Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19253
    04 Apr '18 01:05
    Really big and interesting news:

    President Trump on Tuesday said that the U.S. will secure the southern border with the military until a wall can be built, calling the move a “big step.”

    Trump made the remarks during a meeting with Baltic leaders, where he said he had discussed the matter with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. A White House official revealed later Tuesday to Fox News that the plan considered by Trump would be a “substantial” mobilization of the National Guard.

    “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” he said. “That's a big step, we really haven’t done that before, or certainly not very much before.”


    At a news conference later, he confirmed the plan, saying the border is unprotected by “our horrible, horrible and very unsafe laws.”

    “We don't have laws, we have catch-and-release,” he said. “You catch and then you immediately release and people come back years later for a court case, except they virtually never come back.”

    Trump did not offer specifics, but the move appears to be at least partly motivated by a caravan of over 1,000 Central American migrants heading toward the U.S. border. Buzzfeed, which first reported on the caravan, said that Mexican officials had not yet attempted to stop the flow.


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/trump-says-military-will-secure-southern-border-until-wall-can-be-built.html

    ... I wonder if it is legal for a sovereign nation to secure its borders? Or is that against international law & the Constitution or something?
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    04 Apr '18 01:142 edits
    Bush Jr. did the same thing, calling it "Operation Jump Start":

    https://qz.com/1244156/trump-military-border-putting-troops-on-the-us-mexico-border-could-repeat-a-costly-obama-failure/

    “Operation Jump Start,” a 2006 Bush policy that sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the US/Mexico border. . . .cost $1.2 billion over two years.

    I have no objection to secure borders, but this is an unnecessary and wasteful action.
  3. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19253
    04 Apr '18 04:59
    I am curious as to why you think it would be a waste and unnecessary.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    04 Apr '18 05:58
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    I am curious as to why you think it would be a waste and unnecessary.
    Because it costs a lot of resources to deploy troops, and there is no military threat across the border.
  5. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19253
    04 Apr '18 07:18
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Because it costs a lot of resources to deploy troops, and there is no military threat across the border.
    We had hundreds of thousands of troops deployed all over the world in the aughts, and did it negatively impact our economy? How much less so a domestic deployment when we would have local businesses benefiting from our own troops being dispatched to their areas, and them receiving all manner of supply contracts.

    If we can basically afford to maintain troops in Germany & Korea for decade after decade after decade with no one really noticing anything of "cost," what makes you think money would be a factor for this?

    Secondly... There is not a "military" threat, but there is a security threat, and there is a threat of bringing in more people who cost the governments of the US (Federal & State) billions of dollars.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    04 Apr '18 08:041 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    We had hundreds of thousands of troops deployed all over the world in the aughts, and did it negatively impact our economy? How much less so a domestic deployment when we would have local businesses benefiting from our own troops being dispatched to their areas, and them receiving all manner of supply contracts.

    If we can basically afford to maintain ...[text shortened]... ringing in more people who cost the governments of the US (Federal & State) billions of dollars.
    These are National Guard troops meaning they will have to be mobilized and taken away from their regular jobs. That will cause economic inefficiency as well as harming their local business community.

    There are 21,000 Border Patrol agents with all kind of sophisticated equipment like surveillance drones. Their numbers have been doubled in the last 15 years and their capabilities vastly increased.

    This is a political stunt by Trump and it is wasteful and unnecessary. Someone should suspend Trump's TV privileges since every time he sees a Fox News exclusive, he feels it necessary to tweet some harebrained scheme in response to it.
  7. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82168
    04 Apr '18 11:05
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    ....This is a political stunt by Trump and it is wasteful and unnecessary. Someone should suspend Trump's TV privileges since every time he sees a Fox News exclusive, he feels it necessary to tweet some harebrained scheme in response to it.
    Trump just can't stand being kicked to the curb by his biggest former fan, Anne Coulter.

    He wants some of that E Pluribus Awesome, all over again.
  8. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81223
    04 Apr '18 11:591 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    These are National Guard troops meaning they will have to be mobilized and taken away from their regular jobs. That will cause economic inefficiency as well as harming their local business community.

    There are 21,000 Border Patrol agents with all kind of sophisticated equipment like surveillance drones. Their numbers have been doubled in the last 15 ...[text shortened]... a Fox News exclusive, he feels it necessary to tweet some harebrained scheme in response to it.
    NG troops are regularly deployed, with or without the border issue. That's just the way this works. Please, expand more on your ignorance. Just all the more reason for a wall.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    04 Apr '18 12:33
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    NG troops are regularly deployed, with or without the border issue. That's just the way this works. Please, expand more on your ignorance. Just all the more reason for a wall.
    When you find something incorrect in my post, let me know.
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Apr '18 13:52
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    These are National Guard troops meaning they will have to be mobilized and taken away from their regular jobs. That will cause economic inefficiency as well as harming their local business community.

    There are 21,000 Border Patrol agents with all kind of sophisticated equipment like surveillance drones. Their numbers have been doubled in the last 15 ...[text shortened]... a Fox News exclusive, he feels it necessary to tweet some harebrained scheme in response to it.
    === Someone should suspend Trump's TV privileges since every time he sees a Fox News exclusive, he feels it necessary to tweet some harebrained scheme in response to it. ===

    That's as good an encapsulation of this Presidency as I've heard.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    04 Apr '18 15:12
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    We had hundreds of thousands of troops deployed all over the world in the aughts, and did it negatively impact our economy?
    Yes, it did. Those same resources could have been used to make the lives of Americans meaningfully better, by investing in infrastructure, education, safety, health care, research, etc.
  12. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138523
    04 Apr '18 19:01
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Because it costs a lot of resources to deploy troops, and there is no military threat across the border.
    Canada deployed troops to assist with major fire in Alberta.
    Deployed troops in the past for major flooding.
    No military threat.
    Resources being put to use.

    Nothing wrong with that.
  13. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81223
    04 Apr '18 19:54
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Yes, it did. Those same resources could have been used to make the lives of Americans meaningfully better, by investing in infrastructure, education, safety, health care, research, etc.
    getting rid of these blood sucking invaders will make things meaningfully better.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    04 Apr '18 20:081 edit
    Interestingly, National Guard troops because of the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of the US military in enforcing domestic laws, couldn't actually arrest anyone at the border. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-military-border-20180403-story.html

    A more detailed story:

    First, limited uses of the US military – or in most cases National Guard troops – on the border is not unprecedented. In fact, it happened under Presidents Bush and Obama. But these were quite limited and geographically focused deployments where National Guard troops were supporting the Border Patrol. The distinction is key because the Posse Comitatus Act makes two things clear. 1) Soldiers and other military personnel can’t enforce US laws within the United States and 2) They can’t detain or search people or do most of the things that usually go along with police authority in the United States. There are other things they can’t do. But those are the key ones relevant to the border.

    This Congressional Research Service report from 2013 explains the particulars of the law, what it prohibits, how those prohibitions have been implemented with regulation and so forth.

    Here’s the key passage from the report …

    The primary restriction on military participation in civilian law enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA).21 The PCA prohibits the use of the Army and Air Force to execute the domestic laws of the United States except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The PCA has been further applied to the Navy and Marine Corps by legislative and administrative supplements. For example, 10 U.S.C. Section 375 directs the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations forbidding the direct participation “by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity” during support activities to civilian law enforcement agencies. DOD issued Directive 5525.5, which outlines its policies and procedures for supporting federal, state, and local LEAs. DOD Directive 5525.5 prohibits the following forms of direct assistance: (1) interdiction of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other similar activity; (2) a search or seizure; (3) an arrest, apprehension, stop and frisk, or similar activity; and (4) use of military personnel in the pursuit of individuals, or as undercover agents, informants, investigators, or interrogators. It is generally accepted that the PCA does not apply to the actions of the National Guard when not in federal service.22 As a matter of policy, however National Guard regulations stipulate that its personnel are not, except for exigent circumstances or as otherwise authorized, to participate directly in the arrest or search of suspects or the general public.

    So the military can be deployed for ‘support’ services, which mostly would mean various kinds of surveillance or possibly building things. But if soldiers see people trying to get across the border they have to report that to Border Patrol because only Border Patrol can try to stop them. Whether this counts as ‘guarding’ is sort of a semantic question. But in the sense of trying to prevent people from crossing the border or apprehending people who do so, the military simply cannot do that unless Congress passes a law specifically authorizing it.

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/can-trump-send-the-military-to-guard-the-us-border
  15. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35838
    04 Apr '18 20:171 edit
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    getting rid of these blood sucking invaders will make things meaningfully better.
    And here it is.

    Are they all "rapists", too?

    Waste of time and money and resources all to satisfy your racism.

    Never mind that more people left the US than came in in 2016.

    Where are these "invaders"? I'm guessing they all have jobs and are contributing to the economy.
Back to Top