Trump will use military to guard border

  • Thread starter Thread starter CradleRC58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have not had occasion to study the Posse Comitatus Act, but it seems highly doubtful to me that anyone needs to declare war before invading to enable the armed forces to resist incursions. The Japanese (other than some agents) didn’t actually land or come ashore at Pearl Harbor. But they certainly did cross the border. Neither side had declared war at the moment of invasion.
 
Even military troops can be removed by the next President.

He needs to build The Wall.
The Wall is not going to solve our immigration problems, most of which are already here. Trump can control the military, but he can’t get congress to act to address immigration, or border security.
Maybe he can quarter them on people’s ranches and in their homes next.
It sure would be a great way for some wealthy Texas ranchers/landowners to make a tidy profit from the taxpayers! I would be out building barracks!
However if the National Guard is brought under the control of the President (for example when they were sent to Iraq) then the Posse Comitatus Act applies to them as well.
That is just it, though, they are not being asked to enforce anything with US civilians.They would be tasked with repelling or apprehending foreign invaders.
Perhaps, following Thistle, an appropriate fist step i would be to change the laws so that such an action its legal. I hope that before this law is changed, there is some thought and discussion about unintended consequences.
This way of approaching things really does not commend itself to our President.
The argument above, apparently, is that the foreigners’ intentions in breaching the border are what matter.
I don’t think this is true. A person who is “breaching the border” are obviously entering illegally. People who are seeking refuge can apply for it, they don’t have to come in that way. Besides, people who want to do harm to the US are not going to declare their intention at the border! Even if the majority are trying to enter as refugees, there is no way to determine this as someone is “breaching the border”.
it seems highly doubtful to me that anyone needs to declare war before invading to enable the armed forces to resist incursions. The Japanese (other than some agents) didn’t actually land or come ashore at Pearl Harbor. But they certainly did cross the border. Neither side had declared war at the moment of invasion.

and after war was declared.
 
I find the lack of empathy here sickening people. We are ALL God’s children and the people of Mexico happen to be our literal NEIGHBORS. It’s time to look beyond our borders and realize we must always help those in need and welcome them with open arms. Build bridges not walls as the Pope himself said.
The people of Honduras are not. Our literal neighbors.

But we give Honduras LOTS of money to help their situation.

Honduras received about $127.5 million in aid from the United States in fiscal 2016, according to data from the United States Agency for International Development.
 
Last edited:
Murder. Manslaughter. Mayhem. Property destruction. Arson. Might be others. Well, there would also be assault. Also assault with intent to kill. Assault with a dangerous instrumentality.
The questions was about your seeming fear of our military following the law - some how jumping from the current situation to Midway. My question, following you line of argument was this: in their military efforts on Midway island, what law would the military have been breaking? your answer seems o have been answering some other question.
 
I have not had occasion to study the Posse Comitatus Act, but it seems highly doubtful to me that anyone needs to declare war before invading to enable the armed forces to resist incursions
Then why did you ask about Midway?
 
The questions was about your seeming fear of our military following the law
I do not fear our military following the law. If I gave that impression, it was inadvertent and not intended.
 
I have not had occasion to study the Posse Comitatus Act, but it seems highly doubtful to me that anyone needs to declare war before invading to enable the armed forces to resist incursions

Then why did you ask about Midway?
Because, as I said, I have not had occasion to study the Posse Comitatus Act.
 
The Possee Comitatus Act has been revised several times. But right now, it appears to provide the following:

The Act only specifically applies to the 1. United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either.

The above does not, however, clarify how Bush or Obama could have bypassed the Act in order to have National Guard troops go to the border to enforce it. There must be more to it, though it does appear a president could use the national guard of a particular state in this manner if the governor of the state approves it.

None of that, of course, really tells us whether a president can use the army to keep foreigners from coming into the U.S. in the first place.
 
Last edited:
There must be more to it, though it does appear a president could use the national guard of a particular state in this manner if the governor of the state approves it.
Surely all the governors of the Southern States would work with Trump to have the guard protect the borders! Especially California!
 
Surely all the governors of the Southern States would work with Trump to have the guard protect the borders! Especially California!
I would be doubtful about California. But regardless, I’m not sure about the politics of those other three states when it comes to this kind of thing. Obviously, Bush and Obama either had governors’ cooperation or didn’t think they needed it.
 
Having a military on our border or having a wall has little to do with not helping people or being humanitarian as some seem to want to imply here. It has nothing to do with providing assistance to those who need it . We can continue to supply assistance to Mexico or whoever we want to. This implication is just trying to mix apples and oranges.

In regard to the good neighbor comment:. I have good neighbors who live near me. However, they don’t get to just walk into my house without knocking, go through my cupboards for food, use my insurance card to pay their medical bills, or watch what they want on my TV without my permission or my offering them that privilege. I would treat their home with the same respect. We remain friends and enjoy each others company and might even trade things or offer to help them if I thought they needed help. That is what a good neighbor is. It isn’t just allowing anybody to walk into my country or home because they want to.
 
Good thing the defenders of Midway didn’t think so.
Oh, come on. They’re not the Japanese navy. They’re not coming in battleships.

Look, I agree with you that the United States has every right to control its borders. I think our immigration laws are a mess. I’m absolutely in favor of a comprehensive overhaul.

Like (I’m betting) most people, I’d like to see a place in our immigration law for people without a ton of education, or money, who are coming here, just like my grandparents, for a shot at a better life.

Not such a terrible thing.
 
Oh, come on. They’re not the Japanese navy. They’re not coming in battleships.

Look, I agree with you that the United States has every right to control its borders. I think our immigration laws are a mess. I’m absolutely in favor of a comprehensive overhaul.

Like (I’m betting) most people, I’d like to see a place in our immigration law for people without a ton of education, or money, who are coming here, just like my grandparents, for a shot at a better life.

Not such a terrible thing.
I’m not comparing them in terms of hardware, firepower or means of entry. The question was what the Posse Comitatus Act (as amended, it appears) actually prohibits the government from doing, and under what conditions the government can use the armed forces to prevent or repel an incursion by foreigners.

I think immigration should be robust, but I believe it should be based on national interest. When my ancestors came here, immigration was open. If you could get here and weren’t sick, you could stay. But the nation had a country to fill up and a man-devouring civil war to fight. But it was also true that if you didn’t have the money for passage or the health to (at least probably) survive a killer trip, you didn’t come. And so, open immigration was in the national interest at the time.

I’m not an expert at what the country needs presently. But it does not seem to me that willy-nilly admission can possibly be it. Do we need unskilled workers when there are plenty of them unemployed in our major cities? Do we need engineers from India if there are unemployed engineers sitting in their parents’ basements? Do we need Hmong to run our convenience stores or poultry farms?

I don’t know. I sometimes wish immigration was dumped on the Federal Reserve or some such independent body that is relatively immune to political pressures and raises and lowers the money supply based on perceived need.

But that’s not what we have. Right now we have a crazy system (or lack thereof) that is highly politicized and moreover “moralized” by people who often have no idea what living conditions are really like in various countries of origin.

Do people know, for example, that the GDP/capita in Mexico is higher than it is in any eastern European country? I guess not. There’s no call to increase immigration from eastern Europe. Haiti is one of the worst places on earth, but the cause celebre of the moment is of Central Americans, not Haitians.

And what of Filipinos who are relatively well educated, love America
 
Surely all the governors of the Southern States would work with Trump to have the guard protect the borders! Especially California!
I’m curious as to why the military or a wall is required anyway because Trump is claiming credit for record low levels of illegals getting in. If that is true then military and a wall is a complete waste of resources.
 
40.png
Arkansan:
We also need an end to chain migration
I favor what so term “chain migration” with existing limitations.
Why not support families in this way?
If you need your extended family with you, then you probably shouldn’t immigrate.

To the extent that we allow permanent immigrants, it should be on the premise that they will assimilate, not that they will need to bring their whole country (which is the long-term effect of chain migration) with them.
Like (I’m betting) most people, I’d like to see a place in our immigration law for people without a ton of education, or money, who are coming here, just like my grandparents, for a shot at a better life.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-con...HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf p.67

79% of Americans want immigration to based on ability to contribute to the country.
 
Last edited:
79% of Americans want immigration to based on ability to contribute to the country.
As do I. And I believe that people who want to work and create a good life for themselves and their children contribute a lot to this country. I know my grandparents did.
 
If you need your extended family with you
That is not what what actually happens in immigration to the US.
not that they will need to bring their whole country (which is the long-term effect of chain migration) with them.
That is not what what actually happens in immigration to the US.

I suspect that your opposition is not grounded in reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top