Trump: We Will Guard Our Border With Our Military

a reply to: shooterbrody

Cool.

Like I said, I think he can articulate a reason for doing it. I just don't think it's a reason that will hold up very long.

a reply to: Gothmog

How? The conditions have not been met. If Trump is able to deploy the military at the border due to a threat of violence or civil unrest then there's nothing to stop a future President from doing a similar thing against "extremist" gun owners.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: eriktheawful

Very true, though I would take it a step further and say that it's "law enforcement, period" that they can't interfere with.

Providing support and intelligence is perfectly within the law. Patrols going out and stopping illegals and detaining them becomes a law enforcement action, I would think.

"law enforcement, period" that they can't interfere with.

The US Military can tell any civilian group to go to their rooms and wait it out....
Once upon a time , they were taught in the case of an imvasion of the US the police were moreso of a hindrance to National Security as most were not trained for such.

a reply to: Arnie123

So terrible wording?
Open to interpretation?

But in the 2nd threads there is no interpretation right?
You re a joke

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Arnie123

I will not.
You are one of the ones who would have dove all over it if it were me and you know it.
1 person said it and all the dudes like you that bring the constitution up all the #ing time in the gun control debates don't say # which like I said before, says a lot.

Just admit it man. You re all for this military # so # it but when it's about your guns it's a big deal

Stop it bro! You're getting my S8+ drenched in tears!!! DUDE?!?!

Broad stroke much? Yes, I'm for MILITARY, WEAPONS and the Constitution.

a reply to: Shamrock6

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.

An "invading" force of 1,500 unarmed South and Central American asylum seekers (and apparently only about 400 of those are planning to *LEGALLY* seek asylum) is really all it takes.

We hit a net zero illegal immigration what, 6-7 years ago? Somehow despite that, it's not only the biggest issue for Trump supporters, despite border crossings being historically low, they're cheering deploying military on the border as though we're in the midst of some sort of crisis.

Meanwhile, two-thirds of the illegal immigration — which isn't the biggest issue in America today by a wide berth — is people overstaying visas and has absolutely nothing to do with the Southern border.

And the most ironic part of it all is that the guy behind most of the anti-immigration movement in the United States, John Tanton (CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, etc) whose propaganda is used by right-wing politicians to fuel this fake crisis, is actually a radical environmentalist and eugenicist who supports the same population control the exact same people will run around blathering about re "Agenda 21."

And where are the people who always blather (incorrectly) about the Hegelian dialectic and problem-reaction-solution? Clearly, Trump is exploiting a fake crisis to create a reaction in the base so that he can then offer up an unnecessary "solution" and play the savior.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Arnie123

So terrible wording?
Open to interpretation?

But in the 2nd threads there is no interpretation right?
You re a joke

SMH, you're just unhinged. Wording as in, MILITARY a blanket term.

You know this, get off your soap box dude

a reply to: Arnie123

Bull#.
You re for the # important to you

a reply to: Gothmog

Oop, you got me there. The ol' "no that's wrong" rebuttal.

No u.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Arnie123

So terrible wording?
Open to interpretation?

But in the 2nd threads there is no interpretation right?
You re a joke

SMH, you're just unhinged. Wording as in, MILITARY a blanket term.

You know this, get off your soap box dude

Bull# again
Hoo rah

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

How? The conditions have not been met. If Trump is able to deploy the military at the border due to a threat of violence or civil unrest then there's nothing to stop a future President from doing a similar thing against "extremist" gun owners.

Again , and I do not know why some folks do not get it. Those folk are foreign nationals. Not US citizens. It CAN be considered an invasion of the US .
Get it?
Got it ?
Dang , I hope so.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Arnie123

Bull#.
You re for the # important to you

Alrigjt, F# it, for ME and my FELLOW AMERICANS.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Not sure why people are trying to make this "military deployed against US citizens"

Because: straw grasping. Those who have adored the spate of nearly unfettered illegal alien traffic into the US over the past 2 decades are watching the opening gambit of actually ending that stupidity and the "best" prevention of it coming to pass that they can think of is to literally pull "it's against the Constitution" out of their asses despite the fact that it is absolutely not Unconstitutional in any way. We already saw this with the selective travel/immigration ban last year... hell, federal judges said "it's Unconstitutional" yet the SCOTUS did their job and confirmed "No, no it isn't Unconstitutional for the POTUS to do their job." Same will happen here. Some dip# bleeding heart activists will get the Ninth circuit court to block this and, once again the SCOTUS will pull down the ninth's little panties and tan their asses in public view.

The claim of unconstitutionality from mouths which have a longstanding history of zero knowledge of the Constitution and a recent history of claiming everything they disagree with is "unconstitutional" is the modern retelling of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

a reply to: Gothmog

Cool dude.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Arnie123

So terrible wording?
Open to interpretation?

But in the 2nd threads there is no interpretation right?
You re a joke

SMH, you're just unhinged. Wording as in, MILITARY a blanket term.

You know this, get off your soap box dude

Bull# again
Hoo rah

Damn rigth Hooah, US ARMY.

What was your MOS?

a reply to: Shamrock6

One would think that.

But if instead of a trickle here and there, if instead it ends up being a very large group of people that simply walk across the border, what do you call that?

It's called: A unsecure international border, and it seeds the wrong message to other countries.

Doesn't mater if it's a huge group of civilians that are non-US citizens, or a actual military force of another country: you still have an invading force that is pushing through into the sovereign soil of the United States of America....and that is a national security issue.....no longer a law enforcement one.

I highly recommend everyone in this thread read this pdf file:

CRS Report for Congress - Securing America’s Borders:
The Role of the Military

Page 3 should be quite enlightening.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gothmog

Oop, you got me there. The ol' "no that's wrong" rebuttal.

No u.

What do you not understand ?
Look at my other posts...
Step into the light of understanding.
That way I can rest knowing I have done my due diligence to the ATS Motto in Denying Ignorance.

a reply to: theantediluvian

But muh invasion!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Like I asked before, where in the Constitution is that laid out?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
The Insurrection Act of 1807 would ALLOW POTUS to send troops:
Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."