- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question: Why can't Trump send the Marines to protect the border?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:14 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But welcome aboard.
What do you think should be done to stop the invasion of illegal criminal aliens?
Do you support a wall?
Do you support immediate deportation of those caught?
Do you support mandatory and verified picture ID?
Do you support repealing birthright citizenship, etc, etc?
Do you support a legal stop on cash being sent back to Mexico from these illegal aliens?
*Just looking for some of these great ideas others may have to solve this immediate and serious problem*.
1
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:14 pm to Centinel
quote:
You do realize they are prohibited from performing any law enforcement duties, to include detaining illegal immigrants, seizing drugs, etc., right? They are not even armed.
They are there purely to support state, local, and federal law enforcement along with National Guard units activated under Title 32 with equipment maintenance, air transport, etc.
I have no idea what exactly they are doing. All I know is that they are there pulling duty on the Southern Border. I'm sure that they are coordinating and supporting the civilian border guards.
Are you saying that you know exactly what they are doing there, whether they are armed, and so forth? If so, fill us all in with a bit more info, please.
Are you sure that they are completely unarmed? They deploy down there with no weapons at all?
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:16 pm to volod
quote:
The Marines are perfectly capable of doing border patrol should the need arises. Who is against this?
I'm against it due to cost. It is waaaaay more practical to build a wall (which is for the most part a one time expenditure.)
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:17 pm to Dale51
quote:The army does not enforce domestic law regarding misdemeanors OR felonies.quote:Second (immigration) offense is a felony. Comparing the invasion of felons with the intent to commit more crimes has noting in common with drinking a beer before legal age.
Bottom line: 1st offense illegal entry is a relatively low-level misdemeanor. I'm guessing you've committed a few such misdemeanors
It is really that simple.
Getting all rhetorical and labeling even a felony as an “invasion” does not complicate this simple precept.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Immigration is a matter of domestic law.
They are not immigrants, they are criminal aliens.
The words/concept games are lame at best.
You know that guy who stole your car..."Don't call him a car thief, how do you think that makes him feel? He's just a undocumented owner of your car."
quote:
It is not a military invasion ... no matter the numbers involved.
So what? More word games. A network of spies cannot be addressed militarily because the spies and the network are not members of a military?
quote:
There is NO NUMBER which would void the Posse Comitatus Act.
Thats nice. PC has nothing to do with it.
*Not the PC you liberals hold so dear, Posse Comitatus*
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:25 pm to Dale51
quote:It is a ridiculous waste of money, but I would not throw a fit if Congress were to approve it. My opposition arises from the Executive Branch actively thwarting Congress on a matter delegated to Congress by the Constitution.
Do you support a wall?
quote:No, but I do not oppose retaining them in custody pending a GREATLY expedited hearing.
Do you support immediate deportation of those caught?
quote:For what? If you mean voting, I do not oppose it.
Do you support mandatory and verified picture ID?
quote:Yes, but I am a Textualist, and it is clearly mandated by the plain language of the Constitution. I see zero chance of changing that clause. If we ignore the plain language of the Constitution, we are no better than the activist Burger and Warren courts.
Do you support repealing birthright citizenship, etc, etc?
quote:No. That is stupid.
Do you support a legal stop on cash being sent back to Mexico from these illegal aliens?
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:25 pm to moneyg
quote:
I'm against it due to cost. It is waaaaay more practical to build a wall (which is for the most part a one time expenditure.)
Agreed, but they would both be one time costs. Once the wall is built a military force would not be needed.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The army does not enforce domestic law regarding misdemeanors OR felonies.
Thats nice.
It has nothing to do with domestic law.
Illegal invasions of foreigner is a national security issue.
Why do you want to make it easy for these criminals to take advantage of citizens.
What is your reasoning behind it?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:35 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
I would think Posse Comitatus wouldn't apply to border protection.
I agree. The protection of our border is a fundamental duty of our military.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:38 pm to Sev09
quote:
instant debunk of the left’s dream of using military force to one day disarm the populace.
Incredible that so many actually believe this nonsense.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:40 pm to Dale51
I don’t consider illegal aliens crossing the border to rape,rob and kill our citizens to be domestic crime.
I’d like to see the Supreme Court rule on it.
I’d like to see the Supreme Court rule on it.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:45 pm to AggieHank86
Thanks for the honest answers! 
So what do you suggest be the way forward in dealing with this serious problem?
don't go the alcoholic route, when someone points out he has a problem, responds with.."I don't have a drinking problem!"
So what do you suggest be the way forward in dealing with this serious problem?
don't go the alcoholic route, when someone points out he has a problem, responds with.."I don't have a drinking problem!"
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:50 pm to Centinel
I thought PC pertains to the use of military force to enforce law (used as an arm of law enforcement).
Securing the border is not law enforcement, but rather protecting the country from invaders.
Securing the border is not law enforcement, but rather protecting the country from invaders.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 4:55 pm to Dale51
quote:You are certainly entitled to your opinion as to what the law SHOULD be, but you should also be willing to acknowledge when the law is NOT in accord with your desires or mistaken beliefs. (See my earlier statement regarding birthright citizenship).quote:It has nothing to do with domestic law. Illegal invasions of foreigner is a national security issue.
The army does not enforce domestic law regarding misdemeanors OR felonies.
(and)
They are not immigrants, they are criminal aliens.
The law regarding illegal entry is found at 8 USC 1325. That is found in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality), Chapter 12 (Immigration and Nationality), Subchapter II (Immigration). The United States freakin’ CODE defines them as immigrants, whether you like it or not.
National Defense issues are included in Title 50 of the US Code. Title 50 DOES NOT address these people OR their actions ... no matter how much YOU believe it should be otherwise.
Congress certainly COULD define the border situation as a “National Defense” issue. They have chosen not to do so. It is that simple.
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 2/12/20 at 5:05 pm to Dale51
quote:In very short form, a broad-based guest worker program with thorough vetting, accompanied by strict and swift enforcement against those who cross the border outside that program and zero governmental entitlements/benefits for either legal guest workers OR illegal immigrants.
So what do you suggest be the way forward in dealing with this serious problem?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 5:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The United States freakin’ CODE defines them as immigrants, whether you like it or not.
It defines aliens and immigrants, so stop yourself. 2 different definitions.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 5:15 pm to BestBanker
quote:Fair enough. When we get down into the weeds, those who MOVE here are defined as “immigrants” and temporary/itinerant workers are arguably defined as simply “aliens” though that is not necessarily the case.quote:It defines aliens and immigrants, so stop yourself. 2 different definitions.
The United States freakin’ CODE defines them as immigrants, whether you like it or not.
Both “aliens” and “immigrants” are governed by Title 8 and NOT by Title 50.
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 6:12 pm
Posted on 2/12/20 at 5:21 pm to volod
Little known fact, in the 1990’s they were utilizing USMC and Army units for patrol the border under the guise of “training activities.” They were armed and the ROE was only to fire it fired upon. A USMC platoon shot and killed a teenage rancher who was shooting a .22 at rabbits. That ended the practice of using the military on the border in short order.
LINK to story of incident
LINK to story of incident
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 2/12/20 at 5:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
those who MOVE here are defined as “immigrants” and temporary/itinerant workers are defined as simply “aliens.”
Illegals are aliens.
"Moved" here legally are not aliens.
"Moved" here illegally are aliens.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 5:29 pm to Dale51
quote:No it isn't. 1st offense - which is the majority - is a low-level misdemeanor on par with misdemeanors US citizens commit by the tens of millions every year and think nothing of it.
This is a non sequitur.
quote:Yes, that's true.
Second offense is a felony.
quote:Calling the southern border an "invasion of felons" is lazy at best. Also, where do you get the "with the intent to commit more crimes" line?
Comparing the invasion of felons with the intent to commit more crimes has nothing in common with drinking a beer before legal age.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News