curtain was a physical, militarized barrier between Eastern and Western Europe. Much like what conservatives want on our Southern border, with similarly expensive, but porous, results.
Was the Iron Curtain porous? I don't seem to recall a lot of immigration legal or otherwise going either way. I can even say the same about the southern USA border when there is actual enforcement the rate of illegal immigration declines. Under President Trump illegal immigration declined to multi-decade lows. Now with border enforcement at a minimum the number of illegal aliens crossing the border has hit all time highs.
“It’s almost a direct analog to our southern border”.
Except that it was used to keep people in, not out.
It was a barrier designed to prevent people from passing from one side to the other.
You think "in" vs "out" is a substantive difference? Why?
In one historic scenario, the commies have built a wall to keep people in. The west welcomes defectors in order to destabilize the commies and gain intelligence.
In the other, commies have erased the border in order to destabilize their own country. And it may be necessary to take steps to reestablish stability at the border.
The only direct analog is that commies suck.
So yes, you do believe that there is a substantive difference between a barrier to keep people on and a barrier to keep people out?
Israel figured out how to harden their border – perhaps we should just hire them to guard ours as well, since we seem so inept at doing so.
It did, did it? That's news to everyone.
Especially to Israelis.
The only people who will benefit from s hardened militarized border are the crony contractors who get the construction contracts, and the politicians who foment hate against immigrants. Just as Israel regularly finds smuggling tunnels under its border walls, the US regularly finds smuggling tunnels in San Diego, the one part of the US land border that actually dies have a real wall. Pledging to build a wall is virtue signaling to nativist bigots.
Fentanyl Fentanyl Fentanyl, Illegals Illegals Illegals, Abortions Abortions Abortions, Bad Bad Bad Books is all we hear from the party of Donny Douchebag.
Inflation, Regulation, Education.... Selective hearing?
We need to invade Mexico and drive the brown people further south so that we can build a shorter sturdier wall. Maybe invade everything down to the Panama Canal and build the wall there. That way we also have a nice moat which we already built to go with the wall and the Latins can rejoin Latin America further south
Well. Isn’t that what the invasion is all about? Being in the USA?
It’s so ironic being so against the USA invading Mexico and taking it over but apparently are so eager to have Mexico invading the USA.
Why; I thought the narrated assumption here was the invasion was those poor innocent hard-working Mexico population looking for greener pastures in the USA; so why can’t the USA just come to them? Oh whoops; That’s right. They’re not illegally invading the USA for a better system after all but to conquer and consume the USA.
Because that's what those of Communist and Socialist ideologies do... The BS propaganda doesn't make sh*t. Their 'guns' don't make sh*t. So at the end of day; the honestly behind is they are a political mob of criminals out to conquer and consume what others have created, built and earned.
Mexico isn't invading the US. There are 30 million Mexicans in the US here legally. Most are dual citizens. I am married to one. Oh and she is not a "brown person"; there are a lot of White Mexicans and she is one of them.
Why exactly do you hate brown people?
Oh? So how is it there are so many illegally crossing the border?
“30 million Mexicans…..here legally.” And who knows how many are here illegally?
So, when is enough, enough? You’d think that you zealots would start to consider this question with all your sanctuary city mayors whining that they can’t handle a few thousand.
But noooo. Virtue signaling abhors limits.
So Fiona, what is the woke millennial sheep plan to address this enormous problem?
…militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out drugs and undocumented immigrants
Step one is embracing Newspeak
Well, militarizing the border would have virtually no effect on the flow of drugs into America. Almost all of it comes through ports by the truckload and container-full, not carried across the border by people.
Only credulous people believe otherwise, but Republican politicians just spent most of a debate telling their voters it's true. Do you think they're all foolish enough to believe it or are they just pandering to their base and fearmongering?
Does this mean Fiona wants libertarians to vote for Biden?
Reluctantly yes.
Other than the paperwork, what differentiates legal immigration from illegal immigration?
The same difference between inviting a guest into your house and having a ?guest? breaking-and-entering.
good answer!
do they think they're better than vampires? at least a vampire will ask to come in.
So if an immigrant stays on public land or roads im the normal course of transit and travels to a hotel and pays for their stay or stays with someone who allows them to, no difference between them an a citizen?
So just to further clarify, is there any libertarian compliant filtering or selection criteria that can be applied at the border? If so and the person is crossing either by public road or over private land that the owner allows transit, how coukd that filtering be applied without violating the N.A.P. or ownership rights of the private owner?
Maybe you’d like to ask if the rat in that hotel agrees to let the immigrant stay in his rat hole but the hotel manager dis-agrees he still should be able to stay there?
Can the BS propaganda get any more thick? Was the immigrant invited to the USA or not?
Immigration policy is meant to be instated by Congress (the people's representation) and enforced by the executive. It's just as simple as that. The lefts DACA executive fiat is UN-Constitutional and an executive that selectively ignores congressional law is also UN-Constitutional.
As far as my specific vote; It's for patriots of the USA (honoring what the USA is defined to be by it's Constitutional declaration) and most definitely not those who will be lobbing for stealing other peoples stuff.
... or pretending they have some sort of magical inalienable right to stomp all over any land they so chose in some twisted narrative of being human.
"stays on public land or roads"...
Mexico's "public land or roads" or USA's "public land or roads"?
The word "public" doesn't mean it's an international free-for-all.
In 2022 more than 850,000 people legally visited the U.S. but overstayed their visas, thus becoming illegal aliens. They were legally "invited" and likely legally lived and paid their way without committing any further legal violations.
There’s too many of us party crashers! You can’t kick us out of your house party! Our #’s make us *entitled* to it! /s
BTW; Nice reply completely dodging the original.
My reply addressed the public roads issue by pointing out that the U.S. and other countries routinely allow aliens to use their roads. The difference between legal and illegal lies only in a piece of paper that has a time limit on it. An alien that rents a car and stays in a hotel to vacation in the U.S. on a visa differs in legality only in by a date on that visa. They can continue to do so withoit violating your or my rights as they were when the visa was valid.
As to party crashers, there is no violation of private property rights per se in illegal immigration. I would think that would be clear by now with the overstaying of visas.
Yes; you're still pretending there is no difference between Mexico and the USA via ridiculously calling it "public" --- So why not really support your stance and lobby for the USA to take over Mexico.
So if congress approved DACA or reduced immigration to trivially easy paperwork your criteria would be satisfied?
Your original post never mentioned constitutionality, just an analogy. So I tried to determine the limits of that analogy by asking what I thought were reasonable questions.
Your responses indicate you aren't a libertarian so further discussion along those lines would be futile.
I personally wouldn't respect a congressionally passed DACA but at least it is Constitutional and it does equate to the same as my original assertion. If multiple parties are the home owner the pre-outlined process for household decision making is the final answer but only a bunch of collective idiots would vote to make breaking-and-entering a consensual 'invited guest'.
Yes, if Congress created new immigration categories, granted asylums, expanded immigrants visas, etc., then many illegal aliens would become immigrants. Congress has that power.
Right now, Americans (via Congress) have chosen to limit immigration visas to less than 1 million per year. If you stay in this country without an immigration visa, you are an illegal alien and must leave.
Immigrants are largely treated like citizens. By definition, immigrants have proper paperwork and authorization to stay in the country.
Legally, there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". You are either an "illegal alien" or an "immigrant".
"Other than the paperwork, what differentiates legal immigration from illegal immigration?"
Everything from the law to administrative process to work privileges and more.
Illegal immigration isn't the scourge cultural conservatives falsely portray it as, but illegal immigration isn't a good thing in any way. American citizenship is a privilege.
Does it suck that not everyone gets it? Absolutely. Does that mean we should just let anyone be a citizen without any process or requirements? Absolutely not. There is no justification for open borders.
did Martha ask anyone about the missing children?
A Democratic Consensus Emerges: No Borders Forever
Folks here do not understand that under US law, if you show up at a port of entry and ask for asylum, you MUST be admitted to the US. Years later you will get a hearing. The obvious answer is to hire enough hearing examiners to process all the claims is a speedy manner, but the Democrats are making no effort to do this and the Republicans, interested in a political issue rather than an actual solution that would deny them that weaponization, actually want to cut funding from the very agency that is responsible for this.
Wouldn't it be nice if all the Democrats would go volunteer to process asylum claims for free and do it honorably.
The obvious answer is to deny all asylum claims by people coming in via Mexico or Canada: they are obviously not being persecuted in the country they are currently in and therefore have no valid asylum claim.
The US is under no legal or international obligation to grant asylum to anybody coming from a safe country.
I live in a country where the ruling regime locked down the population for the better part of 2 years. They destroyed the livelihood of millions. They are currently prosecuting a proxy war against a nuclear power with the potential to drag us into WW3. They have inflated the currency and destroyed my wealth. They are currently prosecuting their political opponents to solidify their tyrannical power. What would it take for me to be granted asylum in Mexico?
Other than smug satisfaction for some, there is not one single good thing that has resulted from the open border policy of the Biden administration. While the hordes of illegals may be marginally better off, the US - its finances and infrastructure - are most certainly worse. This is not conjecture, it is visible reality - every fucking day in the news.
Some libertarians wanted open borders - well, the last three years have been an experiment in such and it is an abysmal failure. Is it not clear at this point that the US should not and cannot be the "heat sink" for all the world's dependents and casualties of other Countries bad systems?
A better immigration system? Sure, but you don't get plastic surgery done when your body's bordering on sepsis, now do you?
Another great meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, and Cruel Immigration Policies and Practices, convened, as usual, at a gathering place for disaffected, immigrant-hating, racist, half-educated, obsolete, worthless, right-wing, faux libertarians.
Lol. Adjective Artie. Look at him go.
The US military shouldn't be in the interior of the US, and it shouldn't be on foreign soil. The only legitimate place where the US military should be is, in fact, the US border, to protect the US from foreign invasion. That is its purpose: it's only purpose.
+100000000..... Exactly. The very reason a Union of States (US Gov) was ever even established. A strong national defense. So well put.