U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,694 times
Reputation: 135

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico from East Los View Post
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 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.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

So are saying that this is a state issue? I have no clue where the state and federal jurisdiction begins and ends when speaking of our southern border.

As I read it, this is an international issue, due to the fact that it involves citizens of another nation crossing the USA/Mexico border illegally.

This is the same situation when a person abducts a child in Texas and flees to Oklahoma. At that point the feds become involved. It has become an intestate issue at this point.

From what you have added I would argue now that it is the duty of the federal uniformed services to secure our border to stop an invasion from the south.

 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:38 PM
 
1,807 posts, read 2,796,344 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
(a) The Army and other armed forced SHOULD be stationed on our borders:
(1) Peace and security in our own country has fallen thanks to open borders that allow anyone from anywhere to walk right in.
(2) What we are doing now is NOT working, something must change.
(3) Our main objective is to rid the US of unwanted people who are living here illegally.
(4) Illegals from everywhere are invading our country. Invasion is an act of aggression and should be dealt with in order to restore the peace and security to the people of the United States.
(i) Because the percentage of illegals are from south of our border, these borders should be heavily fortified with military presence.

The Border Patrol can do little to prevent illegal crossing because they have insufficient tools to combat the day by day invasion.
1. "should".. ideally a lot of things "should" be happening... like decreasing gang violence/activity in major cities. let's call the army for that too.
2. the border being as open as it is, is not the fault of illegal mexicans. they're simply taking advantage of whatever areas allow them to enter. and i hardly doubt a field worker in texas is interfering with your peace and security. the openness of the border itself is more of a threat than some mexican peasant looking for work in scottsdale
3. LOL, ahead of economic recovery, the national debt, iraq, afghanistan, health care and social security? you have your priorities messed up.
4. it is not an "invasion", at least not according to the definition of the word. an invasion implies a combined effort, in collusion n what not. i laugh at the thought of some poor, uneducated mexican risking his life to cross the border just to work at some field being a part of some huge conspiracy to take over the u.s. you're a little paranoid.

army has its purpose, border patrol exists for theirs. that they're not doing their job to your liking is another issue. would u replace police with the army? yes lets do that too. esp in places like detroit.

.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:44 PM
 
234 posts, read 202,807 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by borderlord View Post

hmmmm.......seems there is a certain clause here....
For a period of time in the 1990s, United States Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR (forward looking infrared) devices and helicopters. In conjunction with the United States Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers simply ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. It was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.

After the September 11 attacks the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure, but made no mention of the Canada – United States border. Some believe the whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes, and other electronics. Another strategy suggests that the US Military or Border Patrol could easily eliminate 100% of illegal mainland crossings by placing a guard every 500-1000 feet along the 2000 mile border with Mexico, arguing that even this low tech, manpower intensive option would represent a tiny fraction of the annual Defense and Homeland Security budgets.

Opposition says this is a violation of Posse Comitatus although the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act. Others believe that the border could never be completely closed, but that the United States could possibly put a serious dent in illegal cross border traffic with a more robust military presence and a larger, more pro-active Border Patrol.


footnotes

Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:55 PM
 
234 posts, read 202,807 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
So are saying that this is a state issue? I have no clue where the state and federal jurisdiction begins and ends when speaking of our southern border.

As I read it, this is an international issue, due to the fact that it involves citizens of another nation crossing the USA/Mexico border illegally.

This is the same situation when a person abducts a child in Texas and flees to Oklahoma. At that point the feds become involved. It has become an intestate issue at this point.

From what you have added I would argue now that it is the duty of the federal uniformed services to secure our border to stop an invasion from the south.
In 1875 the Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Today most states rely on the Federal Government to perform its Constitutional obligations of securing the borders but unfortunately the Feds have failed the American people.

I assume a State can declare it's 10th amendment sovereignty right to enforce immigration on its own. Arizona is a perfect example of a State that made or is currently making it's own trespassing laws so that local law enforcement can pick up and detain undocumented immigrants in that manner and send them all to ICE.

But it cost money and a State enforcing immigration laws will have to spend the money itself unless the Feds allocate funding to the State.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,694 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by expect View Post
1. "should".. ideally a lot of things "should" be happening... like decreasing gang violence/activity in major cities. let's call the army for that too.
2. the border being as open as it is, is not the fault of illegal mexicans. they're simply taking advantage of whatever areas allow them to enter. and i hardly doubt a field worker in texas is interfering with your peace and security. the openness of the border itself is more of a threat than some mexican peasant looking for work in scottsdale
3. LOL, ahead of economic recovery, the national debt, iraq, afghanistan, health care and social security? you have your priorities messed up.
4. it is not an "invasion", at least not according to the definition of the word. an invasion implies a combined effort, in collusion n what not. i laugh at the thought of some poor, uneducated mexican risking his life to cross the border just to work at some field being a part of some huge conspiracy to take over the u.s. you're a little paranoid.

army has its purpose, border patrol exists for theirs. that they're not doing their job to your liking is another issue. would u replace police with the army? yes lets do that too. esp in places like detroit.

.

1- I agree with this part except for the end. No one expects the fed to deal with local and state issues. Unless they are way lefties. This is a national issue though due to its international implications.
2-Crimes of opportunity are still crimes. If you leave your car unlocked and I steal it does that make it YOUR fault? I think not.
3-I think the collective "our" that was used was to include members of this illegal immigration forum more so than people in general. We are in the illegal immigration forum after all.
4-This is an invasion. Whether or not it is passive is up for debate. It was best stated by Edward J. Erler who said, "A radical change in the character of the citizens would be tantamount to a regime change just a surely as a revolution in its political principals."

No one is talking of using the national standing army to force American citizens to do the will of the government. However, expecting them to enforce NATIONAL border laws may not be too much to ask considering this;
Quote:
In 2005 DHS said 850 people from countries of “special interest” were apprehended crossing our southern border. In 2006 DHS reported between 2001 and 2005 that 45,000 OTMs from countries on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror (SST) or from countries that protected terrorist organizations and their members were released into America’s general public.


If we can spend TRILLIONS using the Marines, the Army, the Air force, and the Navy to defend the Iraq and Afghanistan borders we can surely expect the army to secure our own.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,953,393 times
Reputation: 29356
The army's function is to fight wars and kill enemy belligerents, not to deal with largely civilian issues where the rules of engagement are much different than those of a military mission. Border control is what we have Border Patrol agents for.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,694 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico from East Los View Post
For a period of time in the 1990s, United States Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR (forward looking infrared) devices and helicopters. In conjunction with the United States Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers simply ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. It was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.

After the September 11 attacks the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure, but made no mention of the Canada – United States border. Some believe the whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes, and other electronics. Another strategy suggests that the US Military or Border Patrol could easily eliminate 100% of illegal mainland crossings by placing a guard every 500-1000 feet along the 2000 mile border with Mexico, arguing that even this low tech, manpower intensive option would represent a tiny fraction of the annual Defense and Homeland Security budgets.

Opposition says this is a violation of Posse Comitatus although the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act. Others believe that the border could never be completely closed, but that the United States could possibly put a serious dent in illegal cross border traffic with a more robust military presence and a larger, more pro-active Border Patrol.


footnotes

Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III
Helluva good read. I think you have brought more info to my eyes today than I have picked up on here in a while. Thanks for the knowledge!
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:13 AM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,528,935 times
Reputation: 47458
21 million illegals working here since last amnesty, our government does not know how they got here or where they work. if you dont admit there is an elephant in the living room you dont have to clean anything up.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,694 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
The army's function is to fight wars and kill people, not to deal with largely civilian issues where the rules of engagement are much different than those of a military mission.

Agreed. Honestly, but I still feel like the argument can be made that if they are fighting over seas, in what appears to be a policing capacity, why can they not do it here? With the national security lapse involved with random people crossing I think it should receive more attention. I am personally far more worried about that than Osama Bin Hiden half way around the world. Ya know?

I do see your point tho.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,694 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
21 million illegals working here since last amnesty, our government does not know how they got here or where they work. if you dont admit there is an elephant in the living room you dont have to clean anything up.

Which is why it is our duty now to do something about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top