Military at the border??

[Chucko]

I would have done this 25 years ago. If the Border Patrol can't stop the flow, the military should be able to. I just hope they won't continue the catch and release policy. Catch them and across the border they go. That should be all the due process they get.

But, maybe this is just a bargaining chip by Trump to get a wall going.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-be-built.html

President Trump on Tuesday said that the U.S. will secure the southern border with the military until a wall can be built, calling the move a “big step.”

Trump made the remarks during a meeting with Baltic leaders, where he said he had discussed the matter with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
“Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” he said. “That's a big step, we really haven’t done that before, or certainly not very much before.”

At a news conference later, he confirmed the plan, saying the border is unprotected by "our horrible, horrible and very unsafe laws."

"We don't have laws, we have catch-and-release," he said. "You catch and then you immediately release and people come back years later for a court case, except they virtually never come back."

Trump did not offer specifics, but the move appears to be at least partly motivated by a caravan of over 1,000 Central American migrants heading toward the U.S. border. Buzzfeed, which first reported on the caravan, said that Mexican officials had not yet attempted to stop the flow.

[Ret10Echo]

I have sat through the day-long legal brief on JTF-6 missions on the border.

Bad idea... Posse Comitatus Act violations will result in service members being charged criminally.

18 U.S. Code § 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.
(Added Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, § 18(a), 70A Stat. 626; amended Pub. L. 86–70, § 17(d), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 144; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

[bblhead672]

Couldn't the military be used under the Insurrection Act ?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) that governs the ability of the President of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection, and rebellion.

[Ret10Echo]

Why would we want to establish a precedence for active military operations domestically?

Bad idea

Knife cuts both ways.



I'm not a lawyer


These guys are

[7624U]

NG Regulations 500-5
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/pubs/...angi10_208.pdf

5-4. Border Security Operations (BSO)
a. Thirty-nine of the fifty-four states and territories with National Guard forces possess a land and/or sea
territorial border. As such, National Guard border security-related activities occur on a regular, although typically
temporary basis.
b. Key to National Guard border security operations is the support provided to LEAs in the detection of
transnational threats desiring entry to the homeland by land, maritime, or air conveyance along the northern,
southern or maritime borders. Additional support activities include, but are not limited to: training, technical
support, services, intelligence analysis, surveillance, the installation of communications towers, permanent and
temporary vehicle barriers, and pedestrian fences.
NGR 500-5/ANGI 10-802 August 18, 2010
14
c. The NGB Border Security Operations (BSO) Branch serves as the NGB’s channel of communications
between federal, state and local authorities participating in border security law enforcement operations; monitors
domestic border-related activities; works with interagency partners on related matters; and develops future initiatives
that support the National Guard and its role in border security/homeland security, and homeland defense operations.

10-3. Title 32
a. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes the National Guard to operate under state control but in the
service of the Federal Government. This provision for state forces to operate in the service of the Federal
Government is unique to the National Guard and is codified under the authority of Title 32 U.S. Code. When
conducting domestic law enforcement support and mission assurance operations under the authorities of Title 32,
National Guard members are under the command and control of the state and thus in a state status, but are paid with
federal funds. Under Title 32, the Governor maintains command and control of National Guard forces even though
those forces are being employed “in the service of the United States” for a primarily federal purpose. Chapter 9 and
Section 502(f) of Title 32 provide specific guidance related to “homeland defense activities” and “other duty”
missions, enabling Governors access to federal funding for domestic missions including law enforcement support
and mission assurance operations.

Just have to get Homeland security to ask for assistance and tell the states we will fund more then just the use of your troops.
nothing new https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/u...est-power.html

[Chucko]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Why would we want to establish a precedence for active military operations domestically?

Bad idea

Knife cuts both ways.



I'm not a lawyer


These guys are

We can help other countries defend their borders, why can't the NG defend ours against threats especially if the border Patrol is getting overwhelmed by outsiders.

We listened to lawyers during the last administration and I am sick of them.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Chucko

We can help other countries defend their borders, why can't the NG defend ours against threats especially if the border Patrol is getting overwhelmed by outsiders.

We listened to lawyers during the last administration and I am sick of them.

National Guard changes the discussion. Active Military I disagree with. YOMV. That's not a legal perspective, that's a "been there" perspective.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Chucko

We can help other countries defend their borders, why can't the NG defend ours against threats especially if the border Patrol is getting overwhelmed by outsiders.

We listened to lawyers during the last administration and I am sick of them.

I agree with you but aren't we using the military to enforce law if we do this? enforcing law is a law enforcement job but capturing unknowns at the border and holding them for the border patrol sounds good let them do the paperwork and NG do the patrolling and capture/denial operations. I am all down with placing the military in positions to fight off cartel harassment like Nogales and other places I feel the military may be better suited for those fights than the ICE/DEA/Border Patrol after all most of these Cartel muscle/trigger men are military trained or ex-military like the Zetas...come to think of it the border patrol and DEA love it when they can recruit ex-military the transition is easy and they reap the benefits of military trained tactical types. I think the only trick here to educate the citizenry on the difference and that placing military to guard its borders is not only constitutional but its intended purpose of the well armed militia as the forefathers saw it it is in our Oath.

The deterrence of lightly armed Feds fighting military trained Cartel strongmen is not much of one but place the combat patrols on the border with Infantry and you have an over-matched group of thugs getting their ass handed to them with military tactics and battle drills now that is a deterrent. Kind of like the difference between Tacoma PD targeting gangs and drug dealers but Rangers doing to fighting....the Crips have not been a force on hilltop ever since and the ranger still lives in the same house....the cops have never publicly admitted to any dead gangbangers from the incident but I have a hard time 2/75 studs didn't kill at least 1 or 2.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Why would we want to establish a precedence for active military operations domestically?

Who said it was going to be AD?

You know the drug cartels are pissed as are then "American" border town police and politicians who take the cartel bribes.

[Joker]

Who said they are there to arrest someone?

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Who said it was going to be AD?

You know the drug cartels are pissed as are then "American" border town police and politicians who take the cartel bribes.

No "said"... I do believe that most people who read the headline are assuming AD since they do not appreciate the nuance of AD as opposed to NG and Title 10 - Title 32.

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by bblhead672

Couldn't the military be used under the Insurrection Act ?

In Sacramento? Yes.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by ddoering

In Sacramento? Yes.

[Golf1echo]

Civil disturbance means acts of violence and disorder prejudicial to the public law and order. It includes acts such as riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, or other disorders prejudicial to public law and order. It also includes all domestic conditions requiring or likely to require the use of federal armed forces.

The NG has been involved with a Civil Disturbance protocol for a long time, I'd say at the very least illegal border activity fits these descriptions.

Perhaps we just need to define a disputed zone, Immigration has increased our population and it could be argued we need to manifest some destiny once again. Zachary Taylor would have approved

https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war

[Sdiver]

Hell, why not put veterans down there?
Just keep 'em supplied with Bacon, Bourbon and cigars, and I'm sure you'd see the invasion ... errr ... influx of illegals go way down.

Hell, if they're not going to use 'em at schools to protect kids, why not put 'em at the border to protect all of us?