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

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Doesn't take much typing to find those links. Try looking first.

Mg

a reply to: TheRedneck

Didn’t cut and paste your long post here. Just wanted to say I concur with most of it. I do not expect deadly force to be employed at the US/Mexico border by the US military. I can easily see border patrol agents using it in isolated incidents of deadly assault instances on the part of the caravan members.

In zero cases do I see deadly force being ordered by commanders on humans “throwing rocks”. Note I didn’t say using slingshots, which can propel a rock with the velocity of a bullet and kill.

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Doesn't take much typing to find those links. Try looking first.

Mg

When people say things that are supposed to be the ones to provide the links, common sense.
But thank you for your thoughtful suggestion.

a reply to: TheRedneck

This overall is a push against birthright and 14th ammendnent rights etc

Buried in the act which became law before amended are these words.

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

(1)  so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;  or

(2)  opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Also appears in 10 USC 333.

My guess, is this is an end and around for sanctuary cities and military on the border. Plus a point about the 14th ammendnent.

Quite an interesting move, but dangerous.

Mg

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Yes, I prefer people to do my work and not fact check.

Simple searches will find your answer and not create unessary posts.

Mg

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Mexico offers migrants jobs, education for kids provided they register - (Reuters) October 26, 2018 / 12:28 PM / 7 days ago

That's old news. Most refused the asylum they claim to be seeking. The offer included housing, medical care, schools for the kids and jobs. All they had to do was register for it and they would get what they claim to want in a country more in line with their culture. Yes, they refused other than a small number who probably were the only ones telling the truth.

a reply to: luthier

Sigh over what? You just reposted what I wrote.

Yes, but your post insinuated there could be no armed conflict. There certainly can, and likely will be IMO. The military are not the ones in charge of making arrests (which is good; the military isn't supposed to "arrest" anyone), but they certainly can and likely will use deadly force if the Border Patrol is overwhelmed. Just because their role is supportive does not mean it cannot also become combative.

The Border Patrol is already stretched thin... a few thousand new arrivals in the form of a caravan is the definition of "overwhelmed."

TheRedneck

a reply to: SeaWorthy

I have a Family member who was in our mountain base when attacked in Afghanistan. They were ordered not to retaliate, many were hurt badly one of his best friends a young woman was struck in the face by a rock and her teeth were shattered and still no one disobeyed orders to not retaliate.
They will do what they are told to do.

Yes, they will. That's awesome training right there. But where is the order not to engage? So far as I have seen, there has been no such order. If there ever is, the fool who gives it should be run out of the country... and yes, that includes President Donald J. Trump.

There are precious few reasons and circumstances wherein our soldiers should not be allowed to defend themselves. The soldiers in your example are lucky to be alive because of a stoopid order like that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

Can you provide a link where the Mexican Gov says they would take them in?
I do suppose a country with no jobs would have their People upset with that.
Thanks.

Google is your friend. 35 million hits in .69 seconds... geez... I grabbed one from Time...


Mexico

a reply to: Lab4Us

Thank you.

I expect (hope) that ant incidents concerning weapons will be limited as well. The issue I see would be something like the caravan splitting up, with enough coming to a port of entry peaceably to cover for a majority circling around and trying to bust through barricades. That would initiate a firefight pretty quickly on two fronts: the attempted entry through an area not a port-of-entry and a sudden violence by the ones entering through a port-of-entry as Border Patrol is pulled away and quickly outnumbered.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns

There is not going to infantry dug in on the border blasting away at people.

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Yes, I prefer people to do my work and not fact check.

Simple searches will find your answer and not create unessary posts.

Mg

Like this one?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheJesuit

we will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference where you get hit in the face with a rock..."

trump thinks theres no difference being hit in the face with a rock and being hit in the face with a bullet.
what a moron.

Both can kill.
What a moron.

originally posted by: je55ejame5
Someone better tell the orange goof that if the military does open fire on the migrants, his presidency would be over. He already has no chance for re election this would just be icing on the cake.

el dipsticko
That's what Trump said in the op quote bub

Unencumbered by the thought process is no way to go through life fat dumb and stupid

Whoa relax the paranoia...weapons hold.
A few of you get it; see the bigger picture. The knee-jerk reactions favoring far left or right will just get you into trouble.

Aside from CBP/LEOs the only personnel that may have direct contact with migrants is DoD.
The primary role of the military is to protect CBP personnel from both foreign & domestic. I may have missed it but nobody here mentioned the domestic side that being the unregulated militia groups and left wingnut protester annoyance.

The CBP has had numerous issues with domestic subjects primarily those in militia groups which compromise their primary role. The NG was sent to assist the CBP but not physically arrest aliens or in seizing contraband, these outcomes are attributed to the support they provide, including monitoring sensors and operating detection systems. POTUS ran into issues with uncooperative state governors to deploy additional NG troops. So for the ~2000 deployed the DoD has funded up to 4000 till Sept 2019.

The NG had same issues as CBP so Trump deployed military. Alot more to it but that is the basic premise.

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. Why? Someone here mentioned posse comitatus.

The military deployment will hopefully prove a peaceful deterrent to the caravan hordes heading our way. In addition to shoring up our ports of entry to assist in seizing drugs, human trafficking, cartel [gang members]. Some bad actors that require military response.

Once this situation settles and we have control over our border some troops will remain for awhile to support building the WALL.

Its a whole different world down here then what you see on Fox & msm outlets.
Alot different but it's NOT Afghanistan!

ETA: to the OP - a suggestion is rename the title of this thread. In my experience with diverse audience this is construed as fear mockery that elicits hostile responses.

a reply to: TheJesuit

So you have no idea that a rock can be as deadly as a bullet?... Unless our military are wearing riot control equipment, a rock can be as deadly as a bullet, and even then it is still possible for a rock, or several rocks to kill one of our service members...

BTW, I am not hoping that our military opens fire, but if it comes to our soldiers getting injured or killed, or our military stopping attacks on them with rocks or worse, those illegals that might/will resort to violence are just asking for it.

originally posted by: MojaveDesert
...
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. Why? Someone here mentioned posse comitatus.
...

First, what about the Coast Guard, are they not a branch of our military? Yet they have been used time and time again, since Clinton introduced the "pies secos/pies mojados" "dry feet/wet feet" law to not allow Cubans escaping from Cuba to enter into the U.S. unless the Cubans could land on their own, but the Coast Guard was mandated by Clinton to not allow them to get to land...

Cuba-U.S. law enforcement work together on immigration
By Andrea Torres - Digital Reporter/Producer
Posted: 12:20 PM, August 21, 2018
Updated: 12:28 PM, August 21, 2018

KEY WEST, Fla. - The Cuban Border Guard notified the U.S. Coast Guard on Friday that a group of Cubans were off Mariel and attempting to get to the United States.

A U.S. Coast Guard crew from Key West was working on the 154-foot fast response William Trump cutter, which launched in 2014, when they reported finding the "rustic" vessel with a woman and 20 men.

"This is as much a safety issue as it is a law enforcement issue," Capt. Jason Ryan, chief of the Coast Guard 7th District enforcement branch, said in a statement.
...

U.S. Coast Guard intercepts boat with 21 Cubans

The above article, and there are many, many, many more like that one fail to explain that the U.S. Coast Guard is not a law enforcement agency, but a branch of our military forces...

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces(6) and one of the country's seven uniformed services. The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique among the U.S. military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters) and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It operates under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be transferred to the U.S. Department of the Navy by the U.S. President at any time, or by the U.S. Congress during times of war. This has happened twice, in 1917, during World War I, and in 1941, during World War II.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

I wonder where leftists, or anyone else for that matter, were hiding when one of our branches of the military has been used, thanks to a democrat President, time, and time, and time, and time, and time again to enforce immigration laws?...

Second, an invasion is an invasion. When non U.S. citizens, and non legal residents of the U.S. are trying to forcefully enter the U.S. it is an invasion by thousands of people who are neither citizens, nor legal residents of this country.

As far as the the Coast Guard and enforcement

The PCA directly applies only to the army and air force, without mentioning the navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, or the National Guard. The National Guard is subject to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The National Guard is under state control until called into federal service, and is authorized to enforce the laws upon the request of a governor.

Because the Coast Guard has a law enforcement function and is not under the control of the Department of Defense, it is not subject to the PCA. Although the naval service is not mentioned in the PCA, Department of Defense regulations extend the PCA to the navy and Marine Corps.

Link

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Excellent point

USCG is definitively one of our branches of the armed forces, and you are once again spot on ElectricUniverse

It is only "shocking" and "unprecedented" because some folks on the far-left don't like it