Schwarzenegger’s Decision to Deploy California National Guard to the Border

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2006
Major Jon Siepmann Release # 06-01

Governor Schwarzenegger Directs California National Guard to Support Border Mission

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced his intention to sign a memorandum authorizing California National Guard (CNG) forces to be used in support of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) mission to secure the southern border of California.

The memorandum between the governors of the four Border States and the federal government outlines conditions of this support to include: operational control, mission parameters, federal reimbursement, Rules for the Use of Force, and the prohibition against using Guardsmen in a law enforcement role.

The CNG will provide support to the border mission under the command and direction of Governor Schwarzenegger in a title 32 U.S.C. status. This status allows the mission to be federally funded but remain under the command and control of the Governor.
California’s Adjutant General, Maj. Gen. William H. Wade said today “Our Governor has announced his intention to support this mission. We are prepared to execute his order deliberately and professionally. We appreciate the Governor’s efforts to bring as much clarity to this mission as possible, and for his continuing support to the Soldiers and Airmen of our National Guard.”

Customs and Border Protection has requested National Guard support in eight general mission areas including: operations, air support, ground transportation, command and control, base operations, maintenance, civil engineering, and ports of entry augmentation. Their initial request in California was for approximately 950 personnel not including the command and administrative personnel necessary to manage the mission. Based on this assessment, the CNG has identified the need for as many as 1000 National Guardsmen to support the mission in California. These forces would not necessarily all come from the CNG.

Support to CBP under this mission will be a temporary measure to support border security operations until such time as CBP can increase its own capabilities. All missions performed by the Guard will be in support of CBP. The CNG will play no direct role in law enforcement activities such as: apprehension, detention or transportation of detained persons.

Forces used for this mission will fall under two general categories: durational forces and rotational forces. Both durational and rotational forces can come from other states.

Durational forces will be brought on duty for up to a year at a time. These forces will form the core of the CNG border presence and will be principally composed of volunteers from the within the CNG.
Rotational forces, which will come from the CNG as well as from other state National Guards, will perform duty for two to three week periods, and will perform duties directly applicable to their military specialties.

The mission will be conducted in multiple phases. With the signing of the MOU, the CNG will move forward from the assessment and preparation phase to the force buildup phase of the operation. In this stage, initial forces will be brought on duty to execute detailed mission planning and to build the force structure necessary to support the mission. Once sufficient forces have been built up and trained, the sustained operations phase will begin. During sustained operations, forces will execute missions in support of the border patrol. The anticipated time frame to begin sustained operations is mid-July 2006. The mission will terminate once CBP has attained significant capacity to conduct the mission internally, or on December 31, 2008, whichever occurs first.

The CNG will notify media of opportunities for interviews, tours, embeds and other events related to the border through the media advisory process. Contact Maj. Jon Siepmann for additional information.

The Speaker made the following statement in Los Angeles this afternoon after a briefing from the California National Guard and the Governor’s office on the Governor’s decision to commit the California National Guard to California’s border with Mexico:

“I have spoken with the Governor and the leadership of California’s National Guard today, and I sincerely appreciate their efforts to provide information on the deployment of the Guard to the border.

“With fire season staring us in the eyes, there should be no rush to send California’s National Guard to the border for an unfocused mission designed to provide political cover for the Bush Administration instead of a permanent solution to border security. While I appreciate the Governor’s attempts to secure funding and mission details from the federal government, I fundamentally disagree with a decision that would commit our Guard to the border before Congress finalizes a reimbursement plan or comprehensive immigration reform.”

Speaker Núñez had initiated a call for answers on Guard deployment in early May. Gov. Schwarzenegger responded to that call by asking the Department of Homeland Security clarifying questions regarding President Bush’s desire to militarize the U.S.-Mexico border.

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you on the deployment of the California National Guard for border patrol purposes. In your May 16, 2006 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, you expressed “serious concerns about the proposal to use National Guard troops to provide support for Federal Border patrol operations,” and that “securing our borders is a law enforcement function and what we need are more Border Patrol agents, not National Guard troops who are neither trained nor suited for this purpose.” In this same letter you further indicated that you were “concerned about the disruptive effect this mission will have on required training for Guard members and therefore force readiness in the event they are called up for active duty.” You also expressed concern about how this would impact the soldiers who have returned from long tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and how “these brave men and women should be allowed to return to their families and their lives without being called upon to do the job of the federal government, simply because Congress has failed to do its job for so long.” Finally, your letter suggested that “mobilizing thousands of National Guard troops from around the country for two week rotations on the border…presents a logistical nightmare and would be a poor use of forces trained for combat,” and that the “logistical support needed to maintain a constant redeployment of National Guard troops every two weeks would be staggering.”

In this letter to Secretary Chertoff, you also asked a series of highly appropriate questions in regard to this proposal, including:

• Did planners of this mission investigate whether civilian resources could be contracted to do civilian work such as building fences?

• What criteria will determine mission success?

• Does the federal government intend to cover 100 percent of the cost of this mission, including all of the additional logistical support?

• What criteria will determine the disengagement of the National Guard forces for this mission?

• Who determines the specific role of the California National Guard forces, the Governor as Commander in Chief under Title 32 or the Department of Defense?

• How will this mission in Title 32 affect required training for combat readiness?

In addition to these questions that you posed to Secretary Chertoff, the answers to which I respectfully request you share with me, I would also respectfully request your response to these additional questions:

• How many California National Guard troops will be placed on duty for this mission?

• Will these troops be volunteers for this mission? If not, how many will be involuntarily ordered to duty?

• What will be the pay and allowances that California National Guard troops receive during the mission compared to active duty Title 10 troops? What is the difference in pay for a two or three week rotation versus what Guard personnel would be entitled to if placed on orders for six months or a year?

• If a major disaster occurs in California, will the California National Guard troops assigned to the border mission be allowed to depart and immediately respond to the disaster if needed?

• What assurance do we have that state funds will not be used for this mission?

• Even if the federal government pays all the costs for this border mission, will funds be diverted from other National Guard programs, such as training activities, and thus negatively affect readiness for wartime and state emergency missions?

• If National Guard troops from other states perform the border mission in California, what will be their command relationship with the California National Guard?

• Will California National Guard troops be asked or authorized to directly apprehend or detain individuals, or perform other law enforcement-type actions such as arrests, searches, seizures, or be involved in the chain of custody for criminal evidence?

• If the National Guard troops discover individuals who are sick or in physical distress and if no Border Patrol agents are immediately available, will the National Guard troops be allowed to, and be prepared to, provide emergency medical care, food, water, etc?

• What will be the rules for the use of force by the National Guard troops?

• What specific tasks will California National Guard troops perform?

• Is the general concept for this mission in terms of the rules for the use of force and the types of activities the California National Guard may perform being coordinated with the California Attorney General? For example, it is my understanding that counter drug support plans require a yearly certification by the state attorney general to verify the activities are consistent with state law.

• Has the California National Guard performed a Risk Assessment and developed Force Protection guidance for this mission?

• Will any troops on State Active Duty be used for this mission?

• Will active duty Title 10 troops be involved in this mission? How will National Guard and active duty operations be coordinated?

• Will an environmental assessment be performed regarding the use of military troops and equipment along the border, or relative to any construction projects, especially if the activities will occur in environmentally sensitive areas?

• Are there any California Indian Tribes with reservation lands that abut the border or would otherwise be impacted by these actions, and if so, have they been contacted by your office in regard to this proposal?

In a letter this year to President Bush that you and the other 49 Governors in this nation signed in opposition to then-proposed force reductions in the Army and Air National Guard that at the time were being considered by the Department of Defense, it was stated that the “National Guard is a cost-effective, capable combat force in the war on terror and an essential state partner in responding to domestic disasters and emergencies.” If this is true, as I believe that it is, then the proposed use of the National Guard for border patrol support should be examined and evaluated in this context, and a determination made as to whether this proposed action represents an appropriate use of the California National Guard. If this proposal fails to meet this standard, and it is determined that the current condition of the border does not rise to the level of a domestic disaster or emergency, then the timing of this discussion strikes me as one that is politically motivated and representative of an attempt by the President to shift focus away from his failed leadership on the issue of securing our borders and forging comprehensive immigration reform.

Thank you for your consideration of my views on this important matter. I look forward to your response to my questions.

Sincerely,

Fabian Nunez
Speaker of the Assembly

John Myers, Sacramento Bureau Chief for KQED’s “The California Report”, released news of the Governor’s action with the title “I’m The Commander-In-Chief.”

Calitics, a site that covers California news and politics was critical of the Governor’s decision to accede to the President’s request in a posting entitled “From Al-Anbar to San Ysidro: Schwarzenegger OKs Guard Deployment.”

The San Francisco Chronicle has an AP feed that is longer than most of the news on the net.