Image 01 Image 03

Trump on the Border: “We are going to be doing things militarily”

Trump on the Border: “We are going to be doing things militarily”

“We are going to be guarding our border with our military. That’s a big step.”

Around 1,200 central Americans are marching up through Mexico with plans to cross the southern U.S. border.

Tuesday, Trump said he spoke with U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and may use the U.S. military to secure the border, telling the press pool, “We are going to be guarding our border with our military. That’s a big step.”

Reuters reported:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he planned to use U.S. military forces to protect the nation’s southern border with Mexico until there is a border wall and “proper security.”

“We are going to be doing things militarily,” Trump told reporters at the White House, adding that he had discussed the idea with U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

But “militarize the border”? Facing a veritable invasion by people who fully plan to exploit existing immigration laws and regulations, ensuring our borders are secure is the first priority of the federal government.

So, basically this:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


SpaceInvader | April 3, 2018 at 3:17 pm

Can we send them to California and retake the state from the invaders?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to SpaceInvader. | April 3, 2018 at 10:03 pm

    Maybe we should just invade Mexico and its Mexican state of California!

      Daniel Greenfield on past presidential and military actions vis-a-vis Mexico.

      The United States has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, 39,000 in Japan, 34,805 in Germany, 23,000 in South Korea, and around 5,200 in Iraq. Our military protects the borders of countless nations.

      Except our own.

      In 1919, we had 18,500 soldiers on the border. “Twice a day every foot of the border line is patrolled by cavalrymen and infantrymen,” the New York Times noted.

      …Marines fighting drug cartels have come under fire from drug smugglers.

      El Salvadoran migration has inflicted 207 murderers on this country. … Their goal is the invasion, colonization and occupation of America.

      And the only ones defending us against them are the members of an outnumbered border patrol, threatened by both drug cartels on the other side of the border and sanctuary states in this country.

      That’s why President Trump is mobilizing the troops to do the job that the Democrats won’t do.

      “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump said.

      Some of the same politicians who oppose withdrawing our forces from Syria also oppose sending troops to secure the border. But which should be a higher priority?

      If an enemy army were invading South Korea, our soldiers would swing into action. But the United States has already been invaded. The invaders have occupied and seized control of state governments, including California, while declaring that their rebel cities will defy Federal immigration law.

      They mean to do the same thing to the entire country. Their DREAM is the end of America.

      From fighting Indian raids to the banditry of Pancho Villa, the military has always secured the border against invasions out of Mexico. The military was our defense against the “Plan of San Diego” terror waged by Mexican racists who vowed to seize control of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado, liberate the “proletariat” and execute all “North American over sixteen years of age.”

      And yes, the military can even “build the wall”.

      Joint Task Force North’s military engineers have already built 62 miles of road, and border fence construction. There’s no reason why its anti-terrorist and drug smuggling prevention mission can’t be expanded to include securing the border with a wall and other impassable physical barriers.

      Presidents have taken action against urgent illegal migrant threats before.

      “Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. ‘I like Ike,’ right?” Donald Trump said during a primary debate. “Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.”

      Operation Wetback was fantastically effective in clearing illegal aliens out of California and Texas.

      Under General Joseph Swing, who had done everything from hunting Pancho Villa in Mexico to going up against the Japanese in the Philippines, the INS caught, detained and deported over a million illegals. Wetback had been based on the Operation Cloud Burst plan, which would have used a presidential proclamation to authorize the use of military force if the Army had not been tied down in Korea.

      Some commentators have claimed that the Posse Comitatus Act would prevent the use of any military forces other than the National Guard on the border. But securing the border against foreign invaders (as opposed to domestic law enforcement directed against citizens) has always been a military matter.

      Furthermore the military is already authorized to operate in areas where drug smuggling occurs.

      Stopping illegal migrants does not subject “citizens to the exercise of military power”. If the military does not supplement ICE, but directly secures the border, there would be no Posse Comitatus issue.

      But the law also permits the use of military force to “prevent disruption of Federal functions”.

      Sanctuary states like California have disrupted the functioning of immigration law and have even passed laws prohibiting citizens from cooperating with Federal authorities. 10 U.S.C. 332, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces to enforce Federal law when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means unworkable.”

      The unlawful obstruction of immigration law by sanctuary cities and states has made ordinary enforcement unworkable. The rebellion against the authority of the United States must end.

      10 U.S.C. 333 further, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.” That’s the current state of affairs in California and elsewhere.

      Californians are being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens because their government not only refuses to protect their constitutional rights, but criminalizes cooperation with immigration authorities.

      Deploying the National Guard would be a helpful start. But hopefully it won’t end there.

      Any forces deployed to the border must have the authority to stop anyone illegally crossing the border. Either that or they must be part of a wall construction effort. Obama and Bush had already deployed the National Guard as a show of force. But a show of force by forces unable to do anything is a farce.

      America can’t afford any more border security theater when we need actual border security results.

      Our cities are being overwhelmed, our borders are unreal lines on a map and the terror is coming home. Every day we are losing more of our country. The San Diego Plan envisioned the invasion and capture of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado. Over a century later, it’s becoming a reality.

      The military can be used to secure the border as it has been since its existence. All we need is the will.

      President Trump is right to call for using the military to guard the border. He’s right to contemplate using the military to build the wall. It’s been done before and it can be done again. The residents of terrorized border towns, the angel dads and moms of Americans murdered by illegal aliens, the sheriffs and other law enforcement officers, and the struggling ICE agents are waiting for military backup.

      Our soldiers have been deployed to defend many countries. Now it’s time for them to defend our own.

Bucky Barkingham | April 3, 2018 at 3:26 pm

Should there be any violent confrontation between the invaders and the border defense forces the Left will portray it as a war crime, just as the Palestinians do when they attack the Israeli Defense Forces on the border in Gaza.

Of course nothing may happen if a district court judge in Oregon, say, issues an injunction against the C-in-C actually exercising his Constitutional authority to protect the country.

    Milhouse in reply to Bucky Barkingham. | April 4, 2018 at 2:25 am

    Should there be any violent confrontation between the invaders and the border defense forces the Left will portray it as a war crime, just as the Palestinians do when they attack the Israeli Defense Forces on the border in Gaza.

    The answer is not to copy Israel’s foolish policy of playing their game, engaging them in a serious discussion on their chosen ground, trying hard to minimize enemy casualties and coming out with detailed justification for each one. There is no winning that game no matter how well you play it. The answer is to refuse to play by or acknowledge their rules. Don’t engage them, mock them. Go back to basics, and brazenly announce that this is a legitimate military operation against enemies of the USA, and the aim will be to maximize casualties, not minimize them.

    Israel would do well to adopt this attitude as well, but it would be much harder because successive Israeli government have allowed their self-appointed judiciary and legal establishment entrench itself to the point where many officers are likely refuse to pass on such orders. Which leads us to the next point:

    Of course nothing may happen if a district court judge in Oregon, say, issues an injunction against the C-in-C actually exercising his Constitutional authority to protect the country.

    That would be a perfect opportunity to put the judiciary in its place by openly refusing the order. Any judge issuing such a order would be blatantly and obviously ultra vires, and I think it would be the President’s constitutional duty to publicly treat it as such. As above, don’t play the game, don’t appeal it, but rather treat it as the legal nullity it would be. Inform the judge’s superiors and demand that s/he be brought to order.

It sounds like an excellent training opportunity to me. Get ’em crossing the border. Set up some temporary tent encampments just this side of the border to hold ’em instead of turning them loose inside the U.S. with a promise to appear. Immediate or overnight repatriation. Let ICE concentrate on the illegal aliens already inside the U.S.

    gonzotx in reply to Elric. | April 3, 2018 at 4:27 pm

    Don’t be let them in. Period!

      Edward in reply to gonzotx. | April 4, 2018 at 8:44 am

      Exactly. We are informed that if they manage to reach US soil they must be given the opportunity to claim “refugee” status and a court date and be released in the US to “come back” for their court appearance. Block their entrance to the US, keeping them in Mexico and that problem goes away. If it takes a couple of divisions to achieve that result, so be it. It will be money well spent (cost of moving the troops, we already pay them) in changing the expectation that we will “roll over and play dead” to the invaders. Perhaps the Congress will then change the law to provide for immediate deportation for not only Mexicans, but all people arriving illegally.

Close The Fed | April 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm

He’s not sounding creative here. I want video of convoys of troops going to the border, setting up encampments, etc.

Also, the suggestions made here to close airports, shut down border crossings, refuse visas, where are these actions. Is the United States of America – with our trillion dollar military – really incapable of closing our border and keeping peasants on foot out?

What a pathetic state of affairs. History is going to judge McConnell, Boehner and all GOP senators extraordinarily poorly.

“Around 1,200 central Americans are marching up through Mexico with plans to cross the southern U.S. border.”

No. Not according to the post by Mary Chastain today.

Close all border crossings with Mexico until further notice. Restrict airport and sea port travel with Mexico to outbound traffic only. Mexico must respect our border or we can all suffer the consequences – business/industry/tourism be damned.

This is the unnamed and ungloried hill we fight for. If not here and now, then when?

Exactly Bucky

It’s Time Trump tell the to FO and tell them he’s CIC and sue him…

Dateline, 2010, President Obama activates 1200 National Guard troops and deploys them to the southern border. Once deployed the the border area. these troops largely sat around with a thu8mb up their collective a**es because active military is not allowed to enforce, or directly assist in the enforcement of, civil law.

Dateline 2018, President Trump deploys US military troops to the southern border. These troops are expected to sit around with their thumbs up their collective a**es because the US military is STILL not allowed to enforce, or directly assist in the enforcement of, civil law.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | April 3, 2018 at 4:48 pm

    True. Kudos.

    SDN in reply to Mac45. | April 3, 2018 at 5:34 pm

    And yet that prohibition did not stop Eisenhower from having the 101st enforce civil law in 1956.

      Mac45 in reply to SDN. | April 3, 2018 at 7:41 pm

      Eisenhower used an exception granted under the Enforcement Acts, which allow the President to call up and use the military to suppress violence which is oppressing the civil rights of the people and which the state governor is either unable or unwilling to control. These same acts were used for justification for the use of troops in the Detroit and Los Angeles riots.

      All of these cases involved uncontrolled violence and the troops were sent in after the violence had proven uncontrollable.

      There are a few more exceptions to the restrictions of The Posse Comitatus Act. But, they are not applicable in this instance.

        Close The Fed in reply to Mac45. | April 4, 2018 at 8:47 am

        A good lawyer will find or make an argument allowing his client to SURVIVE.

        Are we truly incapable of making an argument for the survival of the United States of America?

        I’m a lawyer; I’ve done my fair share of appellate work, and I’ve gotten more than my share of new law made in my state. I wouldn’t give up so easily.

    But Obama’s action was a pure political stunt to make him look impressive on immigration while intentionally not doing a thing to actually *stop* any crossings.

    I suspect a little of the same here, but considerable differences. For one, if some narco drug runners fire at our soldiers, the exchange will go both ways.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | April 4, 2018 at 2:34 am

    active military is not allowed to enforce, or directly assist in the enforcement of, civil law.

    Indeed. But protecting the border is not law enforcement. So long as a would-be crosser is not yet inside the US, posse comitatus has no application.

    Arresting people who have already crossed illegally and are now settled in the USA is law enforcement, and the military can’t do it. But arresting people who have just now crossed illegally and are still just inside can be considered either law enforcement or defense, depending how you look at it. It’s the same as the paradigm shift W Bush announced on 11-Sep-2001, that the US no longer regarded AQ’s attacks as crimes but as acts of war.

    MarkS in reply to Mac45. | April 4, 2018 at 8:17 am

    Really, then why have I observed multiple dudes with m4s walking around Penn Station, NYC?

      Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | April 4, 2018 at 3:29 pm

      They’re not engaged in law enforcement, just terrorism prevention. If they see a crime they can’t do anything about it but call a cop. (also, I read somewhere that their weapons are unloaded. No idea if this is true.)

    forksdad in reply to Mac45. | April 4, 2018 at 11:21 am

    Take the Texas national guard and deputize them as Texas department of public safety, (Texas Rangers) problem solved. Now they can enforce the border except on the one weekend a month they need to drill.

Morning Sunshine | April 3, 2018 at 4:31 pm

yes, the Department of DEFENSE should be DEFENDING our borders. Is that not the point of that department? Tell me again why we need a Dept. of Homeland Security when we already had a Dept. of Defense….

    Many decades ago as a little boy I asked my dad why he was getting letters from the “Defense Department” rather than the War Department liked he used to. I don’t remember his response.

I dont understand why their “due process” starts at the consulate in their country and if you just “show up” on the border you are immediately turned away. Simply dont get any hearing if you just show up. Turn an old cruise ship into a floating detention center and ship them back

    Ragspierre in reply to stl. | April 3, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    The “why” is called “the law”. It’s a sucky law, but it IS the law.

    A putative refugee from a non-contiguous nation seeking asylum is mandated some due process to determine the merit of their claim.

    It isn’t so with a Mexican; it is for a Honduran or Ecuadorian.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | April 4, 2018 at 2:38 am

      But only if they make it into the USA. If they’re outside the border keep them out. But even if they’re just inside the border, you can probably treat them as in the process of entering rather than already entered (no “wet foot dry foot” rule), and see how it flies with the courts.

        Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | April 4, 2018 at 8:49 am

        I wouldn’t ask the courts s***. Those S.O.B.s aren’t the commander in chief. They can kiss his butt.

I don’t see how this is going to work unless the military is allowed to use deadly force on people breaching the wall. I don’t see that happening.

At what point does an invasion be called such? Where is the line between just illegality and invasion? If a hostile force sneaks across a few at a time, unarmed are they not still a hostile force? It really goes back to those who are encouraging this, both in this country and to our south.

    Close The Fed in reply to stl. | April 3, 2018 at 6:52 pm

    Re: STL:

    Exactly. These people are claiming they are people with “no borders.” That means they explicitly deny our border is a thing.

    They’re making demands also, that they deserve a job.

    Since the constitution provides the federal government will protect the states from invasion, any laws preventing the federal government from protecting the states from invasion, are unconstitutional.

    POTUS should pull an Andrew Jackson, and observe the courts have no troops. They are declaring they are going to invade; let’s take them at their word, and defend ourselves from their incipient thefts.

    Mac45 in reply to stl. | April 3, 2018 at 7:55 pm

    In order for this to legally be called an invasion, it has to be done by a public enemy for the purpose of making war. { }

    There is not sufficient evidence to define these “asylum seekers” as public enemies and their intentions as being inherently harmful to the United States.

    If violence was used to breach barriers defining a border, then a case could be made for the use of force, including deadly force to repel trespassers, as the use of violence would demonstrate that the trespasser was intent upon harming this nation and its people. This is why a wall is so critical. It establishes the intent of those illegally entering the country, before they actually enter the country.

      Close The Fed in reply to Mac45. | April 3, 2018 at 8:08 pm

      I don’t think Trump has to stick to a dictionary definition. He’s Commander-in-Chief. If he thinks there’s an invasion,there’s an invasion and he has the authority to stop it.

      Also, just found this article on Lifezette, Laura Ingraham’s site, about what POTUS could do:

      1. “The first and most obvious one is why have the ambassadors of Mexico and Honduras not immediately been called to a meeting with the president? … The first solution would be a diplomatic one,”

      2. Bar entry of anyone suspected to be part of the caravan. Michael Hethmon, senior counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), said Trump could exercise the same authority he used to issue his so-called travel ban on residents of certain terrorism-compromised countries.

      That order drew immediate legal challenges and the Supreme Court later allowed it to take effect — with exemptions for close relatives of American citizens and legal permanent residents.

      3. Call in state and local reinforcements. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the attorney general has the power to determine that an “actual or imminent mass influx” of foreigners arriving off the coast or near a land border presents “urgent circumstances.” In such a case, the attorney general may authorize state and local law enforcement officers to assist federal immigration officials.

      4.) Send a surge of resources to the border. If the caravan does reach the United States, enforcement advocates argue it is crucial to refuse entry to the foreigners.

      O’Brien said the Trump administration should have immigration law judges and adjudicators ready at the border to quickly determine whether the migrants’ claims of a “credible fear” of persecution are genuine.

      “I can guarantee you they will show up and tell the same story verbatim because the script will have been given to them … You don’t have to take it at face value,” he said.

      5.) Pursue criminal charges. O’Brien urged the Department of Justice to consider bringing criminal charges against the U.S.-based organization that helped organize the caravan. This would be the proverbial nuclear option and would be guaranteed to bring a cacophony of criticism.

      But O’Brien said a case could be made if prosecutors could demonstrate that activists knowingly encouraged foreigners to make bogus asylum claims.

        Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | April 4, 2018 at 2:53 am

        I don’t think Trump has to stick to a dictionary definition. He’s Commander-in-Chief. If he thinks there’s an invasion,there’s an invasion and he has the authority to stop it.

        I agree. The president can’t declare war, but he can determine that a state of war already exists. That’s what W Bush did on 11-Sept-2001. (Courts can also make such a determination. The first war the US fought, the quasi-war against France in 1798, was never declared or officially acknowledged by Congress or the president, but the courts ruled that it was nonetheless legally a war.)

        O’Brien urged the Department of Justice to consider bringing criminal charges against the U.S.-based organization that helped organize the caravan.

        Is it US-based? From the original Buzzfeed article I had assumed it was a Mexican group, and thus not subject to US law. But if it’s US-based then hell yes, arrest and charge them.

Live mortar fire exercises where the shell lands exactly 50 ft on this side of the border . No notices given

What do you know – Finally, a President who honors his Oath of Office.

Unlike the 2 Bushes, Clinton and the Closet Muslim.

Connivin Caniff | April 3, 2018 at 6:51 pm

If we do that we will have half the country in drug withdrawal.

Good … fair enough … we can’t have hoards from other countries bum rushing our border.

Trump appeared to promise to militarize the border, per pool report. “We are going to be guarding our border with our military. That’s a big step.”

Um, what else is the military for?