• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Equating rocks with rifles, Trump proposes radical new ROE

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I would fully support our military defending our borders, but they are trained to defend other nations' borders...
Whether the borders of another nation or our own, we're trained to defend borders, period. In fact, whether advancing phase lines or defending borders, that is precisely what all branches of the U.S. military are trained to do, in "air, land, and sea." These days, Full-Spectrum Dominance delineates it as "terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare."

That includes borders, anytime, anywhere.

...or to create new ones as it suits US foreign policy.
Strike out "foreign" and you have half a winner, as expanding our own borders hasn't been U.S. Policy for many decades. It has always, however, been U.S. policy to protect our own borders, a fact hammered home by 9/11, when all commercial traffic was immediately grounded after determining the threat was aerial in nature and the U.S. Air Force patrolled our own skies, even as our borders and ports were closed, as were all U.S. military bases.

Our very own Constitution hammers this point home in 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."

Put simply, the country (United States) protests the states (each of them) against invasion. I doesn't get any clearer than that. Ordinarily, that would be the border patrol. If/when they're overwhelmed, it is the duty of the United States to ramp up defenses, up to and including the United States Military. The Constitution further mentions the Army and the Navy and their duties.

The United States controls the United States military through both Congressional law and by direction of the President, our Commander in Chief (Article II. Section 2.). Including defense of our own borders, or anyone else's, as it suits U.S. policy by direction of our National Command Authorities.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,655
Location
here nc
Whether the borders of another nation or our own, we're trained to defend borders, period. In fact, whether advancing phase lines or defending borders, that is precisely what all branches of the U.S. military are trained to do, in "air, land, and sea." These days, Full-Spectrum Dominance delineates it as "terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare."

That includes borders, anytime, anywhere.

Strike out "foreign" and you have half a winner, as expanding our own borders hasn't been U.S. Policy for many decades. It has always, however, been U.S. policy to protect our own borders, a fact hammered home by 9/11, when all commercial traffic was immediately grounded after determining the threat was aerial in nature and the U.S. Air Force patrolled our own skies, even as our borders and ports were closed, as were all U.S. military bases.

Our very own Constitution hammers this point home in 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."

Put simply, the country (United States) protests the states (each of them) against invasion. I doesn't get any clearer than that. Ordinarily, that would be the border patrol. If/when they're overwhelmed, it is the duty of the United States to ramp up defenses, up to and including the United States Military. The Constitution further mentions the Army and the Navy and their duties.

The United States controls the United States military through both Congressional law and by direction of the President, our Commander in Chief (Article II. Section 2.). Including defense of our own borders, or anyone else's, as it suits U.S. policy by direction of our National Command Authorities.
Oh Since9, really, the military certainly did not shut down our nation’s commerical airways during the tragedy surrounding sept 2011...cannot by Federal law as the mandate is outside the armed forces sphere of responsibility & purview of their constitutional charter.

The armed services did not even initiate the heighten security of their facilities or initate USAF patrols of the nation’s sky, now did they?

Oh, BTW, what is “congressional law” which controls our armed forces, could you provide a cite of “congressional law” ?

Finally Since9, there is no, nada, none, nothing of truth in your statement and use of term - THROUGH BOTH - control the armed forces of this nation. That power rests solely on the President’s vested duty as Commander, period!
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,599
Location
Granite State of Mind
Put simply, the country (United States) protests the states (each of them) against invasion. I doesn't get any clearer than that.
Immigration is not invasion.

The federal government has no authority over immigration. Don't believe me? Just ask Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Let’s not forget Madison was the man who wrote the 1808 clause. He still maintained the power wasn’t there. He didn’t write, “until after 1808.” He wrote, “no where delegated.”
https://fee.org/articles/does-the-federal-government-have-the-power-to-regulate-immigration-thomas-jefferson-and-james-madison-said-no/
 

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
145
Location
STL MO, USA
Immigration is not invasion.

The federal government has no authority over immigration. Don't believe me? Just ask Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.



https://fee.org/articles/does-the-federal-government-have-the-power-to-regulate-immigration-thomas-jefferson-and-james-madison-said-no/
There is a legal process for immigration into the United States. Immigrating legally is not invasion. Anyone who wants to move to this country and does so through the legal channels is welcome to do so.

Crossing the border illegally is not immigration. It's invasion. If you try to come here illegally, you should expect to get tossed back where you came from. And in my opinion, if caught and deported, you should be blacklisted from ever being allowed entry into the country ever again.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Immigration is not invasion.

The federal government has no authority over immigration. Don't believe me? Just ask Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
While both Jefferson and Madison are noteworthy members of our Founding Fathers, they're opinions do not carry the weight of law.

The United States Constitution, on the other hand, does, and is even "the supreme Law of the Land." Our Law of the Land specifically states:

"The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." As for immigration...
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
729
Location
MO, USA
Plan A:

1. Finish the wall.

2. Really finish the wall with a clearly-marked minefield and/or motion bots AND signs warning of same and directing to safe legal entry point.

3. Invite all to legally apply for entry, if we need people.

4. Celebrate diversity but in a law abiding and voluntary manner. Take a break from that celebration every now and then if it gets out of hand. Don't exceed a rate that can assimilate.

Plan B:

or...the big talkers who invite illegal immigrants should open their own homes (primary/sole residence, not their #3 getaway home) to anyone bold enough to come right in, including MS-13, cartel members, terrorist cells, and whatever else is jumping over the fence. Get in on the fun, don't be just a talker but a doer! Be sure to host anti-American military age men too, not just cherry-picked women and kids. And give them your credit card just in case the taxpayer-funded benefits aren't quite as regal as they expected. Let us know how it works out.

Hmmm, wonder which plan I would choose.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Plan A:

1. Finish the wall.

2. Really finish the wall with a clearly-marked minefield and/or motion bots AND signs warning of same and directing to safe legal entry point.
I'm of the opinion a simple line of warning signs facing south backed by a single line of Jersey barriers to the north would be sufficient, provided the border was patrolled by cheap UAVs backed by manned helos and roving vehicles with snipers.

Better make it two miles. And destroy any vehicles transiting the area without question.

3. Invite all to legally apply for entry, if we need people.

4. Celebrate diversity but in a law abiding and voluntary manner. Take a break from that celebration every now and then if it gets out of hand. Don't exceed a rate that can assimilate.
Those are the laws on the books. Dems aren't following them.

Plan B:

or...the big talkers who invite illegal immigrants should open their own homes (primary/sole residence, not their #3 getaway home) to anyone bold enough to come right in, including MS-13, cartel members, terrorist cells, and whatever else is jumping over the fence. Get in on the fun, don't be just a talker but a doer! Be sure to host anti-American military age men too, not just cherry-picked women and kids. And give them your credit card just in case the taxpayer-funded benefits aren't quite as regal as they expected. Let us know how it works out.

Hmmm, wonder which plan I would choose.
Better yet, ship the big talking criminals south of the border.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,655
Location
here nc
Me thinks since9, you are confusing & envisioning (hallucinating?) about Carpenter’s ‘81 SF thriller Escape from New York!
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
183
Location
Planet Earth
How is this for a suggestion that would cost the government a lot less. Instead of a big, expensive wall, just use chain link fences for the areas with the most problems. Affix signs on the south sides with warnings that "Trespassers risk being shot". Let "volunteers" put up box blinds about 50 yds. behind the fences and let them be manned by those volunteers with SA .22 rifles with high capacity magazines. When illegals try to cross through the fence, these volunteers, who have been trained to shoot into the dirt in front of the trespassers and not AT them, can "make them dance" like an old time western.
There may be one problem with that - the "environmental clean-up" that would be necessary from scaring them back to their side. :devilish:
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
729
Location
MO, USA


Solus and CJ - yes absolutely, but maybe lob one of these at them to make sure they are sufficiently scared and won't try again the next day?
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
729
Location
MO, USA
But I wasn't joking about the minefield - no politician would dare (and most citizens and voters are also too hypocritical and cowardly) but I think that's the only realistic and affordable way to secure the non-entrance portions of the border; get serious and make avoidance an easy decision for otherwise very determined people. Sniping with .22's to miss and scare is not a realistic option, although I appreciate the sentiment. The .22 can easily be deadly, so politics and media would treat it exactly the same as lethal force, just waiting for accidents and if someone hits instead of misses you lose. That's a very weak position. Just go with the lethal force and it should be justifiable to defend our nation against invasion, attack, and organized crime. The border could remain open to asylum seekers and other applicants at official entrances.

That may seem heartless but I'm not. I just want our nation to survive. Here's my reasoning. The migrants and invaders are not easily dissuaded and they have a lot of political and media and even financial backing. Non-lethal or less-lethal might be possible with modern tech such as sound, microwave, and electricity, but again it's a weak position where you're trying to be tough and tame, strong and harmless at the same time. The other political side and their lawyers and judges and media would pounce with human stories when someone was injured or killed. Some people can't handle the less lethal, and equipment or situations may go wrong, then you start losing the opinion battle again. And for anything short of life and death these rough people will laugh and keep trying to cross, and sympathizers will help provide technical solutions for them to do so. If a politician had the fortitude to take a realistic strong position to really secure the border, no funny business, we're not playing, that would be perhaps a toxic position to start with, but undeniably a strong one. The ROE would be nice and simple - we love you, we encourage you to apply if you have a valid basis, but stick to the approved routes and entrances. Stay out of the dead zone or get dead. We will protect our nation from any invasion.

(Otherwise, dear cowardly citizens and voters, you are not taking the positions necessary to be deserving of your liberty, rights, and economic benefits, and you are fairly likely to lose them. Freedom isn't free.)
 
Top