Not to you. You look at protecting the States from outside invaders and you read organized army. That isn't what it says. Their job is to protect us from any threat. People entering our country without our being able to check them out are a threat
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump we will guard our border with our military
- Thread starter MindWars
- Start date
Not to you. You look at protecting the States from outside invaders and you read organized army. That isn't what it says. Their job is to protect us from any threat. People entering our country without our being able to check them out are a threat
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Yeah, over 20 years ago! Who was President? Oh, that would be Bubba Clinton!
...so?
Dumbass! You are absolutely worthless and provide nothing to this forum except trolling your idiocy to see who bites!
Boring.
Boring you with facts, while you do nothing but prove your own limitations of intellect.
No, you're boring me with hysterical appeals to emotion and personal insults.
Get back to me when you've grown up enough to have a civilized conversation, if that's what you're looking for.
Otherwise, blather on.
You don't qualify by your own pathetic standards.
Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?
If a hostile foreign force was gathering at our border, Posse Comitatus would not apply - because rebelling a hostile army is a function of the military, not law enforcement.
Border security, according to our legal system, is a function of domestic law enforcement - and therefore, PCA applies.
The Constitution puts the responsibility for securing our borders on the military. Can you show the qualifications you're making up? Where are they written that you want illegals to drown us so that part of securing our border is not a military responsibility?
The Constitution does no such thing.
Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?
You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid
Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?
Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?
Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.
To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.
We're talking about illegal aliens, not "immigrants," idiot
"Illegal" immigrants are a sub class of immigrants.
Were you aware that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration"?
That term didn't exist until the early 1900s.
...so?
Dumbass! You are absolutely worthless and provide nothing to this forum except trolling your idiocy to see who bites!
Boring.
Boring you with facts, while you do nothing but prove your own limitations of intellect.
No, you're boring me with hysterical appeals to emotion and personal insults.
Get back to me when you've grown up enough to have a civilized conversation, if that's what you're looking for.
Otherwise, blather on.
You don't qualify by your own pathetic standards.
Blah blah blah.
Still boring.
Which one of our borders is in Iraq? In S. Korea? In Afghanistan? In Germany?Looks like it may happen.
BREAKING: Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border
I like it. Whatever it takes.
One would think that you guys would understand by now that Trump tweeting about something is not to be taken as an implication that anything will actually happen.
The Posse Comitatus Act would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.
You think defending our borders is civil law enforcement? WTF? Can you dress yourself?
Just curious since you don't think the role of the military is to secure our borders what you think the military is for since normal people know that's their primary mission. In fact what else do they do? Pick up pizzas and deliver them?
We are not at war with Canada or Mexico ! Do you realize the commerce that happens at our border on a daily basis ?
What next ? Have the Air Force run our airports ?
I don't know what any of that means, but neither do you.
So answer the question. If the military isn't supposed to defend our borders, what do you believe its purpose is? I'm not aware of any other role they play
All of those since Mexico has little immigration control. But mostly poor Mexicans if you believe data. Let me guess, data is racist. Facts are racists. People who want to be secure from criminals, drugs, murderers, rapists and criminals are racists. You're a racist. Tomato juice is racist ...
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,220
- 29,150
- 2,180
Hey, respect the shit out of that 17 year old punk from school but call the veteran protecting our borders an asshole. Don’t you get it do as they say! Ewwwew they’re so tough!The losers in the U.S. military cannot by law, arrest illegals crossing the border.Sure, most military jobs are done by contract workers. Not the loser in the armed force sucking off gobmint dimes doing nothang.can you set that up along 2,000 some odd miles of border?
Hopefully you will get ripped a new asshole for that statement cowardly fkn ............, I bet your p ass never even served before huh little wuss lol
Most in Border Patrol were former military you asshole. Just like cops, just like many areas of positions you sure in the hell couldn't fill. AND MOST CONTRACTORS ARE FKN MILITARY GAWD U ARE FKN BIGGER ASSHOLE THAN THE AVERAGE LIBERAL
All they can do is call the border patrol.
FYI.. DOPer!
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807– is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.
I SAID most CONTRACTORS, BORDER PATROL, POLICE . are often FORMER Military dumbass Dip shit............ so as you INSULT the military your stupid ass doesn't even realize how most of those guys were in the military gutless.
they have no authority to come here that makes them militants.The Constitution does no such thing.
Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?
You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid
Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?
Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?
Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.
To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.
No, it doesn't.
Words have meanings.
Not to you. You look at protecting the States from outside invaders and you read organized army. That isn't what it says. Their job is to protect us from any threat. People entering our country without our being able to check them out are a threat
I read that to mean an organized army, because that's what the founders meant when they wrote it. You could call it "strict originalism", if you like.
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Legally speaking, they are trespassers. Some of them are violent, that makes them akin to enemy combatants. If you think state and local law enforcement are sufficient to handle that, you have been purposefully misled. That is what our military is for, to handle threats that are beyond the scope and capabilities of domestic law enforcement.They haven't broken any US laws yet
But as soon as they step one foot on American soil without permission from the Federal Government, they will. It won't matter if they are angels from there on out, they will have already broken the law. You cannot call anyone who comes here illegally who obeys every other law we have "law abiding", because they have already broken that one single law.
Of course. And as soon as they do, they are within the province of domestic law enforcement, and the military can't touch them.
Legally speaking, they are trespassers. Some of them are violent, that makes them akin to enemy combatants. If you think state and local law enforcement are sufficient to handle that, you have been purposefully misled. That is what our military is for, to handle threats that are beyond the scope and capabilities of domestic law enforcement.They haven't broken any US laws yet
But as soon as they step one foot on American soil without permission from the Federal Government, they will. It won't matter if they are angels from there on out, they will have already broken the law. You cannot call anyone who comes here illegally who obeys every other law we have "law abiding", because they have already broken that one single law.
Of course. And as soon as they do, they are within the province of domestic law enforcement, and the military can't touch them.
"Trespassing" is a matter for law enforcement. And no, the fact that some of them may be "violent" does not make them "akin" to enemy combatants. It just doesn't.
And further - no, that's not what the military is for. They do not exist to "handle threats beyond law enforcement". They exist to fight enemy soldiers - full stop.
1500 people illegally trying to enter at once is an invasion. i don't see what else you would call it. I'm open, give me an idea.Harmonica is right, but that's irrelevant to the discussion that the role of our military is to defend our borders and you don't know that. Unreal. Read the Constitution
Oh yeah ? What part of the constitution are your referring too?
Article IV. Section 4. You know you're on the Internet too ...
This is what you are hanging your hat on?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Geez. We are not being “invaded” . We have commerce with Mexico . Tourists and legal immigration by both countries every day .
None of these people are armed nor are they under the direction of a foreign power. If you say they are illegal then they are breaking civilian laws.
That's a lie. Armed people enter the country all the time. And ISIS could fly to Mexico and walk across our border. And border security is the job of the military. That they need to read an illegal alien their rights and query whether it's their job to stop them is moronic. It's their job to stop them, and by any means necessary
A technicality. If they lose a few due to hostile fire, it'll discourage them. Personally, I'm in favor of land mines. After a few blow up, the rest will crawl back, minus legs, to their own nations.1500 people illegally trying to enter at once is an invasion. i don't see what else you would call it. I'm open, give me an idea.Oh yeah ? What part of the constitution are your referring too?
Article IV. Section 4. You know you're on the Internet too ...
This is what you are hanging your hat on?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Geez. We are not being “invaded” . We have commerce with Mexico . Tourists and legal immigration by both countries every day .
None of these people are armed nor are they under the direction of a foreign power. If you say they are illegal then they are breaking civilian laws.
Whatever it takes. We clearly are being invaded
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,220
- 29,150
- 2,180
They serve with the military right? I think you’re wrong. I don’t care how long you served. Insulting someone risking their lives isn’t very commradary of youIt’s amazing . Cons always fear big government, but now you want to activate the military act WITHIN our borders ? !
Did you bawl when Obama did it?
Did you bawl when Obama did it?
Oh you mean the military excersies in Texas that were a front for an obama armed take over?
Isn’t that what you rubes believed ?
No I mean when he sent military to help with the drug war.
Now don't you feel foolish, fucking clown shoes
Obama didn't send in the military. He sent in the National Guard, which has different rules than the military does for deployment and who can send them.
Obama orders 1,200 Guard troops to border
So Trump sends the guard, still military ...sit down and shush I don't give two shits about your ramblings
Actually, the National Guard is more of a militia than it is a military. They aren't full time, and they are governed by different rules. But, if you knew anything about the military that wasn't bullshit, you would have known that and not looked so stupid.
A technicality. If they lose a few due to hostile fire, it'll discourage them. Personally, I'm in favor of land mines. After a few blow up, the rest will crawl back, minus legs, to their own nations.1500 people illegally trying to enter at once is an invasion. i don't see what else you would call it. I'm open, give me an idea.Article IV. Section 4. You know you're on the Internet too ...
This is what you are hanging your hat on?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Geez. We are not being “invaded” . We have commerce with Mexico . Tourists and legal immigration by both countries every day .
None of these people are armed nor are they under the direction of a foreign power. If you say they are illegal then they are breaking civilian laws.
You remind me of a mad dog. Mad dogs have to be put down. Try it and the Republicans will lose everything.
Now that Democrats are alienating white blue collar who want jobs not handouts, it's actually you who will lose everything if your voter pipeline is cut off
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,220
- 29,150
- 2,180
We’ve been invadedA technicality. If they lose a few due to hostile fire, it'll discourage them. Personally, I'm in favor of land mines. After a few blow up, the rest will crawl back, minus legs, to their own nations.1500 people illegally trying to enter at once is an invasion. i don't see what else you would call it. I'm open, give me an idea.Article IV. Section 4. You know you're on the Internet too ...
This is what you are hanging your hat on?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Geez. We are not being “invaded” . We have commerce with Mexico . Tourists and legal immigration by both countries every day .
None of these people are armed nor are they under the direction of a foreign power. If you say they are illegal then they are breaking civilian laws.
Whatever it takes. We clearly are being invaded
The Constitution puts the responsibility for securing our borders on the military. Can you show the qualifications you're making up? Where are they written that you want illegals to drown us so that part of securing our border is not a military responsibility?
The Constitution does no such thing.
Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?
You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid
Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?
Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?
Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.
To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.
We're talking about illegal aliens, not "immigrants," idiot
"Illegal" immigrants are a sub class of immigrants.
Were you aware that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration"?
That term didn't exist until the early 1900s.
The term "democracy" wasn't used until the early 1900s either. So?
And you didn't use the term illegal anything. You conflated illegal aliens with all immigrants. Which is why it's clear how disingenuous you are
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,220
- 29,150
- 2,180
How do you know what they meant? You there? LOL the stuff you all say is fking greatthey have no authority to come here that makes them militants.Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?
You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid
Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?
Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?
Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.
To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.
No, it doesn't.
Words have meanings.
Not to you. You look at protecting the States from outside invaders and you read organized army. That isn't what it says. Their job is to protect us from any threat. People entering our country without our being able to check them out are a threat
I read that to mean an organized army, because that's what the founders meant when they wrote it. You could call it "strict originalism", if you like.
How do you know what they meant? You there? LOL the stuff you all say is fking greatthey have no authority to come here that makes them militants.Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?
Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?
Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.
To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.
No, it doesn't.
Words have meanings.
Not to you. You look at protecting the States from outside invaders and you read organized army. That isn't what it says. Their job is to protect us from any threat. People entering our country without our being able to check them out are a threat
I read that to mean an organized army, because that's what the founders meant when they wrote it. You could call it "strict originalism", if you like.
Doc knows that without a steady inflow of criminals the Democrat party is screwed. He's just protecting his government handouts
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,078
- 15,608
- 1,405
The fuck?Looks like it may happen.
BREAKING: Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border
I like it. Whatever it takes.
They can sit on the border and watch people cross the border. If they take any action they will be enforcing civilian law. That is illegal.
Nonsense. Border control is national security.
Who determines who is legal and illegal. It is civilians. That means we are talking about civilian law which the military is forbidden to enforce.
Rexx Taylor
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #419
then they can swim to Mexico and get here the illegal way!!!they can't get out of Japan.i hope Godzilla and Rodan are on the way
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 24,078
- 15,608
- 1,405
Like people charging over our borders illegally?Legally speaking, they are trespassers. Some of them are violent, that makes them akin to enemy combatants. If you think state and local law enforcement are sufficient to handle that, you have been purposefully misled. That is what our military is for, to handle threats that are beyond the scope and capabilities of domestic law enforcement.They haven't broken any US laws yet
But as soon as they step one foot on American soil without permission from the Federal Government, they will. It won't matter if they are angels from there on out, they will have already broken the law. You cannot call anyone who comes here illegally who obeys every other law we have "law abiding", because they have already broken that one single law.
Of course. And as soon as they do, they are within the province of domestic law enforcement, and the military can't touch them.
"Trespassing" is a matter for law enforcement. And no, the fact that some of them may be "violent" does not make them "akin" to enemy combatants. It just doesn't.
And further - no, that's not what the military is for. They do not exist to "handle threats beyond law enforcement". They exist to fight enemy soldiers - full stop.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 195
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 245
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 373
- Replies
- 204
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 151
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 46
- Replies
- 508
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8508
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-