Your conclusion seems logical, but it actually makes no sense to me at all. This is a huge country, with all different kinds of places, some of them home to me. If I had some kind of disagreement with the government (as implied, I think, by "just as easily used to keep you in"), where else would I be better off than in the US? Like I say, logical, but seems to me to be lacking a practical application.
Thoughts on Mexico
- Thread starter geoff40
- Start date
- Status
Today that may be true, but what about tomorrow? Not trying to be doom and gloom, but the current administration has demonstrated that they view people with any wealth as the enemy, as sources to be looted. What happens when they decide to leave, like they left New York for other states? Do you think they will be allowed to just go?
Any attempt to restrict the right to travel (and leave) should be viewed with great suspicion.
OP
geoff40
Member
Depending upon what source you believe, there are between 12 and 20 million illegals here right now. They have a baby and suddenly they get what they need at our expense.
This is NOT what the founding fathers envisioned. Don't let any liberal, bleeding heart politician claim otherwise. And, there is nothing in what they wrote that suggests unchecked growth is what they believed in. I think its a no brainer, that if you could ask any of the FF, they'd in turn ask what we're waiting for?
And I mean both in terms of strict regulation of immigration numbers, and dealing with the drug cartels in the way they understand.
This is NOT what the founding fathers envisioned. Don't let any liberal, bleeding heart politician claim otherwise. And, there is nothing in what they wrote that suggests unchecked growth is what they believed in. I think its a no brainer, that if you could ask any of the FF, they'd in turn ask what we're waiting for?
And I mean both in terms of strict regulation of immigration numbers, and dealing with the drug cartels in the way they understand.
photoman
Member
Here is some interesting reading...
http://mccaul.house.gov/uploads/Final Report-Texas Border Security.pdf
http://mccaul.house.gov/uploads/Final Report-Texas Border Security.pdf
roscoguy
Member
Number 1: Impossible. There doesn't seem to be any realistic way to totally secure nearly 2000 miles of border. There have been many expensive failed attempts to address this - how much more money should we throw away on it? As long as there's a market for illegal immigrant labor or drugs, they will get in.
Number 2: It would almost have to be this way. The cartels have HUGE amounts of money and weapons. If you could take away their drug market, they probably wouldn't just go away quietly and forget the whole thing. A simultaneous, scorched earth strike of all known cartel safe houses & compounds would be the only way to avoid full-scale war with them. 'Course it'll never happen because you'd need the cooperation of the Mexican government, some of whom are undoubtedly on the cartel's payroll & would spill the frijoles.
If there is a quick, cheap, reliable field test for cannibus, we may as well just legalize it. It could be a profitable crop for our farmers & the government could regulate the potency and also tax the heck out of it. We'd also save all the money spent fighting at least this part of the "war on drugs" - which we are losing anyway - & free up badly needed space in prisons for criminals more deserving than casual pot smokers. (Like the ones netted in California's crosswalk stings...
)Full disclosure: I am not a pot smoker, casual or otherwise.
feralmerril
Absent Comrade
Okay, here is a super simple idea that would slow the flow: Simply stop every benifit they get, like walk in hospital care and all other cost based freebys. Also make it law if a illegal has a kid here it will not be considered a citizen and no illegals get to go to school. You would see a wave of people headed back to mexico tomorrow! Why is this so hard to figure out?
6thtexas
Member
Back a hundred years ago (1910), Mexico started their revolution and things got very bad, especially in Texas. Wilson sent troops to guard the border, but it was the Rangers that shot a semblance of order into things, at least in South Texas. The sad fact is that neither party nowadays has the courage to enforce a true "zero tolerance" of the spillover violence.
The other sad fact is that as long as Americans are so stupid as to use illegal drugs, Mexico will not change for the better.
To quote the pre-revolution President Porfirio Diaz:
"Poor Mexico-so far from God and so close to the United States!"
The other sad fact is that as long as Americans are so stupid as to use illegal drugs, Mexico will not change for the better.
To quote the pre-revolution President Porfirio Diaz:
"Poor Mexico-so far from God and so close to the United States!"
amazingflapjack
US Veteran
The answer...
Hi everyone. As I suggested in another thread-read "After Prohibition" It is a book of the compiled thoghts and experiences of a large group of diverse people involved in "the war on drugs" and their recomendations. When the demand dries up-the supply will simply vanish. This book explores a lot of ideas, but ending the demand is the deal. I have been around substance abuse work for several decades, and this is the most enlightening thing I have ever encountered on "the drug war," I highly recommend it-especially to leo's and those in the judicial and substance abuse communities. Flapjack.
Hi everyone. As I suggested in another thread-read "After Prohibition" It is a book of the compiled thoghts and experiences of a large group of diverse people involved in "the war on drugs" and their recomendations. When the demand dries up-the supply will simply vanish. This book explores a lot of ideas, but ending the demand is the deal. I have been around substance abuse work for several decades, and this is the most enlightening thing I have ever encountered on "the drug war," I highly recommend it-especially to leo's and those in the judicial and substance abuse communities. Flapjack.
Very true, excessive alcohol consumption is still a very big problem in our society. I just saw a blip that DUI's are down, but that alcohol is still a factor in 1/3 of fatal auto accidents.
truckemup97
Member
Dang it, Merril, you make too much sense. With that, and some kind of temporary worker program like in your previous post, you will never get elected to Congress.
OP
geoff40
Member
Ask any cop in America what the percentage is of those they arrest who are either under the influence of a drug or alcohol (like there's a difference?), or are daily users of drugs and alcohol, etc. We have enough LEO members on this forum I think, ask them.
The difference between a junkie and a drunk is that one of them has a socially acceptable drug addiction.
Anyway, take the market away from the cartel, by legalizing all of it, and that solves half the problem. Like they do in many places across the pond, maybe our society would do better by spending the money we do jailing them on treatment for them instead. I don't really know what sort of statistics they might have over there that show if this is true or not.
The difference between a junkie and a drunk is that one of them has a socially acceptable drug addiction.
Anyway, take the market away from the cartel, by legalizing all of it, and that solves half the problem. Like they do in many places across the pond, maybe our society would do better by spending the money we do jailing them on treatment for them instead. I don't really know what sort of statistics they might have over there that show if this is true or not.
Could you be a little more specific? What law (s) or act (s)?
Again, could you be a little more specific? What branch and/or specific MOS (job) federal agency are you referring to? Military law enforcement across DoD enforce federal and state laws (Assimilative Crimes Act) on DoD controlled property, as well as the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, BLM Law Enforcement, etc...Besides there are thousands of troops who have done exactly that, e.g. Border Protection, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure we would operate under Use of Force and not Rules of Engagement when dealing with U.S. civilians but we do it everyday on installations all over the world....not trying to call you out but your statements lack some substance. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but just wondering what basis you have for them.
MHO is that DoD is the only agency that is capable of protecting a good portion of the border. And this is not to knock any of the federal agents who work there, but you can take soldiers and put them in a lot of environments that "civilians" won't/can't work in. Further, DoD is IMHO the only entity whose sole purpose is to protect our nation and is structured for that purpose. Currently senior commanders are responsible for thousands of miles of territory in Afghanistan....not much different from the remote areas of the southern/northern border. Just me, stay safe.
BTW....apologies to the OP...a little highjacking/thread drift there....
Last edited:
Of course, you are correct. However, I find it hard to get more excited about it than about other usurpations of the Constitution, primarily because I believe that it has limited practical effect on a proper response, which I believe would not include leaving the country. Since this forum is not about politics, I'll leave it at that.
Texas Star
US Veteran
daveh-
The law referred to is the Posse Comitatus Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_ Act , which precludes most military action to enforce laws against the civil population other than in times of martial law or while on US military reservations. (See the last definition in the link. You can specifically Search Wiki for the full history and application of the Act. I thought I was posting that link, but Wiki changed it, I guess.)
I didn't get this from some Internet forum. I learned it during tech school (police academy) as a USAF cop. It still applies. That restriction was made very clear to us at the time. Note the temporary repeal in 2006 and subsequent reinstallment in 2008. Your avatars and personal data suggest that you are a military policeman. ?? You should have been briefed about this law. It has been on the books since the 1870's.
What US forces do to foreign populations in occupied countries in time of war is another matter. And I'd think long and hard about changing that law. What is meant to prevent and control illegal aliens might be used by a despotic President to jail his enemies. Any change should specifically exempt US citizens from application of military jurisdiction or enforcement of local laws by soldiers.
That law allows the president powers to suppress an insurrection, at least if the civil authorities cannot. But you can't go enforce civil laws to help the sheriff or other civilian cops except under declared emergency circumstances..
Last edited:
Hmmm.....didn't realize that illegal immigrants were U.S. citizens....and as far as the PCA you might want to read a little bit of the history yourself...it was a political ploy by the southern politicians to stop local law enforcement from using the Army to help them enforce the law...you know like allowing the Black Civil population to vote....and to stop other "Jim Crow" laws....but hey that's me....and you might also want to look a little bit into the use of federal troops and federalized national guard troops by President Eisenhower in Little Rock Arkansas...again that is FEDERAL LAW not State or Local....
I suppose us poor uneducated Military Police in the Army aren't as smart as you folks over in the Air Force, 'cause we didn't realize that there was a change to the U.S. Constitution that made immigration and border control a state issue not a federal issue.....darn now we are gonna have to go and change all of our regulations where it says that.....
Actually you are referring to the Insurrection Act not PCA...but hey who is cutting hairs here.....and well I am not sure if you worked LEO or counted rivets watching aircraft, but most military law enforcement understand that their authority pretty much ends at the gate...unless of course you are working investigations and there is a military nexus...and coordination has been made and approved by the AUSDA who has jurisdiction....but again that must only be us poor folks in the Army that get taught that....
Ok...now that all the sarcastic counter shots have been made, here IMHO is the fallacy of your reasoning: 1) Immigration and Border Control are by authority granted in the US Constitution solely a federal issue and not within the purview of the states-so using federal troops is not in violation of the PCA, in fact it is well within the authority of Congress as enumerated in Article I of the Constitution, 2) Military Jurisdiction in regards to civilians stateside, even though it really is a non-issue here but since you brought it up, is severely limited by Ex Parte Mulligan....unless we are talking about US Citizens who work with the military during times of war IN THEATER and then they are subject by the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA)....one case in which a dependent was taken into custody under MEJA and was subsequently tried in federal court occurred at Incirlick Air Base...but the US military has been doing that since the 50s....but I digress....personnel who cross the border illegally ARE NOT US Citizens....having US Troops patrol the border and apprehend these personnel and then turn them over to federal agents (just like we do on post with US citizens as per the Assimilative Crimes Act) is neither in violation of the PCA nor is it some nefarious plan of a crazed president trying to be a dictator...personally I have had enough to do on post without trying to go off the installation and work as a civilian LEO...jurisdictions overlap depending on if the installation had exclusive or joint jurisdiction and that depends on whether or not the land is owned or leased....and while local LEOs loose their status when they cross the boundary of the installation, state LEOs generally don't as the post is within the boundaries of the state....again I digress....there is no easy answer when it comes to the use of Federal Troops but the common misconception is that they can't be "deployed" within the US....we can, but under certain standards...there are 1200 federalized national guard troops on the border right now....
Since the question about the military enforcing civil law has been answered, I'll just respond to the second question, although I thought it was quite obvious. The U.S. Border Patrol is specifically trained to enforce federal laws relating to illegal immigration and illegal drugs. They have the experience and a history of doing this. Although border protection in a combat zone may have some similarities to our U.S. border, they are completely different missions. The military's role is primarily one of combat and it should so remain.
Well that is why this country is great, everybody is entitled to their opinion and can interpret the laws how they want and every four years you can put someone else in the White House...believe what you want about the PCA, about the military, etc...and live in what ever world you feel that meets your ideals=)
BTW...if you are interested check out Chapter 18 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code—Military Support for Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies, specifically subsection 374 "For federal LEAs, DOD personnel may be made available, under § 374, to maintain and operate equipment in conjunction with counterterrorism operations (including the rendition of a suspected terrorist from a foreign country) or the enforcement of counterdrug laws, immigration laws, and customs requirements." courtesy of the Congressional Research Center...
BTW...if you are interested check out Chapter 18 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code—Military Support for Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies, specifically subsection 374 "For federal LEAs, DOD personnel may be made available, under § 374, to maintain and operate equipment in conjunction with counterterrorism operations (including the rendition of a suspected terrorist from a foreign country) or the enforcement of counterdrug laws, immigration laws, and customs requirements." courtesy of the Congressional Research Center...
Last edited:
Peter M. Eick
Member
I see it as a two stage problem. One is sealing the border. Two is removing the illegals already into the US.
Stage 1 is fairly simply resolved if we really wanted to. Land mine a 600 m wide zone from one end of the border to another. While brutal, nasty and it would take a lot of buying of property and things like that, it could be done. You have to give the soviets credit that they kept folks from escaping pretty well for decades. We should just take a few notes.
The second problem would require continuous random checks and checks at every governmental service. No "anchor babies" just send them back. Again, not that hard, but it would take a commitment to do it.
The problem is the commitment. Our government and many of the folks in the US are unwilling to make the commitment and do the dirty dead. That is the crux of the problem. The issue of technically securing the border is really not that hard, it just takes some willpower and some willingness to get brutal and fix the problem.
Basically we have to fight the battle to win and right now we are fighting the battle to a draw. Kind of reminds me of Vietnam in a way.
Stage 1 is fairly simply resolved if we really wanted to. Land mine a 600 m wide zone from one end of the border to another. While brutal, nasty and it would take a lot of buying of property and things like that, it could be done. You have to give the soviets credit that they kept folks from escaping pretty well for decades. We should just take a few notes.
The second problem would require continuous random checks and checks at every governmental service. No "anchor babies" just send them back. Again, not that hard, but it would take a commitment to do it.
The problem is the commitment. Our government and many of the folks in the US are unwilling to make the commitment and do the dirty dead. That is the crux of the problem. The issue of technically securing the border is really not that hard, it just takes some willpower and some willingness to get brutal and fix the problem.
Basically we have to fight the battle to win and right now we are fighting the battle to a draw. Kind of reminds me of Vietnam in a way.
Texas Star
US Veteran
You do an interesting job of interpretation, yourself.
I'm glad that we have the Supreme Oracle of such matters on the board. Doubtless your sarcasm arises from being vain about being the only one with such knowledge.
And I was well aware of when and why the Posse Comitatus Act was passed and the revisions to it.
Please try to be nicer. This is mostly a friendly place, and people pay more attention to what you say if they aren't alienated by the speaker.
As for which is the more effective, Army or Air Force police, I think it depends on the individual and the unit...although those of us in the USAF cop shop in Denver when I was in were amused when one of our guys got a traffic ticket at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital. There was a stop sign concealed by a bush and an MP stopped our man, who was off duty, visiting a friend who'd been injured. The MP was probably an augmentee who'd been drafted into the job from some other background or was new. Our man had to show him how to fill out the ticket!
On the other hand, in Newfoundland, I was trying to teach our augmentees about the possibility of our remote air station being hit by Soviet Spetnaz troops in event of war. I found that exactly none of them had any experience in using small arms, beyond having once fired either the .30 carbine or the AR-15 in Basic. None had fired a pistol. We didn't even have support weapons there. Those guys who were supposed to help the cops defend the base during periods of expanded security were normallly radarmen, cooks, etc. All branches of the military have their strong and weak elements.
I wasn't picking on the Army, just telling where I'd learned about the PCA. Actually, I don't recall any issues in dealing with Army MP's. I had some problems with Marine MP's who picked up prisoners at our base being excessively forceful and threatening to docile prisoners who were giving no trouble. BTW, almost all the trouble we encountered with other service branches came from Naval and Marine personnel on the base. Foreign troops training there gave no trouble at all, and were often fascinating to talk to.
BTW, my father and my son were Army, and the son has a Purple Heart and two Oak Leaf clusters to remind him of his service.
Last edited:
Well the role of the military has also changed. In the Mid East they are forced to be more policeman, than military at times. Our military is so good that they can accomplish anything. I personally think they should end the political correctness and be warriors, not cops.
Last edited:
- Status
