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

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.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

Um.. the military's Commander in Chief just told them to...

Yeah the same guy who thinks he can change the constitution with a pen.
They cant fire on refugees. They know that even if their moron in chief doesnt.

Maybe you and the rest of the bleeding heart Leftists better get down there and tell the “refugees” to disband their march into oblivion then.
As far as anything else you are spewing, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

a reply to: TheJesuit

This is asking for problems from the international community.

And how is Mexico allowing foreign troops on their soil?

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Rules of engagement differ when on US Soil remember this is NOT overseas

Mexico is not US soil.

It is not.

Which would mean that firing on people on Mexican soil would be an act of war.

Our military will not fire on refugees, it's just a whistle to rile up those who actually wish that would happen.

And it would be against the Constitution and illegal for them to operate in such capacity on US soil, with an ally neighbor, in peace time.

He's just pandering to the ultra-right.

The people in that scenario being fired upon are not citizens of Mexico. So dunno why it would be an act of war against Mexico.

Or perhaps you don't think that our President can make a call to Mexico's President in advance...

It isn't against the constitution at all and is not in any way illegal for them to follow the orders of their CIC in reguards to national security.

I'm not saying it's going to happen at all, I've just playing devil's advocate and thinking it through.

A lot of armchair quarterbacks jump up and scream "Unconstitutional!!!" when in fact it is not.

It's called defending your border against an invading force.

You know, the main reason we actually have a military.

So how's it suppose to work let them throw rocks from the other side & then tear down border gates and fences then shoot?? There's about at last count 10-15000 people that will be amassing at the southern border!

Abide by the laws of our country period. a little respect goes a long way

Meh, it would be the Border Patrol, the military only lends material support. They know what they are doing, they deal with tens of thousands every few months. More political hype.

Normally Mexico would have dealt with them far more harshly. They defend their border aggressively unlike the US. This is all political garbage. Just try and walk over the border into Mexico in plain sight and see what happens. It will take months for your family to get you out of a Mexican jail if they even can. Happens all the time.

a reply to: TheJesuit

There is a buffer between Mexico and the USA. Both have to ask for permission, but we can and have fired at armed criminals once they cross or are about to cross into our territory.

Also, what the hell is going to happen? Nothing. Mexico won't even report it if it does happen.

If they do because someone on their side makes a complaint to their federal Gov, then still nothing happens. Politicians talk and life goes on exactly as it would without them.

Mexico is not liberal leaning. What they do at their borders would make our cowboys cringe. The Mexican army gets lots of combat experience.

They might ask to be of assistance.

Seems like the old saying, don’t bring a rock to a gunfight.

Deadly force can be used on any threats that may cause death, serious bodily harm or disfigurement to yourself or someone else (from a law enforcement point of view). I can assure you a rock being thrown at your head qualifies for all three. If you disagree I will gladly demonstrate this for you.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Rules of engagement differ when on US Soil remember this is NOT overseas

Mexico is not US soil.

It is not.

Which would mean that firing on people on Mexican soil would be an act of war.

Our military will not fire on refugees, it's just a whistle to rile up those who actually wish that would happen.

And it would be against the Constitution and illegal for them to operate in such capacity on US soil, with an ally neighbor, in peace time.

He's just pandering to the ultra-right.

The people in that scenario being fired upon are not citizens of Mexico. So dunno why it would be an act of war against Mexico.

Or perhaps you don't think that our President can make a call to Mexico's President in advance...

It isn't against the constitution at all and is not in any way illegal for them to follow the orders of their CIC in reguards to national security.

I'm not saying it's going to happen at all, I've just playing devil's advocate and thinking it through.

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.

he doesn't expect much from his base. he's told them that with "I could shoot someone.."

why doesn't he ever mention the FOLKS WHO HIRE illegal immigrants?????

he's a puss.

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.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Rules of engagement differ when on US Soil remember this is NOT overseas

Mexico is not US soil.

It is not.

Which would mean that firing on people on Mexican soil would be an act of war.

Our military will not fire on refugees, it's just a whistle to rile up those who actually wish that would happen.

And it would be against the Constitution and illegal for them to operate in such capacity on US soil, with an ally neighbor, in peace time.

He's just pandering to the ultra-right.

The people in that scenario being fired upon are not citizens of Mexico. So dunno why it would be an act of war against Mexico.

Or perhaps you don't think that our President can make a call to Mexico's President in advance...

It isn't against the constitution at all and is not in any way illegal for them to follow the orders of their CIC in reguards to national security.

I'm not saying it's going to happen at all, I've just playing devil's advocate and thinking it through.

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.

Didn't help at all because not only are you wrong, you yourself point it out by pointing out that it is not a part of our Constitution.

This isn't something I want or hope for... it would be horrible.

I'm just pointing out that the President has the right to do so.

Have a nice day...

a reply to: Lumenari

Ha ha sure I am and you think that the military is going to open fire on women and children.
Sweety.... I have been swimming at the deep end and treading water since before you were born.
There is no over my head.
You on the other hand are entirely over your head. And wrong.

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.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Rules of engagement differ when on US Soil remember this is NOT overseas

Mexico is not US soil.

It is not.

Which would mean that firing on people on Mexican soil would be an act of war.

Our military will not fire on refugees, it's just a whistle to rile up those who actually wish that would happen.

And it would be against the Constitution and illegal for them to operate in such capacity on US soil, with an ally neighbor, in peace time.

He's just pandering to the ultra-right.

The people in that scenario being fired upon are not citizens of Mexico. So dunno why it would be an act of war against Mexico.

Or perhaps you don't think that our President can make a call to Mexico's President in advance...

It isn't against the constitution at all and is not in any way illegal for them to follow the orders of their CIC in reguards to national security.

I'm not saying it's going to happen at all, I've just playing devil's advocate and thinking it through.

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.

Didn't help at all because not only are you wrong, you yourself point it out by pointing out that it is not a part of our Constitution.

This isn't something I want or hope for... it would be horrible.

I'm just pointing out that the President has the right to do so.

Have a nice day...

14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



That bolded part has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times as meaning ANY person, any human. They do not have a the citizenship rights, such as voting, but they have all the human rights and the right to legal representation.

Hope that helps.

If this still does not help, you may just be too stubborn for me.

Just fyi DHS and the White House are not listening to the boarder patrol at all as far as how to handle this.

Mattis Will be the last word on that . But Molotov cocktails, firearms, grenades and explosives delivered by kite might be met with deadly force .

Does that sound familiar to anybody ?

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Rules of engagement differ when on US Soil remember this is NOT overseas

Mexico is not US soil.

It is not.

Which would mean that firing on people on Mexican soil would be an act of war.

Our military will not fire on refugees, it's just a whistle to rile up those who actually wish that would happen.

And it would be against the Constitution and illegal for them to operate in such capacity on US soil, with an ally neighbor, in peace time.

He's just pandering to the ultra-right.

The people in that scenario being fired upon are not citizens of Mexico. So dunno why it would be an act of war against Mexico.

Or perhaps you don't think that our President can make a call to Mexico's President in advance...

It isn't against the constitution at all and is not in any way illegal for them to follow the orders of their CIC in reguards to national security.

I'm not saying it's going to happen at all, I've just playing devil's advocate and thinking it through.

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.

No you are wrong. if the president deems them a non military force trying to attack our border by crossing it internationally law speaking its perfectly legal to mow them down as invaders.

a reply to: Lumenari

Um.. the military's Commander in Chief just told them to...

The President issues "guidance" for the RoE. He doesn't write it.