Arizona senator has lofty plans for Civil Air Patrol

[Lancer]

I won't post the entire article, but I will snip out the most interesting bit.

In Harper's grand plan, the National Guard would train the civilian militia, the Air National Guard would train the Civil Air Patrol, and the entire effort would be paid for by the state.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2010/11/24/harper-proposes-state-sanctioned-militia-to-patrol-border/

I would HIGHLY doubt this would ever happen, with CAP anyways...and even starting up a new state based civilian militia would be a stretch. They'd have every gun toting nut job coming to Arizona hoping for an open season on border crossing illegals.

[Flying Pig]

CAP already does it in CA.

[Major Carrales]

You know, the Bill of Rights already provides for "well regulated militias,"  it seems to me that having the State create an organized Citizen's Militia, as opposed to the unorganized ones you allude to with the phrase "every gun toting nut job coming to Arizona hoping for an open season on border crossing illegals" would be a better definition.

In any case, historically, citizen's militias have existed to answer local emergencies and the like.

Other than the politically charged last statement you made, I see no problem with this.

[lordmonar]

As far a what AZ wants to do as a state.....I won't comment.

But CAP flying for the state would have to be an AFAM.....and Posse Commutatis would kick in.

[ZigZag911]

As far a what AZ wants to do as a state.....I won't comment.

But CAP flying for the state would have to be an AFAM.....and Posse Commutatis would kick in.

Unless it was considered in the same light as CD missions; we report objectively what we see (or fly LEO personnel), the 'customer' determines the nature of the activity observed.

As long as CAP is not involved in 'hot pursuit' there might be a window here (without getting into the pros & cons of AZ approach as a state).

[RiverAux]

There are some stupid legislators in Arizona -- none have apparently bothered to read the laws of the state which already authorize the creation of a State Defense Force.  Not too long ago they tried passing a law creating a quasi-SDF but it got vetoed. 

As to whether its a good idea to use a SDF or a "civilian militia" (which seems to be as illogical a term as I could think of) is another story, but the mechanisms to do it are already in place.  Their SDF could even have an air arm so there would be no need to bring CAP into it. 

I think Pineda testified before Congress at some point talking about the role CAP was playing along the border.  I thought I'd saved a copy of his testimony, but can't find it. 

[Flying Pig]

Did I mention CAP already patrols the border?

[JeffDG]

People who talk about "creating" the militia don't understand the concept very well...

Here's the definition of the militia from 10 USC § 311 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

[RiverAux]

Yes, but CAP rarely says anything about that mission in public.  Pineda's testimony is one of the few examples of times where we have highlighted this activity. 

[Eclipse]

But CAP flying for the state would have to be an AFAM.....and Posse Commutatis would kick in.

CAP's PC-Status does not begin and end with the mission symbol, either it applies or it doesn't.

With that said, why would these need to be AFAM's?  We fly self-funded and locally-funded missions all the time under
corporate symbols.  The only issue/difference is FECA coverage.

[RiverAux]

Lots of law enforcement support flying done as corporate missions. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

River Aux is correct.

A side effect of the 2000 legislation making CAP an auxiliary of the USAF only when performing AF missions is that we are NOT a military auxiliary when flying missions for other than federal agencies.

As such, when flying under contract to a state govt., we are not covered by Posse Comitatus,. 

Law Enforcement missions must be approved by the NOC, but that is our internal regs, not a statute.

[JohnKachenmeister]

This is mere political posturing.  The Gov. of Arizona has the authority to call up the National Guard already, and post them on the border or anywhere else in Arizona for as long as she wants to pay them.

She also has the authority to create a non-federal State Defense Force simply by directing the Adjutant General to do so.  The AG has the power to contract CAP to fly patrols for them anytime they want to pay the freight.

I'm pretty sure AZ doesn't have the $$, or they would have done this already, probably after the first rancher was murdered by the Mexicans.

Of course Napolitano vetoed the bill... she wants as many Mexicans in America as she can get so they can be turned into Democrat voters when amnesty is granted.

[RiverAux]

Lots of law enforcement support flying done as corporate missions.

Well, maybe not "lots" except maybe in certain places.  We probably could be doing more, but just like we could be doing more ground SAR, it takes a lot of time to lay the groundwork with all the local and state agencies that aren't used to working with us in that capacity.

[RiverAux]

Of course Napolitano vetoed the bill... she wants as many Mexicans in America as she can get so they can be turned into Democrat voters when amnesty is granted.

Actually she vetoed it for the same reasons that you just agreed with -- the authority to form a state militia already exists in AZ state law so it wasn't necessary and would cause confusion with current law.  Also, I don't know if you looked much at that specific bill, but it was very unworkable and it deserved being vetoed (and I'm a strong supporter of having SDFs in every state). 

[JohnKachenmeister]

No, I did not see the specific bill, but Napolitano declared me a "Threat to National Security" because I am a veteran who disagrees with Obama.  She's also the one who said "The system worked" after the Christmas Bomber was stopped in Detroit.  Apparently, the "System" is to have an alert Dutchman on every flight.

Somehow, these cognitions do not generate an abundance of trust.

[flyboy53]

Don't forget that most every state in our nation has had an organized SDF or State Guard functioning as a Reserve of the National Guard in one manner or another, expecially when the times Guard is federalized.

I'm not sure how many still exist. Big ones that were in effect during World War II included PA, IN, CA, OH, and NY. PA's was deactivated after WWII. I'm not sure what exists in AZ. I do know, however, that NY has a State Guard that did active service during Sept. 11 and, at one point, could field a force of 9,000 men and women. NY also is organized so that there is a State Guard component of the Air National Guard.

Also, most CAP Wings have active MOUs that allow CAP to assist state government agencies as necessary --as evidenced by county Emergency Management who can request CAP assistance through their state agencies and the Counter Drug Program, which usually requires a local law enforcement sponsor who requests the missions. Besides, CAP did a similar mission in WWII along the border. Wasn't that what Southern Liaison Patrol was all about?

As far as Posse Commutatis, how does that apply when the CAP would only be performing an aerial mission similar to Counter Drug. It isn't CAP's role to arrest anyone in that mission, only to observe and report, why wouldn't border patrol be any different?

[RiverAux]

About half the states currently have an SDF today including TX, CA, and NM. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

To my understanding, CAP does not have a delineated state role, and we would need to avoid anything that would conflict with Posse Comitatus.

Therefore, something like this would best be done by an SDF with aviation assets.

I think South Carolina's SDF has some, based on Army Aviation, and Texas' SG has an Air Wing.  New York and Indiana used to have Air sections in their SDF's but not anymore.

l wonder what Arizona Sen. John McCain, long a foe of CAP, thinks...

[RiverAux]

Well, I think we can assume that the guy who proposed this has no real clue as to the procedures necessary to request CAP to participate in a state mission but as has been said CAP provides law enforcement support to local and state agencies without causing PCA conflicts. 

The only SDFs with actual flying assets are Alaska (state owned planes) and Virginia (use private planes owned by members).  Several other SDFs have elements that provide support to the Air NG, but only on the ground. 

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Is any one up to date on the case study that is being performed in order to take all branches of nonactive duty military and CAP out of the loop of the PC? This case study is being performed by a woman who is an assistant to a congressman, I don't know what congressman it is. They are trying to get rid of the posse comitatus as it applies to all branches that are not considered active duty (and the Coast Guard) to include CAP. CAP is mentioned in the study as a service (branch as it is put in the study) that could be integral to helping police in criminal investigations as searchers for clothing articles or buried bodies and tracking victims through urban and non-urban environments. This was going on since 2008 and I'm not sure if it is still being pursued or not, I am looking for it online.

[JohnKachenmeister]

For Cyborg:

CAP does not have a defined state role, except that each state can define the role for CAP through an MOU. 

The Posse Comitatus act resrains federal military forces from enforcing civilian law.  Drug interdiction is a specific exemption established by Congress.  Posse Comitatus pertains to CAP when we are an auxiliary of the USAF, which is to say anytime we are supporting any federal agency.

CAP is not restricted by the PC Act when we are in a state role, since in order to support a state, we would have to be doing so in "Corporate" status under an MOU. 

So, while we ARE restricted by the PC Act when supporting the federal DEA, we would not be restricted by the PC Act if we flew a corporate mission for the state police under an MOU.

And I am certain that the politician proposing this is clueless about all of this.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/report10&div=14&id=&page=

[RADIOMAN015]

CAP does not have a defined state role, except that each state can define the role for CAP through an MOU. 

The Posse Comitatus act resrains federal military forces from enforcing civilian law.  Drug interdiction is a specific exemption established by Congress.  Posse Comitatus pertains to CAP when we are an auxiliary of the USAF, which is to say anytime we are supporting any federal agency.

CAP is not restricted by the PC Act when we are in a state role, since in order to support a state, we would have to be doing so in "Corporate" status under an MOU. 

So, while we ARE restricted by the PC Act when supporting the federal DEA, we would not be restricted by the PC Act if we flew a corporate mission for the state police under an MOU.

And I am certain that the politician proposing this is clueless about all of this.

I think the issue for any crew members performing any corporate operational support missions are to be aware of what benefits are going to be paid to their surviving family members if they killed.   AF Mission status provides significant benefits.  Most states are pretty cheap or no benefits at all for "volunteers".

I don't think most senior members joined the organization to put their families in a financial bind if they become injured, disabled or killed while performing CAP's "Missions for America"
RM

[Spaceman3750]

... or killed ...

Our families get $800 if one of us gets killed in the "line of duty" (is that phrase appropriate for CAP?). I don't think that increases while on an AFAM, though I may be wrong.

[RiverAux]

Is any one up to date on the case study that is being performed in order to take all branches of nonactive duty military and CAP out of the loop of the PC?

There has been some talk about changing PCA since 9/11 but as nothing has come of it yet I sort of doubt any change is going to happen anytime soon. 

[Eclipse]

... or killed ...

Our families get $800 if one of us gets killed in the "line of duty" (is that phrase appropriate for CAP?). I don't think that increases while on an AFAM, though I may be wrong.

Is that the state benefit?

The key delimiter is FECA - get hurt on an AFAM mission and you have the eligibility to become a pseudo E-9 during the time you are off of work.

[Eclipse]

I don't think most senior members joined the organization to put their families in a financial bind if they become injured, disabled or killed while performing CAP's "Missions for America"

No, our members join to provide service to their community, and the possibility of being killed, or even seriously injured while participating in even our most aggressive mission profiles is statistically zero, so it is not likely a factor when joining.

The benefit we are potentially eligible for are "nice-to-haves" but no usually a factor in most memberships.  The are plenty of other volunteer organizations that afford far less benefits (at least for free), and put their members in harm's way more often.

Considering how hyper-focused you are on losing your job, hiding your service from your employer, and the benefits you would get if killed, not to mention your generally negative comments, I continue to wonder why you keep writing your annual check.  No one is forcing you to do anything, including maintain a membership.

If the ORM numbers of a CAP ID Card in your wallet are too high for you personally, so be it, but stop insinuation some nefarious internet, or hyper-risk for those of us less scared of getting out of bed.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, I have NEVER considered the death benefit of CAP one way or another.  I have done a LOT of things way more dangerous than CAP stuff. 

[RiverAux]

The key delimiter is FECA - get hurt on an AFAM mission and you have the eligibility to become a pseudo E-9 during the time you are off of work.

Actually GS-9 not E-9. 

[RADIOMAN015]

I don't think most senior members joined the organization to put their families in a financial bind if they become injured, disabled or killed while performing CAP's "Missions for America"

No, our members join to provide service to their community, and the possibility of being killed, or even seriously injured while participating in even our most aggressive mission profiles is statistically zero, so it is not likely a factor when joining.

The benefit we are potentially eligible for are "nice-to-haves" but no usually a factor in most memberships.  The are plenty of other volunteer organizations that afford far less benefits (at least for free), and put their members in harm's way more often.

Considering how hyper-focused you are on losing your job, hiding your service from your employer, and the benefits you would get if killed, not to mention your generally negative comments, I continue to wonder why you keep writing your annual check.  No one is forcing you to do anything, including maintain a membership.

If the ORM numbers of a CAP ID Card in your wallet are too high for you personally, so be it, but stop insinuation some nefarious internet, or hyper-risk for those of us less scared of getting out of bed.

Eclipse, you are correct about ALL members making choices about what they want to do or not do in CAP.  I agree with you that most members aren't really thinking about any benefits IF something bad happens to them while performing corporate type "Missions for America".  HOWEVER, I'd hate to be the "corporate" official who signed an MOA/MOU that didn't give any state/count/local government benefits for a corporate mission to a member killed, seriously injuried, or disabled, and explain that to his/her family    (and I do think there's a risk to the membership that in CAP quest to do more missions at the state/local level, the financial protection of members(members families) may not be considered).   

BTW my employer knows I am a CAP member & provides some "in kind" support to my unit every year.   As far as supporting CAP's "Missions for America", as a "volunteer" I will make a decision for each mission based upon my availability (work & family may have to take priority) and personal risk criteria.  I highly doubt that I'm the only person in CAP who does that
RM

[Spaceman3750]

... or killed ...

Our families get $800 if one of us gets killed in the "line of duty" (is that phrase appropriate for CAP?). I don't think that increases while on an AFAM, though I may be wrong.

Is that the state benefit?

The key delimiter is FECA - get hurt on an AFAM mission and you have the eligibility to become a pseudo E-9 during the time you are off of work.

I was wrong, thanks for pointing it out. In my 900-5 skimming I confused death benefit with burial benefit.

CAPR900-5 Para 14 has information about FECA medical/death coverage, but basically we are eligible for full medical coverage while on an AFAM, 66% of GS-9 Step 1 for disability, and the death benefits are determined depending on who the money is going to. Obviously, we are only eligible for this while on an AFAM.

Para. 19 of the same reg dictates our insurance coverage when we are not on an AFAM (CAP, Inc. self insurance). 19.b says that we get $8,000 of medical coverage in excess of our personal insurance coverage. 19.a says that we get $10,000 in death benefits independent of any other insurance (presumably including FECA death benefits). This is the insurance coverage that would apply if we were to accept any Arizona border mission as a corporate mission (which honestly I thought we were doing already).

[Flying Pig]

^AZ doesnt do it.  CAWG does.

[Lancer]

^AZ doesnt do it.  CAWG does.

Soooooooooooooo...maybe instead of, you maybe share some details on what CAWG is doing?

[CAP Producer]

Remember OPSEC please.

[bosshawk]

I can guarantee you that you will not get the details unless you are a CAWG member and CD-screened.  The "customer" has made it clear that they don't want the mission discussed with unauthorized persons.

[Flying Pig]

^AZ doesnt do it.  CAWG does.

Soooooooooooooo...maybe instead of, you maybe share some details on what CAWG is doing?

No.

[SABRE17]

we also have to remember that arizona is under some tough times with a literal war to its south, and washington DC willing to do little to help, with violence rising every day, i can see why the government of Arizona needs all the help it can get whe it comes to protecting its citizens.

[PHall]

we also have to remember that arizona is under some tough times with a literal war to its south, and washington DC willing to do little to help, with violence rising every day, i can see why the government of Arizona needs all the help it can get whe it comes to protecting its citizens.

Funny,  the states of Texas, New Mexico and California are all on the border too and they don't seem to feel the need to do this.

[SABRE17]

Arizona has by far the worst of the problem however.

and why are so many people opposed to using CAP resources, illegal immigration is a national security threat,a llong with smuggling.

[Flying Pig]

we also have to remember that arizona is under some tough times with a literal war to its south, and washington DC willing to do little to help, with violence rising every day, i can see why the government of Arizona needs all the help it can get whe it comes to protecting its citizens.

Funny,  the states of Texas, New Mexico and California are all on the border too and they don't seem to feel the need to do this.

But they need to.

[PHall]

Arizona has by far the worst of the problem however.

and why are so many people opposed to using CAP resources, illegal immigration is a national security threat,a llong with smuggling.

Because I don't want a CAP member shot while "patrolling" the border.
This is a job for the "professionals" who are trained and equipped for the job. Not undertrained and unequipped "volunteers".

[Major Lord]

Defending the borders is one of the Constitutionally mandated duties of the Federal Government. Naturally, they are too busy having hearings on major league baseball and establishing National Che Guevara day to be inconvenienced by carrying out their actual sworn duties.  If the responsibility of providing border security against a foreign power is an issue of National Defense, CAP can't play, since we are non-combatants ( Although I would love to take a poll of members to see who would take up arms if called upon)

If on the other hand,  protecting the border is a Law Enforcement role, we can't play because ( at least in our own minds) we are subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, an act, which should be pointed out, has dozens of statutory exemptions, and has never resulted in a prosecution. ( Even when the National Guard smoked a church full of women and children in Waco Texas, a practice I believe should be strongly frowned upon in CAP)

Another case exists that would allow us to carry out our "benevolent" role, and that is to search the border areas for "lost hikers" ( i.e, criminal aliens who were robbed, poor navigators, or could not carry enough water) and vector the Border Patrol in to help those poor innocent victims who were merely trying to pack drugs into the U.S., practice their criminal trades in a more lucrative locales, or just coming to steal U.S. citizens identities and criminally avoid taxes while working under the table. i.e, undocumented liberals......

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a nice solution, which is to use his power as Sheriff to summon the Posse Comitatus Which is well within his power, and I understand that there is no shortage of volunteers; Many retired Law Enforcement. Although I am sure he would like the help of our aircraft, I think he knows that a lot of CAP people are not, shall we say, temperamentally or emotionally suited for actual law enforcement work.

Major Lord

[SABRE17]

yes but cap wouldn't be involved in the actual enforcement of the law, we would merely be a platform and resource for local agencies to utilize to accomplish their mission

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sabre has a point.  Depending on the exact mission, we could provide a ride for a deputy (or an Arizona Militiaman).  The pax would report activity and call in resources, not the CAP member.

Do NOT discount the "Rescue" mission.  With additional resources, CAP could, flying unarmed patrols, call in groups of persons walking through the desert.  Maybe they're illegals, maybe they're birdwatchers.  We'll let the guys with guns on the ground make that call.

As long as we are not in direct combat, we are in combat support, and therefore carrying out the non-combat missions of the Air Force.  Calling in targets from 1000 feet to forces deployed to engage those targets is not direct combat.

[Major Lord]

Right. Much depends upon whether we are acting under the direction of law enforcement, in which case we are arguably "Police Agents" or merely some airborne neighborhood watch program  reporting the position of "possible lost hikers". Our CD "angels" dance on the head of that pin all the time, and I have never heard of a criminal case thrown out because CAP insisted that they were not under LE control. To me, CAP flying border missions makes a lot of sense, but the current administration is not terribly interested in resolving the crime problem at the border. They are way too involved right now X-raying nuns and groping our junk.

Major Lord

[SABRE17]

and as CAP, our mission capabilities need to evolve along with what society needs, that's why I'm so worried about our future with the 121.5 ELt  searches, we need to evolve to work around the new 406 mhz ELT's. after WWII we evolved, cause with the exception of south if key west, there aren't to many submarines off our coast...

[Spaceman3750]

we need to evolve to work around the new 406 mhz ELT's

We did. The 406s have a 121.5 signal that we use to DF. There is nothing to DF on 406, just a 1 second data burst every 50 seconds.

[sarmed1]

...illegal immigration is a national security threat...

Illegal immigartion itself is not a national security threat, there is not a secret army of undocumented Mexicans forming an operating base or terroist cells with the intention of engaging in direct combat or otherwise planning to destabilize and overthrow the US for the glory of the red, the white and the green.  Illegal immigrants are here for pretty much one thing, to work like busy beavers and earn big american bucks (compared to the peaso) to take/send back home to the family.

The problems are much more abundant than "National Security":
Drug trafficking is likely the largest criminal issue here
Human Traffiking and explotation are also big issues (the "coyotes" take these peoples money in exchange for getting them across the border to a waiting job...usually other illegal jobs or otherwise akin to slave labor or just take their money and leave them in the desert to rot)\
The closest tie in you can make to a national security issue is that if the border is so easily crossed by a bunch of Joe Blow civilians toting infants and small children, how easy is it for someone like a terrorist or 2 to sneak in or sneak in some bad bad CBRNE type weapon.  But if that was the case you would also hear about how we need to beef up our protection on the northern border...its just as vast nothingness in many parts up there too.....

Lets be a little more realistic here.  The way Homeland Security is, if they realistically believed that there was a threat to National Security via the US/Mexico border they would be all over the place with body scanners, pat downs and xray machines and roving gun jeeps and attack helicopters etc etc etc.  For the most part no one wants to spend that kind of money to stop a bunch of people that are just coming here to try and get a job doing the things our own citizens are too lazy to do themselves....National Security is just an attempt at a rallying banner to drum up support to dump money into the illigal immigration problem that frankly no one outside of the Border States really cares about.

mk

[JeffDG]

protecting the border is a Law Enforcement role

With respect to this statement.  Protection of national borders is the sine qua non of a nation's military...it's why nations created armies in the first place...it's not a law-enforcement function.

Now, just because it's a military function doesn't make it a combatant function.  In the absence of declared hostilities, borders can be quite peaceful, and can be patrolled in a non-combatant role.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I non-concur with sarmed's analysis.

While SOME of the illegal border crossers are, in fact, people seeking money for their families and who are willing to work in conditions which are substandard-to-inhuman by our standards, not all of them are benign.

Chavez of Venezuela has teamed up with the Arab terrorist states, and is actively teaching Spanish to committed Jihadists so they can infitrate the US under the cover of being Mexican campesinos.  Drug gangs are particularly violent, and cross into the US with impunity.  That's why Phoenix has the highest rate of kidnapping in the US.  Americans have been killed, and even if we know who the culprits are, Mexico will not extradite to the US.  They have safe haven there after killing Gringos.

In 1916 Pancho Villa raided Columbus, NM, and that began the Mexican Punitive Expedition.  You SHOULD know this, since it was the first time the airplane was used in combat by US Military forces.  Now the raids occur so frequently and with such ferocity that we have ceded large tracts of public land to Mexico and warn Americans not to enter because it is too dangerous.

This sounds like a war to me.  If not a war, at least a low-level insurgency/infiltration operation.

And you have WAY more confidence in DHS than I do.

[SABRE17]

to sarmed, if you can smuggle drugs and people in, the you can smuggle terrorists and weapons in, this what one dirty bomb in any us city would do the economy. unfortunately it may take just that to finally lock down the borders, like it took a rash of bombs in planes to get the US to stop accepting packages from certain countries.

[Flying Pig]

sarmed1

.National Security is just an attempt at a rallying banner to drum up support to dump money into the illigal immigration problem that frankly no one outside of the Border States really cares about.

Wow. 

[SABRE17]

there are plenty of people, even up here in the deep blue north east who would support a stronger border, i know cap pilots that would fly those missions if they had the chance.

[Eclipse]

^ Seriously.

[JeffDG]

...illegal immigration is a national security threat...

Illegal immigartion itself is not a national security threat, there is not a secret army of undocumented Mexicans forming an operating base or terroist cells with the intention of engaging in direct combat or otherwise planning to destabilize and overthrow the US for the glory of the red, the white and the green.  Illegal immigrants are here for pretty much one thing, to work like busy beavers and earn big american bucks (compared to the peaso) to take/send back home to the family.

To be precise, illegal immigration is not, per se, a national security threat.  It is, however, a symptom of a national security threat.  A nation that cannot control its borders ceases to be a sovereign entity.  Control of a defined piece of real estate is the very essence of nationhood and sovereignty.

[LtColRAKing]

As far as the state paying for border patrol, Arizona is broke. They can't even support education what alone border patrol.

The border issue is state and federal problem. The resolve should come from both though.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Arizona is broke, as is California, from supporting illegal aliens.  They get free education, free medical care, food stamps, welfare, WIC, ADC, and all other kind of govt. aid yet they NEVER pay taxes, and send the money back to Mexico.  Money in circulation turns over about 2.5 times its value in economic activity, unless you take it OUT of circulation by sending it to circulate elsewhere.

Border security sounds like a good investment.  Cut off the inward flow of illegals to cut off the outward flow of money.

[PHall]

Arizona is broke, as is California, from supporting illegal aliens.  They get free education, free medical care, food stamps, welfare, WIC, ADC, and all other kind of govt. aid yet they NEVER pay taxes, and send the money back to Mexico.  Money in circulation turns over about 2.5 times its value in economic activity, unless you take it OUT of circulation by sending it to circulate elsewhere.

Border security sounds like a good investment.  Cut off the inward flow of illegals to cut off the outward flow of money.

California isn't broke from supporting Illegal Aliens. It's broke because the entire budget process has become unworkable due to 40 plus changes to the State Constitution that have been passed in the last 30 years through ballot initiatives that mandate certain funding levels for various programs. The state legislature actually controls about 40% of the budget.

[Flying Pig]

CA pays billions in supporting illegals.  Education, medial treatments and incarceration.  Billions that could be used other places.  Now, the State would just find something else to spend it on the next day, but at least it wold be spent on Americans and people who actually belong here.  I did a personal study, by no means scientific, when I was working the street. In a week, about 60% of my calls for service were calls dealing with illegals.  A lot dealing with domestic violence or child abuse and loud parties.  Believe me, when I say parties...You have NO IDEA!!!  Im talking hundreds of people and two deputies.  Maybe 3-4 if we are fat that night on deputies!  These parties can take a couple hours to disperse. Then you end up finding dope, underage drunks, etc.  So dont laugh when I say we spend our time "breaking up parties!"
The bulk of my vehicle stops were illegals and a lot of DUIs.  And believe me, despite what politicians like people to believe, illegals ARE NOT afraid to call the cops for help.  I laugh every time I hear Nancy Pelosi talk about "people in the shadows". Illegals are not the slightest bit concerned about the local PD or Sheriff deporting them.  Someone needs to put a $ sign on those stats.  Im sure its not hard.  But any study like that would be "racist" although the illegals aren't all Mexican.  Many east Indians in my AO as well who are illegals.  Then when you go to the local schools for calls, and I can bet that most of the kids there are children of illegals knowing the areas I work.  Again, $$$.
Illegals on Probation!  Thats the one I like. Yes, CA puts illegals on probation vs deporting them.  Who knows why.  Again, $$$. 

Just shut off the incentives, and the illegal immigration problem will pretty much sort its self out.  It really is that easy.  No education, your kids don't get to be citizens if mom and dad are hear illegally and NO jobs.  Heavy penalties for people who hire illegals. We don't have to chase them all down, they will weed themselves out.  Every county has illegals to some extent. They just don't cater to their every need like the US does.   If you want to get into drug trafficking.  The majority of cases I work on, the dealers are illegal, but you cant take that into account when your working the case.  Otherwise, if you could go after them for simply being illegal, things would be a lot easier.

[HGjunkie]

*Long whistle*

I did NOT realize the border situation was this bad.

[JeffDG]

Just shut off the incentives, and the illegal immigration problem will pretty much sort its self out.  It really is that easy.  No education, your kids don't get to be citizens if mom and dad are hear illegally and NO jobs.  Heavy penalties for people who hire illegals. We don't have to chase them all down, they will weed themselves out.  Every county has illegals to some extent. They just don't cater to their every need like the US does.   If you want to get into drug trafficking.  The majority of cases I work on, the dealers are illegal, but you cant take that into account when your working the case.  Otherwise, if you could go after them for simply being illegal, things would be a lot easier.

Let me start out by saying I'm a legal immigrant who's been working for years and has yet to see a "green card" but subsist on a temporary status (and yes, my membership in CAP is dependent on a waiver).  So those who think anti-illegals are anti-immigrant, well let's just say that doesn't fly.

Most immigrants I know have a level of loathing of illegals that would make most US Citizens blanch.  We legals are expected to spend years waiting, and spend 10's of thousands of dollars to obtain and maintain our legal status, while illegals get stuff handed to them.  As an example, if I were to be laid off tomorrow, I would have 10 days to leave the United States...that's right...days.

My personal solution is to turn over illegal enforcement to private citizens through the civil courts.  Make hiring an illegal equivilant to copyright infringement...and give a right-of-action to anyone who may have been at all damaged by illegal immigration.  Put the same penalties in place as copyright infringement:  $150,000 per infringement, or in the case of illegals, $150,000 per illegal in the employ of a company.  Suddenly $2/hr to pick lettuce or do landscaping isn't so profitable if someone can come and sue you so that you owe $2/hr + $150,000 per employee.

Positives:
1.  No cost to taxpayers
2.  Illegals will self-deport once there are no jobs
3.  Co-opt a traditional liberal interest group (trial lawyers) into this cause...know all those guys who advertise for Mesothelioma victims...guess what they'll be looking for!
4.  Some people hurt by illegals get a nice payday.

[MIKE]

Drifting.

[billford1]

If the PC Law is modified to make CAP effectively a Service Branch CAP will become a target for terrorists. The way things have been we aren't organized, trained or equipped like the military but are are unpaid and unarmed. If there is a National Emergency declared and we get expanded responsibilities we'll be exposed to threats up close as the enemy perceives us as a soft target. The locations where Cadets Drill in uniform should be of great concern.

[JohnKachenmeister]

There IS a serious force protection issue, but I don't think we should run from  a mission becauser somebody MIGHT take action against us. 

Gawd, what has happened to the CAP that flew light planes out against the enemy?

We've gone from "Can do, Sir!" to a bunch of snivelling little cowards hiding behind important-sounding laws to try to shield us from unpleasant duty.

We can harden our assets, and we can still take out place among those Americans who stepped up to face the threats to our nation.

Or, we can put on our golf shirts, tell people we are just a government funded flying club, and continue to believe that laws and lawyers keep us from doing meaningful service.

[billford1]

Do you have ideas for how CAP should handle force protection if the state doesn't have LEOs or ANG folks to go with us? I'd like to know how force protection for CAP members is being worked in Arizona. Do you suppose the decision makers will determine that some CAP folks should be tasked with guarding their own?

"a bunch of snivelling little cowards hiding behind important-sounding laws to try to shield us from unpleasant duty."

WHA??  We've become what we've been told what our role is. I agree with you that we can harden our assets and cowboy up like we may be required to but for now Many of us wear the Polo.  It doesn't seem like we're just a flying club.

Some will avoid duty if they have to wait to be reimbursed for fuel and some incidental expenses allowed.  A lot of us are increasingly short of money to spare for CAP activities. The state may need to consider compensating us as they would other Service Branch Members. Some of us can burn vacation days from work but shouldn't we be paid and given the supplies to do the job while it is in progress?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yes.  I DO know how to harden and defend critical assets.  It requires training, resources, and includes both physical measures and security procedures, but it is not rocket science.  We can do it if we want to. 

I deployed half my unit on Deepwater Horizon photo missions for several months.  We worked out a rotation schedule, and had planes or CAP vans shuttle crews to the base for a few days at a time.  That takes a little planning, but it is do-able and still not rocket science.

Reimbursement included free (direct pay) hotel rooms and meals, plus a small per diem allowance that was paid within two weeks, along with any fuel reimbursement.  Delays in payment were caused by the officer blundering his paperwork.  Learning in those cases usually took place fairly quickly, even for the dumber guys.  Classic Skinnerian learning theory... a system of rewards for doing a task right, and denial of reward for doing it wrong.

There is NO reason CAP cannot perform the border patrol mission.

Don't conceal a gelatinous backbone by hiding it behind specious interpretations of laws.

[Eclipse]

Some will avoid duty if they have to wait to be reimbursed for fuel and some incidental expenses allowed.  A lot of us are increasingly short of money to spare for CAP activities. The state may need to consider compensating us as they would other Service Branch Members. Some of us can burn vacation days from work but shouldn't we be paid and given the supplies to do the job while it is in progress?

Paid?  No.  We are volunteers.  Also, being paid changes the entire dynamic of expectation.

With that said, per diem and expense reimbursement are now a part of our regulations and required in many cases.  Having to wait for that reimbursement is just part of the game.  I have personally received per diem and billeting reimbursements on at least two missions.

As has been said here before, no member should ever give of their time or treasure to the point it is hardship for them, that misses the point of CAP, and if you are in a situation where a particular activity is too much of a financial stretch, you should not be there.

[RADIOMAN015]

Some will avoid duty if they have to wait to be reimbursed for fuel and some incidental expenses allowed.  A lot of us are increasingly short of money to spare for CAP activities. The state may need to consider compensating us as they would other Service Branch Members. Some of us can burn vacation days from work but shouldn't we be paid and given the supplies to do the job while it is in progress?

Paid?  No.  We are volunteers.  Also, being paid changes the entire dynamic of expectation.

With that said, per diem and expense reimbursement are now a part of our regulations and required in many cases.  Having to wait for that reimbursement is just part of the game.  I have personally received per diem and billeting reimbursements on at least two missions.

As has been said here before, no member should ever give of their time or treasure to the point it is hardship for them, that misses the point of CAP, and if you are in a situation where a particular activity is too much of a financial stretch, you should not be there.

Volunteer Disaster Medical Assistance Teams when activated/deployed  to provide medical assistance are temporary federal civilian employees, that are paid a specific GS rating based upon their position being filled on the team.  Although I don't expect us as CAP members to get paid for short missions (e.g. 3 days or less), I do believe that any missions longer than 3 days should allow us to be brought in and paid as temporary civil service civilian employees based upon the mission skill being utilized, e.g. pilot, as well as reimbursed for other expenses (food, lodging, transportation).  Reimbursement should not take longer than 1 week.
RM

[JohnKachenmeister]

Never gonna happen.  We are volunteers.  We were volunteers in combat and we are volunteers now.  All you can expect is to sometimes get a little per diem.

Me, I'm happy with an occasional "Your officers did a good job, Colonel."

[billford1]

Never gonna happen.  We are volunteers.  We were volunteers in combat and we are volunteers now.  All you can expect is to sometimes get a little per diem.

Me, I'm happy with an occasional "Your officers did a good job, Colonel."

So far the kind of missions I've seen have been short duration, 3 days or less. Yeah I'm a volunteer and glad for what I can do working a mission with the vacation days I can burn. I know members however who don't get paid when they are away from their jobs.  These are people who give more to the Civil Air Patrol than anybody.

If there is a mission that lasts a week or two and we are there with the rest of the force what choice are you going to make for the volunteers under your command who are of modest financial means and who have the heart to serve?  Do you really think that Civil Air Patrol Force Members should not get the same treatment as other Civil Servants with what appear to be increased expectations as our roles change in the future? I agree with Radio Man.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Here in FL, we had a dual response to the oil spill.  We had some missions flown for AFNSEP as a federal mission, but 80 per cent of our missions were flown as corporate for the FL EMA.  This was an intense operational tempo for several months.  It took the entire wing, about half of my unit, and all but a few of my rated aircrewmen.  We still had to respond to the usual SAR missions to turn off ELT's, too.

The operational tempo accelerated the maintenance tempo, which required ferrying aircraft in for 100-hour checks more often. 

We worked out a schedule, used transport pilots rather than mission pilots for the ferry flights, shuttled crews around either in aircraft or sometimes in vans, and got the mission done without hardship to anyone.   No employer distress, nobody went broke.

It took planning, leadership, and teamwork.

The guys who carried out this mission were auxiliary officers of the US Air Force.  You can't do this with unpaid employees of a non-profit corporation. 

[Eclipse]

So far the kind of missions I've seen have been short duration, 3 days or less. Yeah I'm a volunteer and glad for what I can do working a mission with the vacation days I can burn. I know members however who don't get paid when they are away from their jobs.  These are people who give more to the Civil Air Patrol than anybody.

We all make the same deal when we join - "give as much as you can, and then we will expect more".  If you can be "there", be "there", if you can't, no harm or foul, unless you committed to something and don't show.

Just about everyone takes vacation time, personal time, or unpaid leave to participate in missions and other activities - the fact that you
are not getting paid by your full time gig doesn't make your service "better", it is part of the deal and why volunteer service is a sacrifice.

If there is a mission that lasts a week or two and we are there with the rest of the force what choice are you going to make for the volunteers under your command who are of modest financial means and who have the heart to serve?

"Thank you for coming, please stay and help as long as you can, and let us know when you have to leave."

The willingness to serve doesn't automatically equal the ability to serve, whatever the challenge might be.  Some people have creative,
flexible jobs, are retired, or whatever, the vast majority are not.  Some people believe a vacation is their deity-granted right each year, feel cheated if they don't get annual beach or fishing time, and resent having to use their PTO for CAP.  Others see vacations as a waste of potential and would prefer to be productive.

Do what you will do, but don't insinuate the CAP volunteer model is "broken" just because some members don't have the means to take a week off for a mission, encampment, or training.  Take a look at some local volunteer FD's, see what those members spend each year in equipment, and ask how much they are paid, even when they are on call, sleeping in a firehouse.

Some members would like to be pilots, but the financial realities of pilot training to a level useful to CAP make that a non-starter.  Should they blame CAP for not providing flight training?  Of course not.  CAP's whole point is to take existing resources and people's valuable skills and put them to use for little to no cost, not provide part time DR jobs.

Once you start paying people, the expectations go up exponentially, and the ability to come and go as you please disappears, or the money goes elsewhere the first time people don't answer the phone.

This is why normalizing the ranks, figuring out our real readiness, and increasing our troop strength is so critical, but that doesn't mean the basic CAP idea is invalid or unfair.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

CAP volunteers are just that, we give of our time freely. Why pay me for doing what I love? I get paid to sit on my butt on the couch all day every day, so my point of view on this is pretty skewed so if I get it wrong please don't hang me by the thumbs and shove bamboo shoots under my toenails.

When I was a cadet, I delivered newspapers in the morning then I went to high school then to work. Except on Thursdays I only did the first two because CAP was that night, and I wasn't missing that for the world. When a mission came up, I called work and told them I wouldn't be there probably for a few days and why, and that was that. Of course in INWG there is a state statute/law whatever it is, that actually says that a person cannot be fired or demoted or any repercussions acted upon an employee  who calls before start of shift/duty and informs them of an emergency mission in CAP. It is really there, and I was so pleased about finding that. It also says that if you notify your boss of a call up for a mission during shift if they say you can go then they can't do anything about it either.

But the thing is, we are volunteers, volunteering is volunteering. Would you expect to be paid when you work on a house with habitat for humanities?

[billford1]

I agree with Eclipse and LTC John Kachenmeister in principle. I give lots of my time to CAP with no regrets.

My perspective is based on the premise that with a significant chain of events where our National Security is impacted that the Federal Government will need a lot more participants. They may want to depend a lot more on the Civil Air Patrol and will have expectations that we presently may not meet in many states except for some where there are a lot more missions.

LTC Kachenmeister's explanation was insightful.

[tdepp]

We all make the same deal when we join - "give as much as you can, and then we will expect more".  If you can be "there", be "there", if you can't, no harm or foul, unless you committed to something and don't show.


Do what you will do, but don't insinuate the CAP volunteer model is "broken" just because some members don't have the means to take a week off for a mission, encampment, or training.  Take a look at some local volunteer FD's, see what those members spend each year in equipment, and ask how much they are paid, even when they are on call, sleeping in a firehouse.

Indeed, Eclipse. Well said.  I have been unemployed for the past six months and have been able to spend a considerable amount of time on CAP activities.  That has been one of the few blessings of my current streak of bad luck. 

Last Monday, nearly 50 South Dakota and Nebraska CAP members dropped everything--jobs, school, family plans--to look for a downed aircraft in the snow and wind.  That 50 volunteers would do this to look for people they don't even know is simply unbelievable--and touching.  I like hanging out with people with sense of service to their nation and others--as volunteers.

[Flying Pig]

CAP volunteers are just that, we give of our time freely. Why pay me for doing what I love? I get paid to sit on my butt on the couch all day every day, so my point of view on this is pretty skewed so if I get it wrong please don't hang me by the thumbs and shove bamboo shoots under my toenails.

When I was a cadet, I delivered newspapers in the morning then I went to high school then to work. Except on Thursdays I only did the first two because CAP was that night, and I wasn't missing that for the world. When a mission came up, I called work and told them I wouldn't be there probably for a few days and why, and that was that. Of course in INWG there is a state statute/law whatever it is, that actually says that a person cannot be fired or demoted or any repercussions acted upon an employee  who calls before start of shift/duty and informs them of an emergency mission in CAP. It is really there, and I was so pleased about finding that. It also says that if you notify your boss of a call up for a mission during shift if they say you can go then they can't do anything about it either.

But the thing is, we are volunteers, volunteering is volunteering. Would you expect to be paid when you work on a house with habitat for humanities?

Im all for getting paid to do what I love doing!!!

[Earhart1971]

There will be a time in the future, where the FEDs will have to wake up and smell the coffee. Civil Air Patrol will become more like a National Guard.

Higher rates of per diem. We will have full time aircrews paid a living wage, and we will do it all a lot cheaper than Border Patrol Pilots and National Guard Helicopter Pilots.

It's only a matter of time.

When there are only 400,000 FAA Licensed Pilots and 60 to 70 percent of the pilots are older than 50. That means we will be running out of pilots.

All we need is another hot spot in the World to bleed more Guard Units and Aviation Units over seas and we will start moving towards that end.

[Major Carrales]

One you have people who only do CAP "for the money" we lose something most important about what makes CAP work.  The heart of a true volunteer. 

If we paid CAP members, it would radically change the culture of CAP.  I would speculate that some 87% of CAP's current members would not be able to commit to extended such service and a new wave of members would replace them.  CAP would then be rolled into the Air National Guard (after all, why have two air militias) and fade into oblivion.

[Earhart1971]

One you have people who only do CAP "for the money" we lose something most important about what makes CAP work.  The heart of a true volunteer. 

If we paid CAP members, it would radically change the culture of CAP.  I would speculate that some 87% of CAP's current members would not be able to commit to extended such service and a new wave of members would replace them.  CAP would then be rolled into the Air National Guard (after all, why have two air militias) and fade into oblivion.

Disagree on all your points, it will make us over to be more professional.I would hire someone that served for free, and is already in CAP first. I have had ex military pilots tell me, they will not fly for Free.  Its only a matter of when.  There will be huge need for experienced pilots. 
D

[Major Carrales]

One you have people who only do CAP "for the money" we lose something most important about what makes CAP work.  The heart of a true volunteer. 

If we paid CAP members, it would radically change the culture of CAP.  I would speculate that some 87% of CAP's current members would not be able to commit to extended such service and a new wave of members would replace them.  CAP would then be rolled into the Air National Guard (after all, why have two air militias) and fade into oblivion.

Disagree on all your points, it will make us over to be more professional.I would hire someone that served for free, and is already in CAP first. I have had ex military pilots tell me, they will not fly for Free.  Its only a matter of when.  There will be huge need for experienced pilots. 
D

You fundamental fallacy is that the Civil Air Patrol is not pilots alone. 

I submit that the inherent worth of Civil Air Patrol is the economic edge that unpaid volunteers bring.  Start making the Civil Air Patrol a huge significant "line item" in the US defense budget; where salaries, benefits and other items create a "mole" to "whack" and the Civil Air Patrol will lose its viability.

As a lawmaker in these economic times (if I were one) looking for the cost-benefit analysis to make cuts; as Civil Air Patrol exists now it SAVEs money via community service.  If it were a paid force, I would consider moving it into the Air National Guard as an extention of some "small aircraft/recon/SAR" function.  It would not have an inherent need for existance.

Also, the Cadet Program keeps us alive, I will again submit that CAP exists as it is because there is value in Emergency Service, Aerospace Education and Cadet Programs.  Tinker with that balance and you are likely to lose supporters on the Hill and in the Community.

Let's not start "redefining" CAP again in the image we want.  Let's deal with and barter for the realities that exist.  Nothing stops us from being "professional" now...save self-loathing, lack of self-worth brought on by a misunderstanding of what CAP IS and the ridiculous "apples/oranges" arguments brought about when people make specious comparisons between CAP and the US Military/Law Enforcement.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I LIKE being a voilunteer and I will fly for free.  I have a unit of officers who feel the same way.  We don't need mercenaries, we want volunteers.

[BillB]

Sparky.
During World War II CAP members WERE paid a per diem. And they were still volunteers. There are many misions CAP has taken part in where per diem has been paid to CAP members. If such a wage was authorized, it should be for housing, meals and expenses only. It's been proposed in another thread that CAP should be moved from USAF to the National Guard Bureau as part of the Air National Guard. That makes sense in that the uniforms remain the same, but I don't know what effect it would have on the cadet program.

[RiverAux]

"Per diem" is generally considered reimbursement for food and lodging and is not a wage.  CAP members can receive per diem on missions now, though you have to get pre-approval and it isn't common. 

Also, the Cadet Program keeps us alive, I will again submit that CAP exists as it is because there is value in Emergency Service, Aerospace Education and Cadet Programs.  Tinker with that balance and you are likely to lose supporters on the Hill and in the Community.

We could drop our aerospace education function and not miss a beat, at least so far as external AE since we do so little of it now anyway. 

[Al Sayre]

Also, the per diem is limited to $25.00 per day.  During DWH we found that this won't even cover 3 decent meals a couple of bottles of water and doing your laundry at the hotel free laundromat.  Yes, I know you can eat 3 meals at McD's and Subway and come in around $20.00, but that isn't very sustaining in a high tempo environment.  If we want our people to eat healthy, then we need to provide for them.  It isn't fair to ask someone to give up a week or two of their vacation time from work (equivalent to a fairly large real money donation) to spend it providing a service for free and not at least reimburse their incidental expenses - hotel, food, laundry etc.

[RiverAux]

Also, the per diem is limited to $25.00 per day.  During DWH we found that this won't even cover 3 decent meals a couple of bottles of water and doing your laundry at the hotel free laundromat. 

Just where is that limited?  CAP regulations?  AF regulations?  Federal law?  I know that standard federal per diem rates are much higher than that (though they depend on where you go). 

[Major Carrales]

"Per diem" is generally considered reimbursement for food and lodging and is not a wage.  CAP members can receive per diem on missions now, though you have to get pre-approval and it isn't common. 

Also, the Cadet Program keeps us alive, I will again submit that CAP exists as it is because there is value in Emergency Service, Aerospace Education and Cadet Programs.  Tinker with that balance and you are likely to lose supporters on the Hill and in the Community.

We could drop our aerospace education function and not miss a beat, at least so far as external AE since we do so little of it now anyway.

I tend to agree that it is our most anemic area.  Still, I have made many presentations to Middle Schools and Elementary Schools...but to larger groups....not so much.

[SAR-EMT1]

Don't forget that most every state in our nation has had an organized SDF or State Guard functioning as a Reserve of the National Guard in one manner or another, expecially when the times Guard is federalized.

I'm not sure how many still exist. Big ones that were in effect during World War II included PA, IN, CA, OH, and NY. PA's was deactivated after WWII. I'm not sure what exists in AZ. I do know, however, that NY has a State Guard that did active service during Sept. 11 and, at one point, could field a force of 9,000 men and women. NY also is organized so that there is a State Guard component of the Air National Guard.

Also, most CAP Wings have active MOUs that allow CAP to assist state government agencies as necessary --as evidenced by county Emergency Management who can request CAP assistance through their state agencies and the Counter Drug Program, which usually requires a local law enforcement sponsor who requests the missions. Besides, CAP did a similar mission in WWII along the border. Wasn't that what Southern Liaison Patrol was all about?

As far as Posse Commutatis, how does that apply when the CAP would only be performing an aerial mission similar to Counter Drug. It isn't CAP's role to arrest anyone in that mission, only to observe and report, why wouldn't border patrol be any different?

What's funny is my state actually had legislation at one time forbidding the formation of an ARNG style SDF. Currently, there is wording in the state code authorizing a state naval force (for Lake Michigan) however, I've never seen / heard of it actually existing.

The northern portion of my state has always been terrified of guns and uniforms, so I'm not holding my breath.

[JeffDG]

What's funny is my state actually had legislation at one time forbidding the formation of an ARNG style SDF. Currently, there is wording in the state code authorizing a state naval force (for Lake Michigan) however, I've never seen / heard of it actually existing.

The northern portion of my state has always been terrified of guns and uniforms, so I'm not holding my breath.

What's interesting is that the Constitution specifically authorizes things like the National Guard on land, but conspicuously absent is any language permitting the States to maintain naval forces at all.  That power is reserved solely to the feds.

[RiverAux]

What's funny is my state actually had legislation at one time forbidding the formation of an ARNG style SDF. Currently, there is wording in the state code authorizing a state naval force (for Lake Michigan) however, I've never seen / heard of it actually existing.

Actually Gov Blogo signed an Executive Order to reactivate the Illinois Naval Militia but apparently nothing beyond that ever happened.  According to a table compiled in 2006 of militia laws, an Illinois State Guard is authorized by 20 IL. Compiled Stat. 1805/3 and 20 IL. Compiled Stat. 1815/2.  I haven't verified that myself.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What's funny is my state actually had legislation at one time forbidding the formation of an ARNG style SDF. Currently, there is wording in the state code authorizing a state naval force (for Lake Michigan) however, I've never seen / heard of it actually existing.

The northern portion of my state has always been terrified of guns and uniforms, so I'm not holding my breath.

What's interesting is that the Constitution specifically authorizes things like the National Guard on land, but conspicuously absent is any language permitting the States to maintain naval forces at all.  That power is reserved solely to the feds.

Many states have Naval Militia.  The Constitution doesn't mention an Air Force, either.

[RiverAux]

Many states have Naval Militia. 

Actually only 4 states have active naval militias right now (AK, NY, OH, SC, and a few states have naval components within their SDF but might not be considered true naval militias)  and only about half the states even have provisions in their state laws allowing for them (almost every state has provisions for an SDF though only about half have active ones right now). 

[SAR-EMT1]

Defending the borders is one of the Constitutionally mandated duties of the Federal Government.   If the responsibility of providing border security against a foreign power is an issue of National Defense, CAP can't play, since we are non-combatants ( Although I would love to take a poll of members to see who would take up arms if called upon)


Major Lord

Do it...