The Approaching Hoards...

[since9]

Whether you think of them as illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, immigrants, migrants, or "your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," it looks like be here in the weeks or months to come.

Today's headlines: Trump says US planning 'tent cities' for migrants

Earlier, I thought he said the tent cities were for the asylum seekers. Who's changing the headlines?

Historically, very few people seeking asylum are approved. The requirements are fairly tight, and for good reason, primarily to dissuade large groups of people against using asylum to make an end run around the proscribed and legal path to citizenship.

What say you about all this? Should we repel the invaders at the border? Welcome them all with open arms? Somewhere between?

 

[HP995]

Asylum should be reserved for individuals fleeing something, not mobs causing something. Keep them out.

 

[since9]

Asylum should be reserved for individuals fleeing something, not mobs causing something. Keep them out.

Agreed. Do you think this definition of asylum is stringent enough?

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion​

I spoke with a friend of mine at the State Department about it. He said the key thing is that merely having a fear of persecution is not sufficient grounds for granting asylum. The fear must be both reasonable and rational, usually based on evidence of others being persecuted. He pointed out that Russian were often granted political asylum due to the U.S.S.R.'s rather severe punishment for anyone even wishing to leave the country (difference of political opinion), but not always. He said that during the Cold War it was referred to as the test of "a well-founded fear of persecution." Furthermore, anyone with a criminal history was usually denied asylum.

I can't help but wonder how many people in that approaching crowd have a criminal history. Certainly the ones that fired shots at the Mexican authorities, but which ones are they?

 

[OC for ME]

Entry permitted only at the formal ports of entry. Any other crossing is a clear act of aggression against US sovereignty and those detained are immediately returned to their claimed country of origin. No trial, no hearing, immediately deport every single one of them.

Asylum should not be given to any countries residents. Legal immigration per current visa protocols with strict scrutiny of each applicant's background. The educated (high school or equivalent) and non-criminals only.

 

[solus]

Shall we ask three questions of those who wish to cross over, like shown here...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpx6XnankZ8

 

[CJ4wd]

I can't help but wonder how many people in that approach crowd have a criminal history. Certainly the ones that fired shots at the Mexican authorities, but which ones are they?

Not just criminal backgrounds but their true place of origin.
From some of the news I have heard about this "mob", the majority is made up of young men and NOT "families". If they could gather such a large group as this, why did they not do so in their own country and work (or fight) to obtain THERE what they are trying to seek HERE? :question:

 

[HPmatt]

My favorite color is fuscia...

Texas has been impacted by this unchecked illegal immigration since the mid-1960s, due to Federal courts infringing on Texas’ 10A rights. When I was growing up the Texas Rangers and county Sheriffs enforced the Texas border with Old Mexico, seasonal Mexican agricultural workers came to work the grapefruit, cantaloupe and sugar cane harvests and then went back home (to Mexico), we vacationed in Brownsville, Matamoros, Lake Amistad, El Paso and Juarez - no drug cartels back then.

Harris county P-farm prisoners would clear out the brush on the gully behind our house (inside Houston city limits) - trustees in white uniforms would borrow our hose to fill their water barrels, deputies on their horses had rifles in scabbards; Huntsville’s prisoners farmed cotton and cattle for their own food and clothing (bought steel to make license plates) and in August had the best prison rodeo.

Liberal federal judges untethered to the US Constitution, in the mid-1960s ruled Texas taxpayers had to educate and offer welfare to citizens of Mexico illegally residing in Texas. Federal Courts ruled prisoners did not have to work for their own room & board - work was cruel and unusual punishment.

Under Federal and International asylum laws, you seek asylum in the country NEXT to yours, not the US, so yes - send them immediately back to where they came. The other alternative is to refuse them entry and let Mexico choke on them - that should motivate Obrador to secure THEIR southern border. I praise President DJT for his vow to cut off Financial Aid to Central American countries that do not secure their borders from these invaders.

 

[2a4all]

Texas has been impacted by this unchecked illegal immigration since the mid-1960s, due to Federal courts infringing on Texas’ 10A rights. When I was growing up the Texas Rangers and county Sheriffs enforced the Texas border with Old Mexico, seasonal Mexican agricultural workers came to work the grapefruit, cantaloupe and sugar cane harvests and then went back home (to Mexico), we vacationed in Brownsville, Matamoros, Lake Amistad, El Paso and Juarez - no drug cartels back then.

Harris county P-farm prisoners would clear out the brush on the gully behind our house (inside Houston city limits) - trustees in white uniforms would borrow our hose to fill their water barrels, deputies on their horses had rifles in scabbards; Huntsville’s prisoners farmed cotton and cattle for their own food and clothing (bought steel to make license plates) and in August had the best prison rodeo.

Liberal federal judges untethered to the US Constitution, in the mid-1960s ruled Texas taxpayers had to educate and offer welfare to citizens of Mexico illegally residing in Texas. Federal Courts ruled prisoners did not have to work for their own room & board - work was cruel and unusual punishment.

Under Federal and International asylum laws, you seek asylum in the country NEXT to yours, not the US, so yes - send them immediately back to where they came. The other alternative is to refuse them entry and let Mexico choke on them - that should motivate Obrador to secure THEIR southern border. I praise President DJT for his vow to cut off Financial Aid to Central American countries that do not secure their borders from these invaders.

Is it possible that those "untethered" federal judges may have acted as "constitutional" judges and based their rulings on the 13th & 14th amendments, which put limits on the 10th amendment?

 

[user]

The Constitution of the United States provides as follows:

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15:

[Congress has the power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 4, 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; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

My opinion: Congress has already provided for "calling forth the militia" by funding a standing army which, having been so constituted, is subject to the complete and plenary control of the President. And the U.S. has the Constitutional obligation to protect each state; but if the U.S. will not repel an invasion of colonists, then each state has the right to do so on its own.

Here's something else: the Fourteenth Amendment says, "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." The word is "born", present tense, not "shall have been born" or "will be born" or "born or to be born henceforth". That language applies to people who were already subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. AND already born in the U.S. on or prior to the date of ratification of the amendment. It is NOT prospective.

 

[since9]

Since9, a formal complaint regarding your inflammatory and insulting elementary school playground comments you put in your signature block has been sent for adjudication by the site’s owner.

For those who missed his comment(s): quote

solus: It is to one's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel (Pro 20:3) // Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels (2 Tim 2:23) // An angry person stirs up conflict, and a hot-tempered person commits many sins (Pro 29:22) // I came here to build Pro-2A consensus to help our country, not trade insults like a fifth-grader. If you're on ignore, well, now you know why. Unquote.

My name above is hyperlinked to this this site’s article: https://ryoc.us/the-troll-from-the-i...he-real-world/

Cite page title The Troll – From the Internet to the Real World

Interestingly the article is an incoherent, disjointed tirade covering Bible learning, political left leaning, egotistical rants of how the author has moderated numerous forums and constantly trashed trolls, who are considered by the author as psychotic, and the article ends discussing violence in LA, Fergusion, and ‘now Portland?’

Since9, this antic from an appropriately decorated and honorably discharged USAF senior aviator, who is, by their self-report, state you are an educated, thus a learned individual, and yet you insist on step out and engaging in and exhibiting this type of passive/agressive extremely childish behaviours which diminishes your entire life experiences and credibility.

This USAF retiree must unequivocally state I am truly disappointed in your currently displayed behaviour because it means you have lost any honor you might have earned as a gentlemen and educator.

Thank you, solus, for providing a near-perfect textbook case of trolling behavior. ^^^

Noting that your behavior is "trolling" is a statement on what you chose to post, as well as an ongoing objection to your continued, if not incessant violation of the rules, most notably:

(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!​

Noting that your behavior is "trolling" is not any sort of personal attack against you as a human being or a person. It is merely a comment on your behavior, over which you have full control.

Your continued trolling behavior remains unacceptable. Trolling behavior is always unacceptable in civilized society, whether in person or online forums.

Furthermore, your gross defamation of character is both unwarranted and highly objectionable, and brings great dis-credit upon both yourself and the United States Air Force you claim as your organization of former employment.

If you disagree with the content of my posts, reply to the content. Counter my arguments. Use the tools of logical discourse to make and clarify your case. If you change minds, terrific! If you don't, shrug it off, for such is life. In the meantime, however, please stop engaging in personal attacks and defamation of character. It not only denigrates yourself, but it disrupts OCDO as a message forum.

Now that you have confirmed you've seen the link to the article on the nature and behavior of trolls, I have removed your name from my signature block. I have, however, left the link to the article on trolls and trolling behavior as a clear definition and example of trolling behavior and its detrimental results.

 

[color of law]

The Constitution of the United States provides as follows:

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15:

[Congress has the power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 4, 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; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

My opinion: Congress has already provided for "calling forth the militia" by funding a standing army which, having been so constituted, is subject to the complete and plenary control of the President. And the U.S. has the Constitutional obligation to protect each state; but if the U.S. will not repel an invasion of colonists, then each state has the right to do so on its own.

Here's something else: the Fourteenth Amendment says, "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." The word is "born", present tense, not "shall have been born" or "will be born" or "born or to be born henceforth". That language applies to people who were already subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. AND already born in the U.S. on or prior to the date of ratification of the amendment. It is NOT prospective.

I totally agree.

Also, I already posted a breakdown, but I'm re-posting:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ical-new-ROE&p=2235554&viewfull=1#post2235554

The argument, in regards to the President sending military troops to the border, is that the military cannot be used directly to protect the boarder, only in a supporting role of the border patrol. Is that argument true? According to law it is not.

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 4th EDITION (1968)
OTHERWISE. In a different manner; in another way, or in other ways. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C. Md., 14 F.Supp. 721, 726.
POSSE COMITATUS. Lat. The power or force of the county. The entire population of a county
above the age of fifteen, which a sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases; as to aid him in keeping the peace, in pursuing and arresting felons, etc.

BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY (1914)
POSSE COMITATUS (Lat). The power of the county. The sheriff, or other peace officer, has authority by the common law, while acting under the authority of the writ of the United States, commonwealth, or people, as the case may be, and for the purpose of preserving the public peace, to call to his aid the posse comitatus.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 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.
Historical and Revision Notes – See PUBLIC ACT - June 18, 1878, ch. 263, § 15, 20 Stat. 152.

CHAP. 263.-An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the flaw 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 wilfully 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[.]

The Constitution of the United States - 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; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The most important understanding of law is the definitions of words and phrases used within the law. The above defines two the terms used within the law, “posse comitatus” and “otherwise.”

Title 18 U.S. Code § 1385 basically says whoever 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. Did you catch that? So, it is the person who deploys the troops, not the troops themselves.

The statute, however, has an exception. That exception is in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. Whatever could that be? Well, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says the United States shall protect each State against Invasion. And, an invasion is an aggression by a large number of people.

The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

But, a military enlistee takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. And, just because you were discharged from the military does not mean you were discharged from your duty to support and defend the Constitution. Even without an order from the President your duty cannot be ignored.

 

[solus]

The Constitution of the United States provides as follows:

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15:

[Congress has the power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 4, 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; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

My opinion: Congress has already provided for "calling forth the militia" by funding a standing army which, having been so constituted, is subject to the complete and plenary control of the President. And the U.S. has the Constitutional obligation to protect each state; but if the U.S. will not repel an invasion of colonists, then each state has the right to do so on its own.

Here's something else: the Fourteenth Amendment says, "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." The word is "born", present tense, not "shall have been born" or "will be born" or "born or to be born henceforth". That language applies to people who were already subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. AND already born in the U.S. on or prior to the date of ratification of the amendment. It is NOT prospective.

Thanks user for putting this issue, especially the ‘born’ delineation, into an unemotionalized & without political rhetoric, perspective for me as it provides clearer insight into current and near term Presidential actions.

Tis appreciated.

 

[color of law]

One man's meat is another man's poison.

 

[solus]

I already posted a breakdown, but I'm re-posting:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ical-new-ROE&p=2235554&viewfull=1#post2235554

The argument, in regards to the President sending military troops to the border, is that the military cannot be used directly to protect the boarder, only in a supporting role of the border patrol. Is that argument true? According to law it is not.

The most important understanding of law is the definitions of words and phrases used within the law. The above defines two the terms used within the law, “posse comitatus” and “otherwise.”

Title 18 U.S. Code § 1385 basically says whoever 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. Did you catch that? So, it is the person who deploys the troops, not the troops themselves.

The statute, however, has an exception. That exception is in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. Whatever could that be? Well, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says the United States shall protect each State against Invasion. And, an invasion is an aggression by a large number of people.

The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

But, a military enlistee takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. And, just because you were discharged from the military does not mean you were discharged from your duty to support and defend the Constitution. Even without an order from the President your duty cannot be ignored.

Thanks CoL, I will await my impending orders from the CCIC to be called out of honourable retirement as i sit in the watchtower w/my trusty 1884 Springfield Trapdoor muzzle loader ready to repel the hoards from Rural Religious Eastern North Carolina [said with appropriate drawlll] just in case any make it past the mulitude of hoards guarding the SouthWest border of this our Great Union, past I95, or up/around/along the coal ash polluted Neuse river to my region of presumed protection.

Oh ya, BTW the other part of your post was quite exemplary and most appreciated. :banana:

 

[color of law]

[/B]Thanks CoL, I will await my impending orders from the CCIC to be called out of honourable retirement as i sit in the watchtower w/my trusty 1884 Springfield Trapdoor muzzle loader ready to repel the hoards from Rural Religious Eastern North Carolina [said with appropriate drawlll] just in case any make it past the mulitude of hoards guarding the SouthWest border of this our Great Union, past I95, or up/around/along the coal ash polluted Neuse river to my region of presumed protection.

Oh ya, BTW the other part of your post was quite exemplary and most appreciated. :banana:

What I wrote was actually written-up at the request of the Indiana unregulated Militia groups. It is my understanding that many militia from Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are going to the border. Many of the unregulated militia are former military. Of course these guys/gals march to a different drummer.

I have been informed that many are already on the border.

 

[since9]

What I wrote was actually written-up at the request of the Indiana unregulated Militia groups. It is my understand that many militia from Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are going to the border. Many of the unregulated militia are former military. Of course these guys/gals march to a different drummer.

In my travels through the founding documents, I've come across three distinct uses of the term "militia."

The first is as used in our Constitution and Amendments:

1. The armed people mentioned four times in the U.S. Constitution as separate from the Army and Navy.

Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 15 and 16:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II Section 2 Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

The second comes from the Militia Act of 1903, which breaks it down into two categories:

Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)

Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia

The third comes from the writings of our Founding Fathers, where it's definition varies depending on who's doing the writing. This link, for example, mentions "militia" some 58 times.

Boiling it all down, I find three things:

1. The militia was never considered to be synonymous with either the Navy or the Army (or in more modern times, Coast Guard, Air Force, and soon to be Space Force).

2. Formal state militias are certainly consistent with the Constitutional definition.

3. Many considered "every able-bodied man" and some even "man, woman, and child" to be a part of the militia.

I suppose a most interesting question might be, "Do you consider yourself a part of the militia, and if so, of which part and in what capacity?"