Most of the money going on 'defense' can not be used for defending the country owing to provisions in: The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits the deliberate use of the armed forces to execute law on US soil. After the problems with defending the country on 9/11 the Department of Homeland Security was established within the Department of 'Defense', and one relevant part of Homeland Security is the National Guard: The National Guard, along with state police, does not have jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration policy1. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the deliberate use of the armed forces to enforce law on US soil2. While U.S. troops are authorized to use force in self-defense, their deployment to the border is limited to performing support functions. People tell me I'm selfish to be concerned about defending our country and that we should spend money defending Israel or Taiwan or somewhere but given the way the money we spent 'helping' Ukraine has just fed a 2 year war and killed massive numbers of people I can't even count that as some kind of defense. I don't mind spending some money but not that much and some of it has to help in some way with actual defense.
The last time the US was actually threatened to where the nature of the nation was at risk, was in the Civil War. On July 11 1864 Confederate Lt. Gen. Jubal Early came within a hairbreadth of invading Washington with a corps of battle-tested, lean and hungry troops. I'm not sure a case can be made that any of the money spent on 'defense' was used for defense of the country, though perhaps for trade routes. For oil wells we want to control and gas fields we also want, that would justify a great many wars even up to today. Russia is the second largest natural gas field in the world and obviously very influential US petroleum companies want to control it and if we win the war in Ukraine, then we will. But I'm not sure we can call even 1% of our 'defense' budget actual defense.
They could have the jurisdiction if a federal department gave it to them, with of course direct oversight from federal officials. A little similar to how a sheriff in a small town might temporarily "deputize" two men in the town when he needs assistance in a situation. The regular armed forces are probably not very well-suited to carrying out immigration enforcement. The only possible situation might be intercepting groups of armed drug smugglers crossing the border.
Huge amounts of money were spent creating defensive border walls and trying to prevent movement across people in other countries. During the occupation, the U.S. spent over $300 million on a border fence between Pakistan and Afghanistan, trying to keep insurgents in Pakistan from moving back and forth into Afghanistan. (This might have been around 2004 to 2006) And now the U.S. is funding border security for Ukraine, a $60 billion annual aid package that includes $300 million specifically earmarked for border security. 'Nothing more backwards' than US funding Ukraine border security but not our own, Greg Wehner, Fox News, April 20, 2024 U.S. to help build border facilities on Tajik-Afghan border - embassy, Reuters, September 1, 2021 "US backs Pakistani-Afghan border fence", Randeep Ramesh, The Guardian, September 14, 2005 Millions In U.S. Funds Spent On Border Equipment In Afghanistan That No Longer Works, NPR, Merrit Kennedy, December 1, 2017 "In 2006, the U.S. military purchased $12.1 million worth of inspection equipment for five border posts in Afghanistan in an effort to crack down on illicit drug smuggling and boost customs duty revenues to the Afghan government. After operation, training and maintenance costs, the total investment for the equipment to date is estimated at up to $62.6 million."
So, we can afford to buy the drug detection equipment to give away but not to use ourselves. There's something wrong with our government.
