Deadly Force Authorized-On US Southern Border for Migrants Behaving badly Straight from the Top!

Mosh pit would be better.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

No no no he doesn't have the authority to do this. He lied and you believed him. Only congress can declare war.We are not a war with these refugees. Jesus help me deal with these people.

Now they’re ‘refugees’?

You believe they will be granted asylum by the United States and given welfare benefits for life.
They will not.

And you will be gutted.

a reply to: TheJesuit


Deadly force has always been authorized by border agents, if people are threatening.

a reply to: TheJesuit

There is only one reason for someone in the caravan to grab a rock and that is to use it as a weapon.

a reply to: TheJesuit

I listened to the President's press conference. He was just stating what most people already know. Not the illegal-immigrant lovers, but most people in this nation. Assault our law enforcement, you're dead. Happens every day in America.

Will we not be satisfied until we have our own version of the Intifada?

How much support did that fiasco garner for the Israelis?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

They cant shoot even if they get hit with a rock. They cannot do what trump wants you to believe they can.
And no they are not defending our country because we are not at war with these people. They are not agressors invading even though the idiot keeps saying that. Hes lying. And some people are lapping it up like a cat and a bowl of cream.

No offense sweety, but as per usual you are a little over your head in this conversation.

We don't have to be at war with a country to kill someone from that country.

We actually do it all the time.

As for defining them as invaders, what other possible definition can you come up with?

I'll leave you at that.

What the military can’t do So why can’t US troops do what Trump wants and arrest immigrants who may be coming across the border illegally? Well, it’s against the law. The US military is barred from using its capabilities directly to enforce US domestic laws — including immigration laws — unless Congress specifically authorizes it to do so.

This measure, known as “posse comitatus,” is why US troops can only support US border agents, but not take direct action themselves. O’Shaughnessy on Monday said the military will conduct all of its operations at the border “in adherence to posse comitatus.” The Pentagon will foot the bill for the deployment.

It’s unclear how much it will cost, but so far the military paid $185 million to send 2,000 National Guard troops to the border earlier this year. It’s possible that all of these details will be resolved after all the troops have arrived. But some say the move is simply political. Trump’s decision is “a misuse of active duty military,” Gil Kerlikowske, a former Customs and Border Protection chief, told the Washington Post on Monday. “To say this isn’t a political stunt is misleading the public.”

www.vox.com...

We have coast guard and "The United States Border Patrol (USBP) is a U.S. federal law enforcement agency whose mission is to detect and prevent illegal aliens, terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and prevent illegal trafficking of people and contraband."
en.wikipedia.org...

The National Guard

t is also the authority under which governors deploy National Guard forces in response to man-made emergencies such as riots and civil unrest, or terrorist attacks.
The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to "State Active Duty" in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions.

originally posted by: projectvxn
I told people here that this is exactly what would happen. People think the military being used like this is illegal. They're about to learn what is and isn't true.

www.militarytimes.com...

PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.
That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

Instead, their role will largely mirror that of the existing National Guard troops — about 2,000 in all — deployed to the border over the past six months, including providing helicopter support for border missions, installing concrete barriers and repairing and maintaining vehicles. The new troops will include military police, combat engineers and helicopter companies equipped with advanced technology to help detect people at night.

Pretty sure our military isn't down at the border handing out warm cookies & milk.

a reply to: TheJesuit

This isn’t surprising. People right here talk about using deadly force at the border all the time. It’s what they want. And apparently the president doesn’t have a problem with it either.

Which I’m sure makes them love him even more.

originally posted by: Mahogany


Because them not being Mexicans does not preclude them from being human. Any human on the soil of a country is generally under the protection and the jurisdiction of that country.

Our forefathers even thought of putting that into our Constitution. Any person on our territory, whether citizen or not, has the same human rights, legal rights and so on.

So firing on those people, regardless of their citizenship would be an act of war. Hope that helps.

Such logical fallacy here.

You say; " Any human on the soil of a country is generally under the protection and the jurisdiction of that country. I agree and that is why the logical disconnect occurs - nobody but nobody is holding Mexico responsible for people (in your own words) "on soil of a country is generally under protection and jurisdiction of that country (Mexico)

Not that I want war with Mexico but Mexico allowing these folks through their territory knowing they are going to commit an illegal act(s) possibly violent is an act of war in and of itself (using your example)

Logic says therefore this is a known invading force who has previously announced its intentions and committed violence to achieve those aims and have been aided and abetted by Mexican authorities letting them pass through territory where Mexican authority should have control, jurisdiction and yes they are protecting them but in a way guaranteed to create an incident.

Like I said "just using your example" to show just how backwards you have it - logical fallacy.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Until the orders are issued, this is just trump talking...

Really ?
Who is the highest ranking military commander at this time ?

a reply to: Sillyolme

could you please stop calling the man a moron as obvious hes not one but you are certainly starting to sound like one

a reply to: Sillyolme
The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He can order the military to action anytime, for any reason.

Congress only formally declares war. There has been plenty of times our military was engaged in fighting as heavy and dangerous as a declared war without one officially being declared based on CiC orders.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Lol, you throw that moron word around a lot. I will let you know it is quite offensive and it makes you look quite ignorant to label a sitting president, and successful entrepreneur a moron. The man has proved he is more intelligent than many economists, analyst, Harvard professors, our previous president, and numerous world leaders wrong when his economic plan has yielded 4.0 growth which could never happen among other equally elevated achievements.


I don't see someone with a point or educated opinion when you name call I just see someone that is uneducated.

I would expect the military to use force adequate enough to protect themselves and Americans and our interest.

Just what is going to be seen on the evening news, and over the media, woman and child shot at the border by the US military. Makes an interesting picture doesn't it?

The precedent for use of the Military on the border has already been set, by Bush and Obama. Nor is it illegal to ask for asylum or assistance. So much is hyped up, who knows what the actual number is or the condition or even if they will make it.

Now the President has also stated he wants to send 15,000 troops to the border. How funny how those who are in an actual fire fights are the last ones who are getting relieved or even any second thoughts. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, should those not be rotated out or even given a bit more of a boost to make sure that they get home?

So they are going to move all of those troops down to the southern border. Now here is the bigger question, where are they going to be housed? How about how much will it cost the US population to move all of those men down there, and to transport all of the equipment, the food and all of the other stuff that goes with the US military. Then there is one area that may be a thorn in the side of this plan, and that are the Native American Reservations, they may not want to see the US military come rolling in and deny them access.


But the bottom line is that the US military would be there in an roll of support not doing anything to stop of apprehend, unless the conditions are met, and that such was recognized.

a reply to: dashen

Who has the strength to hold a slingshot strong enough to hurl a 3 pound rock at deadly force? You'd need a medieval war machine to do that.

a reply to: underwerks

Mexico could have stopped them no problem, that they did not and have not is a hostile act.

Nobody wants people shot but this is a group(s) being used for political ends to challenge a nations sovereignty and a naked attempt to effect an election.

None of these people have a right to cross U.S. border, they have been warned not too, they have been told there are consequences to actions and I am betting 100% through diplomatic back-channels that Mexico itself has been warned there are consequences as well.

Continuing in face of these warnings is an act of invasion.

a reply to: Phoenix

Well when you have a president who was running off a campaign about building a wall between Mexico and the US, and then brazenly telling people that Mexico will pay for said wall, what do you honestly think Mexico will do? Trump burned the bridges of being a good neighbor, so deal with the consequences.

a reply to: TheJesuit

Simple solution.

Don't throw rocks.
Don't enter the country illegally.

There.

Done.

(wipes hands)


Lets solve world hunger now!