Apparently, the twelve hundred guard at the border isn’t about immigration. The political tone deafness of this administration is mind blowing.
35 thoughts on “Well, That’s A Relief”
Comments are closed.
Apparently, the twelve hundred guard at the border isn’t about immigration. The political tone deafness of this administration is mind blowing.
Comments are closed.
How does that work? They frisk anyone they come across in the desert, and let them go on their way if they are unarmed and not carrying drugs?
Well, federally controlled Army troops can’t perform law enforcement duties, legally.
The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1835) prohibits that, unless Congress has passed an enabling act for this situation, which I’m not aware of.
(Of course, that also means they can’t properly be used to stop drugs or guns, either, unless there’s another act of Congress allowing that. Though in those cases there might well be.
It’s still tone-deaf, especially since they’re not making the Constitutional argument. Unsurprising, since then they’d have to explain how what they’re claiming is the reason is acceptable.)
It seems to me that invasion is more than just a legal matter.
REPEL BOARDERS, ARGH.
Militarize the border. It’s good practice for the troops. Make it part of their training. Put all our boot camps on or near the border.
Ahoy, we need t’ guard and protect our borders from in’asion. Gar, Where can I find a bottle o’rum?
With that small number, I expect (hope?) they’ll be patrolling known cocaine smuggling corridors (the drugs go north, the guns go south). If it goes well, it will be better than nothing, but not by much.
REPEL BOARDERS
Better yet, repeal borders.
Try that first with your cellular membranes and let us know how well that works out for you.
Bad comparison. We don’t need borders, we need private property.
Sigivald,
I think you and the Obamanites have got this one completely backwards.
If the current leadership would quit looking at the constant, but slow, influx of Mexicans into our country as a “law enforcement” issue, we’d already have troops down there. The Mexican Government is and has been aiding it’s citizens in their efforts to come here. That used to be considered an invasion. Protecting the borders IS a job for the military. It’s precisely the kind of job they should be doing given the size of the problem.
And Posse Comitatus is about the military enforcement of federal laws against the citizenry, over and above local LEO’s and local laws. It’s not about stopping foreigners, breaking in!
What State and the WH are using the Guard for IS a law enforcement situation. Illegal drugs and gun running are usually considered smuggling. That’s why the Coast Guard is NOT part of DoD, so they can stop smuggling over the oceans.
Smuggling is a legal issue, not a country protection issue, and requires “cops” to stop it.
Protecting the country from foreign governments intrusions or sending in their people to undermine our government, is a military issue, not a legal issue, and requires soldiers and sailors and Marines to solve it.
Some days, I miss the Cold War. People understood these concepts back then!
I see where you’re going, and I won’t argue the point, ‘cept to say I’m not entirely convinced, and that won’t be resolved here.
I wonder what it is that causes the Mexicans to cross the border and why the Arizonans object to it. As long as they don’t depend on social services and/or as long as they pay taxes I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to cross borders.
I imagine they cross the borders because their country is poor and because they do work where it is easier to avoid having part of the fruits of their labour confiscated by the government. Confiscation of wages is a problem with a government that does not respect property rights. Poverty in Mexico is probably the result of the Mexican government not respecting property rights so investment is disrupted. Or perhaps it is the presence of domestic or foreign trade barriers, which is again a symptom of governments not respecting property rights.
Borders delineate tax collection fiefdoms. Free men don’t need borders, but they do need property rights.
“As long as they don’t depend on social services and/or as long as they pay taxes I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to cross borders.”
The illegals DO the first and DON’T do the second. That’s why they cross illegally, and why the Arizonans don’t want the illegal ones.
Omission of the word “illegal” and use of the word “immigrant” (which refers to legal entry, and is therefore either mistaken or a deliberate lie) tend to confuse the whole argument.
And how do you determine where your private property ends and your neighbor’s begins?
Oops. Guess you still need borders after all.
Oops. Guess you still need borders after all.
Boundaries, yes, but not (state) borders. Given that you can’t get rid of the Mexican government (and probably not of the Arizonan government either), having the border may be the lesser evil. But on the whole government is still part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The illegals DO the first and DON’T do the second. That’s why they cross illegally, and why the Arizonans don’t want the illegal ones.
That problem can be solved by not having social services and not having taxes. Again, you have to be pragmatic, but I’m just trying to point out that government (and lack of respect for private property rights in general) is the root cause. The illegal immigration is just a symptom. In the short run addressing the symptom may be the best thing to do. But in the long run you’d have to address the underlying cause.
I think it was Milton Friedman who said that you can have open immigration, or a welfare state, but not both.
We’re learning that the hard way in my country. The socialists don’t want to scale back the welfare state and they don’t want to close the borders. It’s made the country close to ungovernable. The recently collapsed coalition basically agreed not to do anything. In general that’s a good thing, but not when you have a backlog of harmful socialist policies to get rid of.
One exception to Friedman’s statement might ironically be a Friedmanite basic income, below subsistence level and restricted to born or naturalised citizens. Combined with free competition on markets for products, capital and labour this would drive unskilled wages (but not incomes) down by enough to keep waves of immigration at bay. Only highly educated, talented and entrepreneurial immigrants would still be tempted to come over. Others would be better off staying where they are and sellings their goods and services from their own country.
I’m not as strongly in favour of a basic income as I used to be and Friedman’s main policy prescription of monetarism has shown itself to be an unmitigated disaster, but there may be something to it as long as it isn’t higher than it needs to be to avoid abject poverty. As time and technology progresses I’d imagine the optimum basic income would converge to zero.
Sigivald write: Well, federally controlled Army troops can’t perform law enforcement duties, legally.
Therefore it makes no sense that the troops are being sent to enforce laws concerning drug smuggling and gun-running.
However, I agree with Der Schtumpy that sending troops to the border to repel invaders is not law enforcement at all — it’s part of the mission of our armed forces!
In fact, I don’t know why Arizona cannot simply sue the Executive Branch to compel it uphold Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:
“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.”
BBB
The political tone deafness of this administration is mind blowing.
A recent poll puts the Latino approval of Democrats 36 percentage points over Republicans. Up from 22 points a year ago.
Tone deaf? Not so much, actually.
Does that poll include a significant number of mojados among the responding Latinos, K?
K, that is an interesting statistic, but improving a 22 percent gap to 36 percent is a waste of resources in my opinion. Isn’t that statistic basically saying that the advantage went from 61-39 to 68-32? I mean, Dems already have the black vote at around an 88-12 margin now, and look at how the Dems take them for granted now.
I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to cross borders.
Makes you wonder why the 200 or so other countries try to prevent themselves from being invaded?
A nation without borders isn’t a nation. It’s a picnic area.
The citizens of a nation make up it’s laws. A nation that isn’t a nation isn’t ruled by law, it’s ruled by chaos.
For the same reason you wouldn’t want them crossing your property line without your permission.
Makes you wonder why the 200 or so other countries try to prevent themselves from being invaded?
As I said, borders delineate tax collection fiefdoms. Governments jealously guard their tax collection fiefdoms.
A nation without borders isn’t a nation.
Correct.
It’s a picnic area.
And that would be bad because…?
For the same reason you wouldn’t want them crossing your property line without your permission.
If they didn’t cross your property line and other people’s property lines, why would you care if they crossed the border? After all, a border is just a line on a map.
If they didn’t cross your property line and other people’s property lines, why would you care if they crossed the border? After all, a border is just a line on a map.
A border is a property line.
A border is a property line.
Really? Who owns that property and why would you or I care?
Boundaries, yes, but not borders.
Borders determine what laws apply. That’s why you need borders. That’s why you have nations. One world government means you could never vote with your feet.
I don’t know why Arizona cannot simply sue the Executive Branch to compel it uphold Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution
Perhaps that will be the fallout. Perhaps we should encourage the invasion meme the way some persist in referring to them as undocumented rather than illegal. I mean, if they had documents that say they are illegal, does that really improve the situation?
Really? Who owns that property and why would you or I care?
Name a bit of property in the US that isn’t owned by anyone.
One world government means you could never vote with your feet.
I wasn’t talking about one government for the whole world, I was talking about no governments for the whole world.
Look, I know this isn’t realistic, at least not in our lifetimes. But I’m trying to draw attention to the root cause. Reducing the role of government may still be in our grasp and that would already be a worthwhile change.
Where I live America is often held up as a “cautionary example” of what can go “wrong” as a result of “rampant capitalism”. Yet here, in this thread, I see educated US citizens looking to the US government or the Arizona state government to protect them from peaceful Mexicans crossing an imaginary government drawn line on a map. In the short term that may or may not be the right thing to do, but the real solution requires addressing the root cause and to do that you first need to recognise the root cause. It seems as if you have been unwittingly brainwashed by government propaganda to such a degree that you don’t see the root cause (government) and the solution people are calling for is more government, not less.
But let’s step back a bit. If nobody ever crossed your property line or anybody else’s property lines without their permission, who would be harmed if a Mexican crossed the border? If a Mexican wants to mow your lawn or clean your house for less money than the kid next door, why shouldn’t you be free to hire him? Has a Mexican ever stolen any of your property? Well, some of them may have but in general I don’t think so. Are Mexicans in general after your money? I don’t think so. By contrast every government in human history has been after its citizen’s money. Why would you want to give an organisation that’s been after your money for as long as it has existed more power to keep people who want to trade with you at interesting prices on the other side of an imaginary line this organisation has drawn in the sand. The biggest violator of your property rights does not seem like a plausible guarantor of those property rights, nor would restricting trade with cheap labour be likely to increase your wealth.
Your government and the Mexican government the root cause of the problem. Just be glad you don’t have my government, for it’s even worse than the US government.
Name a bit of property in the US that isn’t owned by anyone.
Desert areas next to an unmarked stretch of the border?
Desert areas next to an unmarked stretch of the border?
Those are owned by someone.
Those are owned by someone.
Owned by someone who apparently doesn’t care enough to build a fence around it.
Some want to believe that entering this country illegally is the only law these invaders break. It just isn’t so. People that come into this country following the law are generally law abiding (anyone going through the procedure knows there’s tons of incentive to avoid it.) Those that come illegally are not law abiding in general which is why little things change…
Grocery stores now have uniformed guards which they never had years ago. Gunshots by gangs (you can tell by the way the shots are grouped) are heard (although this last year the police have done a good job cleaning them out of this neighborhood) every week. Phoenix was not like that before the invasion of the last few decades. Drugs, not low paying jobs, are the leading income for illegals. Whole communities revolve around the drug trade. Phoenix kidnapping’s are world class do to the invasion.
The American’s legally here in Phoenix are the hard working poor. Not the invaders. Since the new law, I’ve heard many are going to Texas.