Trump: We Will Guard Our Border With Our Military

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

Which is as intended. The President isn't supposed to deploy the military on US soil unless things have got so bad that the threat has overwhelmed the state's forces.

Yeah. I don't think they are to be used for regular law enforcement duties. Contrary to what Donald thinks, this is not a national emergency.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Harpua

They loosened a lot of the restrictions laid out by the Insurrection Act in 2007. Then they rolled a lot of it back in 2008.

Yep. I think the wording is such that they could theoretically make an argument to use federal troops on the border, but I think it would be pretty tough to get many people to buy it, especially to buy it for very long.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Guard troops used, though.

Yes.

Guard troops have been used along the border under previous administrations.

The (social, legal/constitutional) problem is when federal troops are used on US soil for law enforcement purposes.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

Mexico could become another "Cuba" or "North Korea" 🆘

Trump's trying his best.....

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

Which is as intended. The President isn't supposed to deploy the military on US soil unless things have got so bad that the threat has overwhelmed the state's forces.

Yeah. I don't think they are to be used for regular law enforcement duties. Contrary to what Donald thinks, this is not a national emergency.

Immigration and customs enforcement isn't considered domestic law enforcement. *Maybe* prior to the Patriot Act it could have been argued as such, but Homeland Security's formation changed all of that. They are an umbrella agency which has domestic, international, and national security branches all under the same framework. The military can't participate in law enforcement activities impacting US citizens outside of a series of well defined incidents or events, but these aren't US citizens which they will be impacting, plus it directly involves border security which is clearly a national security classification. Sure, the Ninth Circuit Court's liberal activist arm will almost certainly attempt to put a restraining order on this, but the SCOTUS isn't likely to allow that to stand for long.

a reply to: angeldoll

Contrary to what Donald thinks, this is not a national emergency.

You and I don't have all the information that our security agencies may have. Anytime 1500 foreigners are moving toward a country's border and making demands, people should have a heightened state of concern.

Control of our border is of utmost priority.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

Which is as intended. The President isn't supposed to deploy the military on US soil unless things have got so bad that the threat has overwhelmed the state's forces.

Yeah. I don't think they are to be used for regular law enforcement duties. Contrary to what Donald thinks, this is not a national emergency.

Immigration and customs enforcement isn't considered domestic law enforcement. *Maybe* prior to the Patriot Act it could have been argued as such, but Homeland Security's formation changed all of that.

Exactly wrong.

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the largest federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Its primary mission is to safeguard United States borders; thereby protecting the public from dangerous people and materials while enhancing the U.S. global economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and travel.

en.wikipedia.org...

DP

The whole argument over law enforcement is moot. He doesn't have to call it a law enforcement action. He can just say it's a national security issue, something the President has sole discretion over. As has been said already, a frivolous lawsuit will be started in the hopes of tying him up until after these people make it across the border, sacrificing even more taxpayer money on pointless legal proceedings in order to protect non-citizens. But when it gets to the SCOTUS the administration will win.

posse comitatus can be ignored if the governor of that state authorizes deployment of army, air national guard or the state defense force, but the president could deploy special forces without the consent of the governor in a support of the border patrol or any other agency.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Do you honestly believe the insurrection act would preclude the military from protecting us from an invading force? Say the japanese were infiltrating california, you think the military could not stop them because it would be on US soil? That's pretty illogical.

a reply to: angeldoll

I'm sure they can handle "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

a reply to: soberbacchus

Did you miss the word "domestic?" There is a law suit from the American Immigration Council about exactly this... www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org...

What do now?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
June 2014 article..

Report: 90% of illegals skip immigration court appearances; 135,000 will go missing

Ninety percent of the mostly-teen illegal immigrants flooding over the Mexico-U.S. border won't show up for their immigration court hearing, meaning at least 135,000 of the youths will simply vanish into the country this year alone, according to a key House committee chairman.

😃

And yet there is STILL a backlog of 600,000 Illegal Immigrants waiting to be processed. UNREAL. Can't blame Obama either. Republicans have run Congress since 2012.

People are saying it will be illegal to use military at the border, but the law doesn't apply along 100 mile corridor around borders.

That's USEFUL information. Thank-you!

a reply to: xuenchen

I recall the British practiced that Defensive Posture for Hundreds of Years until Recently........Look at it Now.......

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep, I'm rethinking this. Looks like both Bush and Obama did it, but I'm not sure of the circumstances.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Yup. JTF6 has/had used military personnel for years.

Not a new idea.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

Did you miss the word "domestic?" There is a law suit from the American Immigration Council about exactly this... www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org...

What do now?

All Federal law enforcement (FLEE - Federal Law Enforcement Establishment) is classified as domestic law enforcement. There are currently 24 federal agencies / departments who have a law enforcement division with full power to enforce federal laws, powers of arrest and authority to carry firearms for their jobs. All states have state laws dealing with law enforcement from outside the state / from federal government. So long as the officer is engaged in official duties they would have the same authority as law enforcement that is in the state.

Federal FOIA provides 9 exemptions to FOIA requests in addition to Exclusions - FOIA

Exemptions
Not all records are required to be released under the FOIA. Congress established nine exemptions from disclosure for certain categories of information to protect against certain harms, such as an invasion of personal privacy, or harm to law enforcement investigations. The FOIA authorizes agencies to withhold information when they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of these nine exemptions. The nine exemptions are described below.

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

Exclusions
What are exclusions?

Congress has provided special protection in the FOIA for three narrow categories of law enforcement and national security records. The provisions protecting those records are known as “exclusions.” The first exclusion protects the existence of an ongoing criminal law enforcement investigation when the subject of the investigation is unaware that it is pending and disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The second exclusion is limited to criminal law enforcement agencies and protects the existence of informant records when the informant’s status has not been officially confirmed. The third exclusion is limited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and protects the existence of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism records when the existence of such records is classified. Records falling within an exclusion are not subject to the requirements of the FOIA. So, when an office or agency responds to your request, its response will encompass those records that are subject to the FOIA.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
June 2014 article..

Report: 90% of illegals skip immigration court appearances; 135,000 will go missing

Ninety percent of the mostly-teen illegal immigrants flooding over the Mexico-U.S. border won't show up for their immigration court hearing, meaning at least 135,000 of the youths will simply vanish into the country this year alone, according to a key House committee chairman.

😃

And yet there is STILL a backlog of 600,000 Illegal Immigrants waiting to be processed. UNREAL. Can't blame Obama either. Republicans have run Congress since 2012.

People are saying it will be illegal to use military at the border, but the law doesn't apply along 100 mile corridor around borders.

That's USEFUL information. Thank-you!

No its not illegal to use the military at the border. The only hurdle would be getting funding from Congress to do it. States would have no say in this and no influence on the plan. This is one of those clearly established powers reserved to the federal government / Executive branch (to deploy the troops) and Congress (to fund the troops).

We may have some agreements with Mexico however, given their inability to stop illegals from reaching the border one could argue they have violated those agreements. This falls under a National Security threat so the US ability to protects is sovereignty comes first.



The law does apply 100 miles from the border.

A border search is an exception under the 4th amendment because it is not an individual but a sovereign nation protecting itself from people wanting to come into the US to do harm.

SCOTUS has ruled that the border search exception only applies at stationary / official border crossings. The moment you are away from the border standard requirements apply, including the need for reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop and probable cause to make an arrest.

The one exception is Mexico - A scotus ruling back in like the 70's allows border patrol / customs to do their citizenship checkpoints. It is an extension of the border search exception and is tightly restrictive on what they can do at those checkpoints. This is where the 100 mile fallacy comes from.

The exact same requirements apply to the Northern border with Canada however they cannot do citizenship checkpoints. Those only apply to Mexico.

originally posted by: face23785
The whole argument over law enforcement is moot. He doesn't have to call it a law enforcement action. He can just say it's a national security issue, something the President has sole discretion over. As has been said already, a frivolous lawsuit will be started in the hopes of tying him up until after these people make it across the border, sacrificing even more taxpayer money on pointless legal proceedings in order to protect non-citizens. But when it gets to the SCOTUS the administration will win.

THe national Guard has all ready been sent to the Mexican border before. It's within the rights of the president to provide national security.

Some people on this board think our president can't do this , I assure anyone, yes he can.

Has the U.S done this before? Yes

Were Federal Military troops used ? Yes , as well as national guard , local police and border patrol.

When? sometime in the 1980’s

Where ? U S A. Gulf Region

Was military equipment used – Yes. As well as civilian transports.

Were the troops armed- yes ,dressed down in full combat ready gear

How many people rounded up ? About 3000-4000

Where did we put them. Tent City with a big 10 foot fence. within an additional secured area.

Did the media know? Not sure, never seen it on the news myself. There was no internet at that time either.

How do you know this? I may have been there, maybe not.