Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)

- Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75)

- - Winning (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=64185)

[quote=Chico23231;1205264]I don't think there has ever been another issue like Illegal Immigration/Immigration with so many garbage narratives on both sides.

Step 1

Should we have a secure border which should keep our people and country safe? Yes

Step 2

Should we have people who want to come into this country legally through Port of Entry?

Yes

Step 3

Should we have people who have lived here illegally have some sort of pathway of citizenship? Yes[/quote]

Should kids born here be citizens, of course

[quote=MTK;1205268]Should kids born here be citizens, of course[/quote]

yes

Should we have open borders where people flow through?

No

[quote=MTK;1205268]Should kids born here be citizens, of course[/quote]

I won't say of course, I won't say no, but only 30 countries in the world do that. If you cross from morocco, and have morrocan citizenship, into spain, and have a baby - guess what - it's not a spanish citizen. They don't have unfettered birthright citizenship

In fact other than the countries in the America (and yes Trump got his talking point wrong - shocking) the rest of the world basically doesn't have birthright citizenship.

[IMG]https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5bd9b4780d7c672db91ab5fd-960-1260.jpg[/IMG]

I think there are good arguments both ways, but surely we all know this is a Trump talking point more than a real portion of debate.

There seems to be a real theme on that map, can't quite pinpoint what it is though...

S/N who has definitely said we should literally allow everyone in who dares to come to our border?

I'm all for giving the caravan due process when they apply for asylum, which seems to be their plan. Surely they weren't thinking of swimming 4k strong across the Rio Grande at night.

Also, I know Reddit isn't exactly a trusted source, but I thought this breakdown of the 14th Amendment and why Trump is full of shit on his latest immigration proclamation was pretty good:

[url]https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/9suwzh/whats_going_on_with_trump_and_the_14th_amendment/e8rnuhx/[/url]

[quote=u/Portarossa]
Let's break this down into a couple of questions, because context is king:

[B]What's the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway?[/B]

Basically, the rule is that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment states it pretty clearly. It begins:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If you're born in the USA, you have what's known as jus soli citizenship: citizenship by place of birth, as opposed to jus sanguinis citizenship, which comes from blood (that is to say, from your parents' citizenship). (There are some exceptions to this, like for example the children of diplomats who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', but these are rare. Generally speaking, if you pop a sprog between Canada and Mexico, that kid has US citizenship by birthright.) This has been considered pretty much a settled question in jurisprudence ever since about 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

[B]Why's everyone talking about this now?[/B]

Trump noted in an interview that he wants to prevent the children of people who aren't US citizens who are born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens themselves.

[I]"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."[/I]

[B]Is that right?[/B]

Not even close.

The problem, at least as far as Trump is concerned, is that he can't actually do that. Changing a constitutional amendment is hard. He's claimed it just requires an executive order, but you can't overturn the Constitution by executive order and so he's shit out of luck. (If you don't believe me, you can at least believe Paul Ryan, or any of these eleven legal experts. If you think this is a bad idea, I'd urge you to consider how you'd feel if a given President felt he could overturn the First, Second or Fifth Amendments with a single, unregulated stroke of the pen, and then get back to me. Hell, what if a President felt that he could overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment and do away with presidential term limits entirely?) It's also important to note Trump's sneaky little lie:

[I]We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits[/I]

Yes, it is true that the USA is the only country in the world where a person is (not essentially but actually and completely) a citizen of the United States, but only because it'd be pretty strange if it were the case that being born in France, Rwanda or Equatorial Guinea could grant you US citizenship. About thirty countries, including Brazil and Canada, also have unrestricted jus soli citizenship. The USA is rare, perhaps, but by no means unique in that regard.

This also butts heads with another weird little quirk of US citizenship: if you're a US citizen, by jus soli or jus sanguinis, you have to pay taxes to the US even if you're not in the country. There's only one other country that taxes non-resident citizens in this way (and it's Eritrea, so if you guessed that ahead of time I'm very impressed). This has led to the situation where people who were born in the USA to foreign parents -- say, an early birth while on holiday -- are citizens of and must legally pay taxes to a country that they haven't been to since (and also register for the draft).
[B]
Who told him he could do it?[/B]

[I]In the interview, Trump said, 'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.' [/I]Who are they?

Well, no one knows as yet. The person to look out for is probably Trump's immigration doyen (read into that what you will), Stephen Miller. Most of the big Trump immigration policies have come via Miller's office, including the Muslim travel ban(s), the separation of children from their parents at the border, discontinuation of funding to 'sanctuary cities', and The Wall™. Politico has noted that this is an idea that Miller has been involved with previously in the Trump Administration, so several news outlets are suggesting his potential involvement. (This may become very interesting in the coming days, if the rumoured Trump post-election shakeup happens; if Miller has had a lot of influence on this policy decision, his continuance as one of the most prominent faces in the Trump White House may wax or wane depending on the result of the midterms.)

[B]So what's the big deal?[/B]

I know, I know... at this point, 'Trump says he's going to do something he can't legally do' is a bit of a dog-bites-man news story, but this is coming only a week out from an extremely important mid-term election in which the Republicans are expected to lose the House (unlikely also the Senate, but the odds of that are still higher than people were giving Trump of winning in 2016, so who even knows at this point?). Tough talk on migrants riles up the Republican base, and Trump needs that turnout to have any chance of legislative victories in the two remaining years of his term.

This dovetails nicely with the migrant caravan that is currently moving through Mexico and heading towards the United States. Trump and other Republican higher-ups are using the opportunity to stoke fear into the hearts of voters, claiming -- incorrectly -- that this is an invasion (hyperbole), that Democrats want an open border, that there are gang members and Middle-Easterners using the caravan to sneak across the border (no evidence), and that people crossing in the caravan are doing so illegally. It's the last that's the most insidious, especially given that he tried to pull the same shit when it came to the child detention debacle earlier this year; in short, the caravan are not behaving illegally yet. The expectation is that when they arrive in the USA, the vast majority of them will claim asylum from the dangerous conditions in their home countries, which is a right granted by the USA to anyone on the planet.

This push for fear with regards to the caravan is pretty much everywhere because it works to get Republican-leaning individuals incensed enough to take the time out of their days to head to the polls. (Voter engagement is expected to be one of the Democrats' biggest advantages in the midterms, which are not traditionally considered a particularly sexy election cycle.) However, notable breaks from the President's rhetoric include Fox News anchor Shep Smith, who said on Monday:

[I]There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about. But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election — which is what all of this is about.
[/I]
There is likely no better summation of the context of the story than that.
[/quote]

[quote=mooby;1205275]There seems to be a real theme on that map, can't quite pinpoint what it is though...

S/N who has definitely said we should literally allow everyone in who dares to come to our border?

I'm all for giving the caravan due process when they apply for asylum, which seems to be their plan. Surely they weren't thinking of swimming 4k strong across the Rio Grande at night.[/quote]

Well one theme is 30 out of 169 countries recognize it, another theme is that the US Canada and Mexico take up a whole lot of the globe.

[quote=Chico23231;1205273]yes

Should we have open borders where people flow through?

No[/quote]
Oct 31 ,2018

Hell froze over . Chico and G1 agree! Watch FOX news for a link!:D

Anyone have a problem with this [URL="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662735242/trump-says-hell-send-as-many-as-15-000-troops-to-the-southern-border"]stunt of Trump sending troops to the border[/URL]? Seems like the number being sent is rising by the day, seems slightly fucking ridiculous to me.

[quote=MTK;1205317]Anyone have a problem with this [URL="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662735242/trump-says-hell-send-as-many-as-15-000-troops-to-the-southern-border"]stunt of Trump sending troops to the border[/URL]? Seems like the number being sent is rising by the day, seems slightly fucking ridiculous to me.[/quote]

There is no good option when thousands of people are planning to illegally come into the country at the same time. Letting them all in is not a good option either. Where will they stay, who pays for it, how are they going to contribute to where they end up? Trump is between a rock and a hard place. No win situation. I don't think Border Patrol has the manpower or resources for this plus all their normal functions. This is going to be a disaster. Its like knowing the Titanic was sinking before it even left the port.

[quote=MTK;1205317]Anyone have a problem with this [URL="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662735242/trump-says-hell-send-as-many-as-15-000-troops-to-the-southern-border"]stunt of Trump sending troops to the border[/URL]? Seems like the number being sent is rising by the day, seems slightly fucking ridiculous to me.[/quote]

Seems to me that he is trying to send the message to the caravan instigators to turn it around, or at least to the people in the caravans.

If people were using common sense instead of hate_trump mentality - yes, but most of these instances are driven by people who have trump based insanity, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of rational behavior on either side.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1205319]Seems to me that he is trying to send the message to the caravan instigators to turn it around, or at least to the people in the caravans.

If people were using common sense instead of hate_trump mentality - yes, but most of these instances are driven by people who have trump based insanity, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of rational behavior on either side.[/quote]

Do we need 15,000 trumps though? Because that's the latest number he's blabbering about.

I would send 1 million troops.

[IMG]https://consequenceofsound.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/dr-evil.png?w=807[/IMG]

[QUOTE=MTK;1205321]Do we need 15,000 trumps though? Because that's the latest number he's blabbering about.[/QUOTE]15000 TRUMPS the dems would commit Hari Kari en masse!!!

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1205324]15000 TRUMPS the dems would commit Hari Kari en masse!!![/quote]

No, russia would love it though and you would be calling everyone comrade...............,comrade.

I'd have to dig it up but IIRC the military can only help the police in a support role, not a "handle all their duties" role. Something about separation of military and police that went into law way back when. Of course I'm sure there's a clause in there somewhere about it being allowed in cases of emergency, aka like when the National Guard gets deployed for natural disaster relief. The argument would lie in "does a migrant caravan constitute an emergency," to which me and G1 would probably say no, and Cred/Chico would probably say yes. (If I'm wrong I'd happily eat that crow Cred/Chico).

[quote=mooby;1205330]I'd have to dig it up but IIRC the military can only help the police in a support role, not a "handle all their duties" role. Something about separation of military and police that went into law way back when. Of course I'm sure there's a clause in there somewhere about it being allowed in cases of emergency, aka like when the National Guard gets deployed for natural disaster relief. The argument would lie in "does a migrant caravan constitute an emergency," to which me and G1 would probably say no, and Cred/Chico would probably say yes. (If I'm wrong I'd happily eat that crow Cred/Chico).[/quote]

My viewpoint is this, thousand of people want and try to come into the US everyday.Kinda like and airport security line on a regular week day and then on Thanksgiving it's a major rush of thousands of people and yes you need extra people there but they don't call out the Military for it.

I really don’t care, but they try to come into the country illegally, they all should be arrested and deported.

It’s logistics...military is probably more prepared to deal with an unpredictable mass of people intent on breaking federal law than police. I think people are twisting the narrative and think this will be a confrontation...I think it’s more a political act for the organizers who really want the media to over sensationalize and take a bunch of emotional photos. Of course confrontation is what the media prefers.

It really doesn’t matter at this point in terms of outcome...it’s trumps fault always. We get it.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1205319]Seems to me that he is trying to send the message to the caravan instigators to turn it around, or at least to the people in the caravans.

If people were using common sense instead of hate_trump mentality - yes, but most of these instances are driven by people who have trump based insanity, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of rational behavior on either side.[/quote]

LOL..........when in doubt you defend trump no matter what .

[quote=Chico23231;1205332]I really don’t care, but they try to come into the country illegally, they all should be arrested and deported.

It’s logistics...military is probably more prepared to deal with an unpredictable mass of people intent on breaking federal law than police. I think people are twisting the narrative and think this will be a confrontation...I think it’s more a political act for the organizers who really want the media to over sensationalize and take a bunch of emotional photos. Of course confrontation is what the media prefers.

It really doesn’t matter at this point in terms of outcome...it’s trumps fault always. We get it.[/quote]

Good, then talk to Credskin ...he doesn't.

[quote=mooby;1205330]I'd have to dig it up but IIRC the military can only help the police in a support role, not a "handle all their duties" role. Something about separation of military and police that went into law way back when. Of course I'm sure there's a clause in there somewhere about it being allowed in cases of emergency, aka like when the National Guard gets deployed for natural disaster relief. The argument would lie in "does a migrant caravan constitute an emergency," to which me and G1 would probably say no, and Cred/Chico would probably say yes. (If I'm wrong I'd happily eat that crow Cred/Chico).[/quote]

I believe you are correct. But what I heard was the plan was to use the military's mobility to enhance the border patrol, so if border control agents need to get 15 miles down the road, the air force or army will have personnel there to make it happen, or they need more constatine wire, the mp's have lots of that (trust me i know - shit's a pain in the ...)

[quote=Giantone;1205334]Good, then talk to Credskin ...he doesn't.[/quote]

I get it, but the real fact of all of this caravan crap is this. Trump didn't get a wall. Dem's don't want a wall, Republicans - especially corruporate ones, don't want a wall. Trumps base want's a wall, and may not have turned out since there was no wall.

So what does Trump do, he finds a thing to highlight the difference between the dems and trump republicans, and shouts from the roof top, the migrants are coming the migrants are coming. I will put forth the military to stop them now (they won't be on soil before the election) but OH OH OH, if you send Dems to the congress they will open the borders wide for them.

It's a great political strategy, it highlights differences that the dems would prefer not to focus on, and is at worse a nothing issue for most republicans, and at best a rallying cry for a part of the base that felt this republican congress let them down.

It's political chicanery at it's best/worst because by the time these caravans reach the border, the military's time on site will be winding down, the election will be over, and the majority of the walkers will have found places in Mexico rather than trying to outrun 15,000 troops along with the border guards.

[quote=mooby;1205344]How exactly do you think 4k people in a big line are going to enter illegally?

The only logical play is asking for asylum, which we have laws in place for, which should be enforced? Right? Do you have a problem with refugees asking for asylum? Then change the law. That's a little harder than signing an executive order though.[/quote]

to be fair they did a pretty good job of getting into Mexico, and that's a relatively small geographic area to cross. Right now the caravan could go to any point on the southern border, and if Trump had done nothing, and let the border patrol handle it with no extra capabilities, likely they could have crossed in sporadic groups somewhere along the rio grande at night time.

[quote=Giantone;1205348]What you don't think the Border patrol works at night? I love it..."no extra capabilities" ,so send police,send State police . You're reaching to justify the illegal use of the military.[/quote]

Pretty sure the military defending the border, is likely a constitutionally ok thing.

you seem to stretching to justify bashing any move by trump.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1205346]to be fair they did a pretty good job of getting into Mexico, and that's a relatively small geographic area to cross. Right now the caravan could go to any point on the southern border, and if Trump had done nothing, and let the border patrol handle it with no extra capabilities, likely they could have crossed in sporadic groups somewhere along the rio grande at night time.[/quote]

To also be fair let's compare how much money Mexico spends on their southern border patrol compared to how much we spend on ours. And to make it even more fair we won't compare full budgets as our border is much bigger, let's just take the total mileage from Mexico's border and work the math until we have a fair comparison.

But seriously, do you think our border patrol wouldn't just go spread out across the border from wherever the caravan ends up if the military wasn't going? Put out some OT, organize the border patrol troops, and set them up. Are those immigrants going to try and fight the border patrol to get in? No.

At this point I don't even care if a wall gets built, at least it's not money going towards bailouts of undeserving companies, or getting tacked onto the military budget, or going towards paying Trump's golf courses for the cost of the Secret Service overrunning one of them every other weekend.

My problem with the wall is the drug war. It will stop solo cartel workers from coming in with 50 lb bundles of weed on their backs, but it's not gonna stop bulk shipments coming in via truck, plane, boat, or tunnel.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1205349]Pretty sure the military defending the border, is likely a constitutionally ok thing.

you seem to stretching to justify bashing any move by trump.[/quote]

Are we at war with these people ,have I missed where trump declared war on these people??? There are people assigned to do that job,no,it is not the job of the Military unless this is an emergency and as has been pointed out...........it's not.

[quote=Giantone;1205351]Are we at war with these people ,have I missed where trump declared war on these people??? There are people assigned to do that job,no,it is not the job of the Military unless this is an emergency and as has been pointed out...........it's not.[/quote]

are we at war in syria? have we declared war in the persian gulf?

Have we declared war in Somalia or other areas the military has flown relief missions.

How about Trump declares the caravan a human tragedy (which it is) and authorizes the military to airlift them back to their home land?

stretch all you want, the military acting in support of border patrol agents is not an illegal act.

From 2013 [URL="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41286.pdf"]Congressional Research Service[/URL]:
Securing America’s Borders:
The Role of the Military
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
February 25, 2013

[quote]The military indirectly supports border security and immigration control efforts under general legislation that authorizes the Armed Forces to support federal, state, and local LEAs. Since the early 1980s, Congress has periodically authorized an expanded role for the military in providing support to LEAs. Basic authority for most DOD assistance was originally passed in 1981 and is contained in Chapter 18 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code—Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies. Under Chapter 18 of Title 10, Congress authorizes DOD to share information (§371); loan equipment and facilities (§372); provide expert advice and training (§373); and maintain and operate equipment (§374). For federal LEAs, DOD personnel may be made available, under Section 374, to maintain and operate equipment in conjunction with counterterrorism operations (including the rendition of a suspected terrorist from a foreign country) [B]or the enforcement of counterdrug laws, immigration laws, and customs requirements. For any civilian LEA, Section 374 allows DOD personnel to maintain and operate equipment for a variety of purposes, including aerial reconnaissance and the detection, monitoring, and communication of air and sea traffic, and of surface traffic outside the United States or within 25 miles of U.S. borders[/B][/quote]

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1205352]are we at war in syria? have we declared war in the persian gulf?

Have we declared war in Somalia or other areas the military has flown relief missions.

How about Trump declares the caravan a human tragedy (which it is) and authorizes the military to airlift them back to their home land?

stretch all you want, the military acting in support of border patrol agents is not an illegal act.

From 2013 [URL="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41286.pdf"]Congressional Research Service[/URL]:
Securing America’s Borders:
The Role of the Military
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
February 25, 2013[/quote]

From your own post..........

"The military indirectly supports border security and immigration control efforts under general legislation that authorizes the Armed Forces to support federal, state, and local LEAs. Since the early 1980s, Congress has periodically authorized an expanded role for the military in providing support to LEAs" [B]CONGRESS[/B]"authorized ,not trump.................,you're defending trump trying to be a dictator.

I will say it again,

I think the country won today. You heard it in Pelosi's victory speech. Talking about unity, places that common ground can be found. I think we will see a little bit of a tone shift from Trump. Hopefuly the next 2 years the angry rhetoric on both sides dies down, yes it will pick back up at some point for the next election, but maybe we can all find civility and tone.

The # 1 job of the federal government is to defend the country. The president has discretion as commander in chief on how to use the military.

I'd much rather have American soldiers actually protecting our country than the billions of billions we spend defending the planet.

There is a group of thousands of people that have said they are planning on coming here illegally. The road to asylum is not creating a mob of 1000s of people to willfully plan on violating our sovereignty. Also I love the assumption that they're all just innocent little angels seeking asylum. Like there is not even 1 person with an alterior motive.

What is the democrats plan for this? Just let them all in no questions asked? So far, it's all bashing Trump and no legitimate alternatives.

In California, we had 2 choices for senator to vote for, both Democrat, and Feinstein won easily. This isn't a democrat exclusive thing, it just shows that we as a nation of voters will never actually get term limits, which is so badly needed, because why would we? People won't even vote for other members of their own party. Feinstein is 107 years old. Why not give someone else a shot? Nope, lets just vote her in again.

Tomorrow is going to be a hoot. National Republican news will say they won tonight. Democratic news will say they won.

I think Democrats won. Ugh. Lol.

I'll drink the koolaid like every Redskins season and pretend like Congress can actually come together now and get stuff done now.

I think it went better than I expected but as I stated before the the trump terror tour worked especialy if you look at the results of the boarder states.

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1206149]There is a group of thousands of people that have said they are planning on coming here illegally. The road to asylum is not creating a mob of 1000s of people to willfully plan on violating our sovereignty. Also I love the assumption that they're all just innocent little angels seeking asylum. [B]Like there is not even 1 person with an alterior motive.
[/B]
What is the democrats plan for this? Just let them all in no questions asked? So far, it's all bashing Trump and no legitimate alternatives.[/quote]

Who is giving you this impression?

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1206149]There is a group of thousands of people that have said they are planning on coming here illegally. The road to asylum is not creating a mob of 1000s of people to willfully plan on violating our sovereignty. Also I love the assumption that they're all just innocent little angels seeking asylum. Like there is not even 1 person with an alterior motive.

What is the democrats plan for this? Just let them all in no questions asked? So far, it's all bashing Trump and no legitimate alternatives.[/quote]

You need to catch up on reality and the facts.

[url]https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-facts-trump-border-881006[/url]

That presser today sure was something huh

A grown ass baby throwing a tantrum

[quote=MTK;1206218]That presser today sure was something huh

A grown ass baby throwing a tantrum[/quote]

I agree, Jim Acosta was ridiculous as usual.

Last I checked Acosta isn’t the President, you know the guy acting as unpresidential as possible