Trump: Up to 15K troops could be sent to border

This is almost 3 times more troops than are currently in Iraq, for comparison.

Link

All for politics.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: watchitburn

So why use the military if the goal is to just keep them comfortable and help them fill out paperwork?

Also, the US has very few options to deny asylum. According to the treaties we have, the first stable country they enter, is where they take asylum. Since Mexico is not stable by most definitions, the US is it.

Maybe we shouldn't have destabilized all those Central America countries in the past?

1. Because the US military has the largest most advanced logistics capabilites on the planet.

2. That "1st stable country" bit is an EU policy. Not a US policy.

3. The president has ultimate jurisdiction over immigration in the US. So President Trump can deny anyone entry for any reason.

4. And after watching their violent behavior at every border crossing on the way, no reasonable person would allow them entry.

originally posted by: underwerks
This is almost 3 times more troops than are currently in Iraq, for comparison.

Link

All for politics.

You would prefer we have more troops in Iraq?

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: underwerks
This is almost 3 times more troops than are currently in Iraq, for comparison.

Link

All for politics.

You would prefer we have more troops in Iraq?

Article IV

Section 4. Of the Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Posse Comitatus Act aka law. Not a constitutional amendment.

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

en.wikipedia.org...


Constitution “ protect them from invasion “.

Posse comitatus which is a federal law subordinate to the constitution. “expressly authorized by the constitution“

That looks pretty clear cut to me .

Having the military protect our border (when a criminal invasion is coming) isn't unconstitutional. The Mexican Mafia will be attempting to infuse a few of their own into that horde of illegal immigrants, and who knows who else will be trying to slip in using the immigrants as a nice hiding place then they can get into the USA and plan some terrorist attack.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I don't think it is as clear cut.

It really depends on how you interpret the use of the word invasion, some will argue that means a invasion by another state actor, a military invasion to take control of sovereign ground.

That is not the same as a bunch of illegal immigrants trying to enter the country.

This really all depends on how you interpret and define invasion and please don't go running to a dictionary because with subjects like this definitions become very murky.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Invasion or not, there are exemptions to the PC act.

The military in an assistance capacity seems to be the obvious one being used here.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

An invading force doesn't have to represent a country, case in point...ISIS.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

An invading force doesn't have to represent a country, case in point...ISIS.

But it does have to be armed and hostile.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

An invading force doesn't have to represent a country, case in point...ISIS.

But it does have to be armed and hostile.

The hostility of this group has been shown in countless videos.

Can you show with 100% absolute undeniable facts that they are unarmed? Not an "I doubt they are armed", but actual 100% physical proof that they are not.

originally posted by: Mahogany
Anyone still slow enough to believe this is about immigration and not about conditioning people to accept military unconstitutionally on our US soil?

washingtonpost.com

President Donald Trump says the number of military troops deployed to the U.S.-Mexican border could go as high as 15,000.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that “we’ll go up to anywhere between 10 and 15,000 military personnel on top of Border Patrol, ICE and everybody else at the border.”

That's on top of the 2,100 National Guard and other personnel from other branches of government.

And the caravan has dwindled to half of what it was: from 7,000 down to some 3,500 by last count.

So, I'll repeat for effect: is anyone thick enough to still believe these 20,000 armed military are there to stop some 3-5,000 unarmed civilians, with exhausted and sick women and children.

Wake up sheeple! Wake up before it's too late!

This thread is not even about Trump, this is pure and simple NWO in action.

Do I need to remind you that US Troops are already on US soil ? Almost every state has a major military installation. Everyday hundreds of sorties are flown over every state, everything from Black Hawks, Apaches, F16, B52, B1, some armed, some with nuclear arms, some just the ubiquitous training flight. To my knowledge, no FEMA camps have sprung up, no Humvees rolling thru my neighbor hood and nothing, nada as far as any nefarious activity has arisen as a result of any of this.

Least we forget, that everyday men and women of our Coast Guard patrol our Coast lines not only preventing drug trafficking but performing dangerous rescues of individuals that managed to put themselves in a dangerous situation. To my knowledge, they have never stormed Miami Beach in order to start armed conflict with the general civilian population.

The military already operates every day on American soil, they do so safely, peacefully, and with our freedom in the forefront of their mind. They live next door, shop at the same mall, and their children attend school with our children. They have done so for many years without incident, I implore you to find one incident EVER where the military was ever a threat to you or your freedom, you should proceed to the nearest military facility and thank each member you see, in some countries you would be spending the evening or longer in a prison just for posting this nonsense

a reply to: Mahogany

So, I'll repeat for effect: is anyone thick enough to still believe these 20,000 armed military are there to stop some 3-5,000 unarmed civilians, with exhausted and sick women and children.

First, how do you know the invaders are unarmed? Second if you want to deter further incursions up have to put up a show of strength. As for the sick, exhausted women and children? Most of the stories I've seen shows the caravan is made up of 80 to 90 percent young men, also if you were paying attention you'd see that their clothing is in very good to like new condition, none look like they've missed any meals.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

An invading force doesn't have to represent a country, case in point...ISIS.

But it does have to be armed and hostile.

Well, they've already shown that they are hostile, they already refused Mexico's offer of amnesty. As for armed, that could fall under, clubs, knives, ect.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Sure it could be up for interpretation. But the constitution is on our side. I developed a pet peeve during this thread. It irritated me to watch some members (not you) constantly say that we violated posse comitatus and are turning our backs on the constitution . It’s not a constitutional right it is a federal law there is a difference .

On a sidenote I ran across something a couple days ago .

After the end of the 1910 Mexican American border excursion. A permanent border wall was erected in some areas in 1919.

Can you believe we been arguing about the same crap for 100 years ?

1910–1919
1914–1919 (height)
Location Mexican–American border states
Result
American victory

Seditionist insurgency suppressed
Permanent border wall established along the border of Nogales, Sonora, and Nogales, Arizona, after the American victory in the Battle of Ambos Nogales[1]
Pancho Villa's troops no longer an effective fighting force[2]

en.wikipedia.org...(1910%E2%80%931919)

Also I read earlier today that this was a request from the border patrol that trump just approved.

The last 5,000 person caravan resulted in about 200 people reaching the border. Trump knows this one will be the same. Except now he will say his threatening to bring the military is why they didn't come. Truth is that most have no intention of coming.

National guard and border patrol should be able to handle it. No military on US soil. Ordering it without an act of Congress is certainly an abuse of power and impeachable.

a reply to: DJMSN

Their power however stops at the border of the military base.

originally posted by: Vector99
The hostility of this group has been shown in countless videos.

Can you show with 100% absolute undeniable facts that they are unarmed? Not an "I doubt they are armed", but actual 100% physical proof that they are not.

They've been shown to be hostile to the United States?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Vector99
The hostility of this group has been shown in countless videos.

Can you show with 100% absolute undeniable facts that they are unarmed? Not an "I doubt they are armed", but actual 100% physical proof that they are not.

They've been shown to be hostile to the United States?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Fallingdown

I don't think it is as clear cut.

It really depends on how you interpret the use of the word invasion, some will argue that means a invasion by another state actor, a military invasion to take control of sovereign ground.

That is not the same as a bunch of illegal immigrants trying to enter the country.

This really all depends on how you interpret and define invasion and please don't go running to a dictionary because with subjects like this definitions become very murky.

It sure as hell doesn't look like they're riding in on unicorn farts and bringing rainbows.