Tariffs won’t solve our border crisis. But Democrats denied Trump the tools he needs.

This_person

Well-Known Member
Are you implying that a signed deal needed to be made before Mexico could enforce immigration laws in their own country?
Absolutely not.

I'm saying they agreed to nothing in March, because nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to, and nothing is agreed to until there's a signed agreement.

They've certainly been enforcing immigration laws in their own country - unless they think the folks are moving on to the United States - then they're fine letting them travel through to us. If those folks were staying in Mexico, they wouldn't make it very far into Mexico, or be there long (outside of a prison cell).
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Absolutely not.

I'm saying they agreed to nothing in March, because nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to, and nothing is agreed to until there's a signed agreement.

They've certainly been enforcing immigration laws in their own country - unless they think the folks are moving on to the United States - then they're fine letting them travel through to us. If those folks were staying in Mexico, they wouldn't make it very far into Mexico, or be there long (outside of a prison cell).
Like I said, it's who you believe. Mexico didn't deny the meeting took place, as you said. Mexico supposedly agreed to do certain things prior to tariffs being threatened, and I disagree that some formal signed agreement must be in place for another country to enforce their immigration laws.

They have a new President who built the National Guard and a month later, used that new National Guard to enforce immigration laws more strictly. If it can be done here, why not there?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Like I said, it's who you believe. Mexico didn't deny the meeting took place, as you said. Mexico supposedly agreed to do certain things prior to tariffs being threatened, and I disagree that some formal signed agreement must be in place for another country to enforce their immigration laws.
Again, it doesn't have to be. But, they didn't actually do anything towards it (like, sign an agreement saying they would, or take action towards the goal) until the tariff threats were made.

They have a new President who built the National Guard and a month later, used that new National Guard to enforce immigration laws more strictly.
But the national guard, which was proposed by President Andrés Manual López Obrador and ratified by Mexico’s Congress in March, was never presented to Mexicans as a tool of border security or migration enforcement. It has not received the training of a border patrol agency and has no formal connection to the country’s migration authority. It was intended instead to fill the security void left by Mexico’s ineffective and often corrupt local law enforcement agencies as violence here continues to climb.
That's an excerpt from a WaPo article dated yesterday. They clearly never intended the 6,000 troops - 4 times more than they have now - to be used in this fashion prior to tariff threats. Now they have. As if the tariff threats were actually a leveraged tool to accomplish a goal or something.

If it can be done here, why not there?
I think it was the singularly correct answer here. I do not agree with the emergency declaration - troops should have been deployed and remained until they forced the legislative to do its job. They should have been given shoot to kill orders on anyone crossing the border illegally - those seeking asylum or any other reasonable reason to enter the country could/should/would enter via points of entry, making their case there if they're trying to do it for asylum or the like.

You know, national defense and all that.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Again, it doesn't have to be. But, they didn't actually do anything towards it (like, sign an agreement saying they would, or take action towards the goal) until the tariff threats were made.

Sure they did. I included that info in my very first reply!

But the national guard, which was proposed by President Andrés Manual López Obrador and ratified by Mexico’s Congress in March, was never presented to Mexicans as a tool of border security or migration enforcement. It has not received the training of a border patrol agency and has no formal connection to the country’s migration authority. It was intended instead to fill the security void left by Mexico’s ineffective and often corrupt local law enforcement agencies as violence here continues to climb.
That's an excerpt from a WaPo article dated yesterday. They clearly never intended the 6,000 troops - 4 times more than they have now - to be used in this fashion prior to tariff threats. Now they have. As if the tariff threats were actually a leveraged tool to accomplish a goal or something.

No, it simply states that Mexicans as a whole weren't told "National Guard troops will be used for immigration enforcement". Not that they were "intended" to be used. A govt. lied/withheld info from their populace? shocked I tell ya!

I think it was the singularly correct answer here. I do not agree with the emergency declaration - troops should have been deployed and remained until they forced the legislative to do its job. They should have been given shoot to kill orders on anyone crossing the border illegally - those seeking asylum or any other reasonable reason to enter the country could/should/would enter via points of entry, making their case there if they're trying to do it for asylum or the like.

You know, national defense and all that.
Since troops are barred from enforcing immigration laws, what meaningful ways would they help?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Since troops are barred from enforcing immigration laws, what meaningful ways would they help?
Remove the bar. It's not immigration laws they would be enforcing, it would be national sovereignty from a slow, mostly unarmed invading force of national-neutral invaders.

They would not be seeking green card verification or performing asylum adjudication, they would combating an illegal invasion force.

National security and all that.

I know when I was in the service, I swore to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have not been relieved of that oath, nor has any serving member or veteran today.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Remove the bar. It's not immigration laws they would be enforcing, it would be national sovereignty from a slow, mostly unarmed invading force of national-neutral invaders.

They would not be seeking green card verification or performing asylum adjudication, they would combating an illegal invasion force.

National security and all that.

I know when I was in the service, I swore to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have not been relieved of that oath, nor has any serving member or veteran today.
Get rid of Posse Comitatus? I don't think that's a good idea.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Get rid of Posse Comitatus? I don't think that's a good idea.
A. That doesn't apply to the National Guard, which can be nationalized by the executive upon declaration of need.
B. Even if we used the Army/Marines, the act would not apply as it limits domestic policy and not insurrection/lawlessness. People illegally crossing our borders is a violent act against our government, thus lawlessness/insurrection, and Posse Comitatus does not apply.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
A. That doesn't apply to the National Guard, which can be nationalized by the executive upon declaration of need.
B. Even if we used the Army/Marines, the act would not apply as it limits domestic policy and not insurrection/lawlessness. People illegally crossing our borders is a violent act against our government, thus lawlessness/insurrection, and Posse Comitatus does not apply.
A. True. Doesn't apply to the Coast Guard either. What'd the NG do when they were recently on the border?
B. Immigration enforcement is domestic law enforcement. It certainly does apply. Hence why no troops have stopped any migrants since they've been on the border.

1. First, unlike “Title 32” National Guardsmen and women, “Title 10” active-duty military personnel under federal control are largely prohibited from taking an active and direct role in law enforcement activities. And for good reason: The Posse Comitatus Act has been in place since 1878 and prohibits any part of the Army or Air Force from “execut[ing] the laws.” The Department of Defense has extended this prohibition on taking an active role in law enforcement to the Navy and Marine Corps by regulation(but not the Coast Guard). So any direct involvement in law enforcement – think of a search, seizure, apprehension or arrest – would violate the Posse Comitatus Act as well as governing military directives. That’s a no-go.
https://www.justsecurity.org/61364/update-military-mexican-border-posse-comitatus/

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.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/31/federal-law-limits-what-us-troops-deployed-at-the-border-can-do/

Save for express constitutional authorizations or acts of Congress (which I will get to shortly), the US military can’t serve as another police force arresting migrants on site. The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits the deliberate use of the armed forces to execute law on US soil and is an often-referenced law in the ongoing border support dialogue. The actual wording of the law only mentions the Army and Air Force specifically, but the law’s restrictions do apply to both the Navy and Marine Corps by extension. The PCA does not apply to the US Coast Guard as Congress granted the Coast Guard law enforcement functions under Title 14 USC. Superficially, the armed forces can’t execute law domestically. The question driving the discussion here is what exactly constitutes “executing law.” According to DoD policy, the armed forces are prohibited from performing the following law enforcement activities:

  • interdiction of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other similar activity;
  • a search or seizure;
  • an arrest; apprehension; stop and frisk; engaging in interviews, interrogations, canvassing, or questioning of potential witnesses or suspects; or similar activity;
  • using force or physical violence, brandishing a weapon, discharging or using a weapon, or threatening to discharge or use a weapon except in self-defense, in defense of other DoD persons in the vicinity, or in defense of non-DoD persons, including civilian law enforcement personnel, in the vicinity when directly related to an assigned activity or mission;
  • evidence collection; security functions; crowd and traffic control; and operating, manning, or staffing checkpoints;
  • surveillance or pursuit of individuals, vehicles, items, transactions, or physical locations, or acting as undercover agents, informants, investigators, or interrogators; and
  • forensic investigations or other testing of evidence obtained from a suspect for use in a civilian law enforcement investigation
https://mwi.usma.edu/armed-forces-can-cant-might-border/
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Trump has all the tools for tariffs. What success has that given us?
I get it... Because it hasn't gleaned instant results, it's a failure. I get you're an establishment guy and want to stick with the status quo; you know... all those things that have worked so well in the past. You're not used to a guy that strayed from your paradigms.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
A. True. Doesn't apply to the Coast Guard either. What'd the NG do when they were recently on the border?
Not applicable. We're talking future, not past.

B. Immigration enforcement is domestic law enforcement. It certainly does apply. Hence why no troops have stopped any migrants since they've been on the border.
We're still not talking about enforcing immigration, though. We're talking about directing them to protect our borders from invasion.

[Edit: Recall that "immigration" is when people legally come through ports of entry with proper documentation. I agree not to use troops to defend legal immigration. ]
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I get it... Because it hasn't gleaned instant results, it's a failure. I get you're an establishment guy and want to stick with the status quo; you know... all those things that have worked so well in the past. You're not used to a guy that strayed from your paradigms.
The ridiculous ending to your statement aside, what trade war gave us good results in the past? When has Trump's method worked?
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Last time I checked, Ellis Island, and the Statue of Liberty were not located on the Mexican/USA border. It has become beyond ridiculous. I know why this is happening. It is all about votes, and it is coming out.that a lot of the funding is coming from the USA. California wants to give illegals free health care. Maybe because illegals are bringing in TB, Ebola, Typhus, and now there is a break out of Bubonic Plague that has not been seen since Medieval times. God bless the USA. Hopefully, all those earthquake tremors in So CA will send that state into the ocean. Why don’t the Hollywooders move to Canada like they said they would?
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
President Trump is understandably frustrated by the crisis at the border. Anyone who watched the video of more than 1,000 illegal migrants sneaking through a hole in a fence near El Paso, Tex. — the largest single breach of our border ever recorded — and still says we don’t need a border wall is in denial.

There were more than 109,000 apprehensions at or near the southern border in April — the highest level since 2007. But unlike past border surges, when most of the illegal migrants were single men, the vast majority today are either families with children (58,474 in April) or unaccompanied minors (8,897). Our Border Patrol is not equipped to handle it.

Tariffs are the wrong tool to address this crisis. But Congress has denied Trump the right tools. On May 1, the president asked Congress for $4.5 billion in emergency border security funding — a request that included $3.3 billion for humanitarian assistance at the border but no money for a border wall. It’s been more than a month now, and what has Congress done? Absolutely nothing. So, if Demcrats in Congress won’t give him the instruments he needs, Trump feels he has to act with the one he has — even if it is the blunt instrument of a tariff.




We need to de-incentivize border crosser's
We absolutely do NOT need a wall. Otherwise, how are we going to guarantee that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes the youngest President-for-Life and that the Republican party is dissolved and the Demonrats lock in their power and control of this country for at least the next 20 years, until we become a caliphate?
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Oh please. The Republican-majority Congress certainly didn't hold back when Obama was in office. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a very short memory.

Both sides do it. The left says on the right does it. The right says it's only the left. This forum, in particluar, blames EVERYTHING on the left.
Your memory isn't what it used to be. In fact, it's very selective. The Dems gave Obama a harder time than the Republican'ts ever thought about doing. They were terrified of the "R" word to the point where all they did was roll over on their backs and pee themselves every time he said "boo" to them.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Your memory isn't what it used to be. In fact, it's very selective. The Dems gave Obama a harder time than the Republican'ts ever thought about doing. They were terrified of the "R" word to the point where all they did was roll over on their backs and pee themselves every time he said "boo" to them.
They should have given him a hard time based on his actions. But so should the current spineless GOP officials in relation to Trump.

Democrats blocked his judicial appointments? Democrats tried repealing Obamacare umpteen times?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
The ridiculous ending to your statement aside, what trade war gave us good results in the past? When has Trump's method worked?
Trump's success in this has yet to be seen. But that's what distinguishes me from you... I have patience in the process. You demand instant results; which is completely unreasonable. But I get that's how you anti-Trumpers are; you have no sense of reason when it comes to Trump. When it comes to negotiating deals, Trump is a genius. His success in the business world shows it. You people only see him as an unhinged loud mouth. I don't know why it's so hard for you people to look beneath the surface. Trump was elected president. Let him do his job.
 
Reactions: BOP

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Trump's success in this has yet to be seen. But that's what distinguishes me from you... I have patience in the process. You demand instant results; which is completely unreasonable. But I get that's how you anti-Trumpers are; you have no sense of reason when it comes to Trump. When it comes to negotiating deals, Trump is a genius. His success in the business world shows it. You people only see him as an unhinged loud mouth. I don't know why it's so hard for you people to look beneath the surface. Trump was elected president. Let him do his job.
The different between you and I is that I know trade wars aren't the answer.

What trade war has worked in the past?
 
Top