The Price of Border Security Might Just Be the National Guard

President Bush again wants to use the state National Guard to do a federal job. Sacramento Democrats complain that’s a dumb idea, but they’re virtually powerless to stop it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets the final call. He can send the troops or buck Bush.

That’s the consensus anyway. Nobody seems to know for sure how this is supposed to work.

The governor still didn’t know late Wednesday, after a long phone call with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Specifics were scarce, an insider reported.

Bush could have “federalized” the Guard, as he did in sending it to Iraq, and ordered troops to the border himself. Instead, he left them under the control of each state’s governor -- in effect, further ducking his responsibility to secure the border.

This part seems to be about semantics. If the president were to mobilize the troops, he’d be “militarizing” the border. That has a bad ring about it in Mexico and with many American liberals. It’s a silly word game. A lot of Democrats think that National Guard troops will militarize the border anyway, regardless of who sends them there.

“It’s the wrong message,” says Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles). “The National Guard is considered the military.”

And the problem with that? “I don’t believe we are in a state of siege with our neighbors to the south,” Nunez continued. “They are economic partners. You create real tensions along that border. We need to emphasize better cooperation.”

Schwarzenegger has several questions and has asked Chertoff to provide some answers before he commits any troops: What will be considered success in sealing the border? When can the Guard mission be called off? Who determines the Guard’s duties -- the governor or the Pentagon?

Also, Bush suggests the border duty be assigned during the troops’ annual two-week training period. But doesn’t that rob them of training needed for combat readiness?

Moreover, Schwarzenegger noted in a letter to Chertoff, “mobilizing thousands of National Guard troops from around the country for two-week rotations on the border, to build fences and deploy surveillance equipment, presents a logistical nightmare.”

Will the federal government foot the entire bill? Probably, while nickel-and-diming the state and being late with its payments. The feds pay 95% of the California National Guard’s roughly $1-billion cost, says Maj. Jon Siepmann, the public affairs officer.

State Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) reacted cynically Wednesday to the idea of the feds fully reimbursing California for border duty.

“That’s a funny notion,” he told reporters. “They owe us so much money right now -- between homeland security and incarcerating [illegal immigrant] felons. The idea ‘We’ll get you the money’ .... No one believes that. That’s worse than the Easter Bunny.”

Perata vowed that the Senate’s version of the new state budget won’t include any money for Guard border patrol. The Guard should focus on being available for state emergencies, he said. “I do not want to spend any money at all, invest a dime, into anything that weakens our ability to respond to a state disaster.”

Bush has proposed deploying 6,000 National Guard troops from willing states “temporarily” until that many more federal Border Patrol agents can be hired and trained. He estimates that will be the end of 2008. This would beef up the Border Patrol to 18,000.

But what if Congress refuses to appropriate the money? What if it takes years longer? What if that’s still too small a border force?

Bush doesn’t have much credibility in gauging necessary force levels, promising temporary deployments or devising exit strategies. More than 2,400 Americans have died in Iraq, including 20 members of the California National Guard, says Siepmann. In all, 13,000 California Guard troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan; 1,600 are there now.

Schwarzenegger’s two potential Democratic opponents for reelection -- Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly -- agree: National Guard troops should not be used on the border. They’re “already spread too thin,” Angelides says of the 20,000-member California force.

Democratic politicians are poised to rip Schwarzenegger if he commits the troops.

But there’s a strong whiff of hypocrisy here. Every politician I know of pays at least lip service to the need for border security. Certainly, they proclaim, foreigners should not be allowed to enter the country illegally. But that requires enforcement. It means more guards -- whether it’s the National Guard or Border Patrol or the Army. If we’re really serious.

Bush should have strengthened the Border Patrol long ago. So should have his predecessors. But they all timidly ignored the problem. Now the states have been invited to help, not just complain.

If Schwarzenegger concludes that this is a project that, indeed, could significantly slow the flow of illegal immigrants -- and is not just another half-baked Bush venture -- then he should commit the troops, with his own deployment plan and cutoff date.

Besides, by protecting the border he protects against the erosion of his Republican base.

And, yes, if Republicans are really serious, they’ll also insist on enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants. Conservatives will acknowledge the need for guest worker programs and a realistic path to citizenship -- and stop quibbling about whether it’s “amnesty.” Immigration laws will be changed to match economic needs in a capitalistic world.

But, politically, nothing gets done without controlling the border. And for that, the Guard looks like the only immediate option.

*

Reach George Skelton at george.skelton@latimes.com.