Posted on 10/31/2018 10:03:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
As Beltway Theater goes, a slow-moving caravan of defiant Central American migrants heading towards the United States border could not have been scripted any better for the midterm elections. Though more than 1,000 miles away, with an anticipated arrival still weeks away, the narratives from each side of the aisle were quickly brought to the stage and performed with all the dramatic aplomb we have come to expect from the D.C. box-office trying to sell election votes as if they were the hottest ticket in town.
Yet, from among the usual cries of “ISIS hiding among the migrants” and “Republicans are racists for demanding border security,” there are actual issues meriting a far more serious discussion than typically offered in the immigration debate; in particular, what powers does a president legally possess to secure the border against such hordes?
At first blush, it may seem obvious that the president could, and perhaps should, have broad latitude to secure America’s borders; including, as President Trump announced this week, sending the military to the border to serve as needed. However, the doctrine of posse comitatus, codified into the 140-year-old The Posse Comitatus Act, makes this option less clear than conventional wisdom might suggest. Though brief in length and relatively unknown by most Americans, the law is an important safeguard against domestic military occupation; making it unlawful for anyone -- not just the president -- to use the “Army” (meaning, in modern times, any branch of the military) to “execute the laws” unless “expressly” authorized by law or the Constitution.
Since its enactment, Congress has allowed for few exceptions to the Act; for example, the military providing equipment and expertise to fight the drug war, or previous uses of the military at the border in non-combative support roles. These are not exceptions taken lightly, and history and experience have taught us to be very careful with expanding the definition or use of the military for law enforcement purposes; as I and others noted clearly during the Waco hearings, in debates regarding the USA PATRIOT Act, and elsewhere over the years in the post-9/11 “Security State” environment. Nevertheless, deteriorating conditions at America’s border presents new territory for this old law.
As such, the question we must now ask is whether protecting the integrity of America’s borders against specific threats is a fundamental responsibility of the president, and if using the military to assist in doing so, is a proper exercise of serving as the “commander in chief” as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. I would argue strongly it is, and if Trump’s decision to use armed forces at the border is to protect it, rather than supplement the enforcement of immigration laws, his order this week would not fall within the law’s prohibition.
While the flow of immigrants into the U.S. is rightfully within Congress’ legislative purview (as much as the Obama administration worked to side-step it, hence the mess we are in now), the actual defense of the border, especially in specific instances of direct threats to its integrity, would fall to the president, and in some cases, the governors of border states (under their police power and use of their National Guard units). Different from the long standing conversation about border security generally, thousands of migrants traveling en masse is an entirely different issue with greater national security implications. The circumstances here change from a simple immigration enforcement question (not to mention how, exactly, crime and economic problems in foreign countries are legitimate grounds for granting asylum), to one of genuinely defending the border against a specific threat.
Actual defense of the border, the issue at hand today, is not about immigration directly, but properly ensuring a country’s safety jeopardized by allowing anyone (migrants, gang members, or terrorists) and anything (drugs to disease) unfettered access into our country. Though the caravan of migrants is not the “invasion” some on the Right have made it out to be, it does represent a very real and serious threat to the U.S. by putting our border security at risk and in the global spotlight; a threat that would, if unchecked, serve as an example to others that regardless of intent, to enter the United States one need only swarm it.
Members of the military should not be checking papers and processing migrants; but rather, serve as an impenetrable shield and check against potentially hostile crowds who would see to overrun our struggling Border Patrol, as a tactic to seek entrance into this country not through legal means, but literal force. Is this not precisely what “national defense” means?
There is, of course, the possibility that the military may not be needed at all, or at least not for an extended period of time. Mexico may, in the end, step in and stop the caravan as they too are facing similar issues as the U.S.; not to mention the simple fact of geography and weather may take a heavy toll on the migrating mass and force many to turn back. But it would be irresponsible for the president not to make contingency plans. A preemptive decision by Mr. Trump, in consultation with Congress and the Justice and Defense Departments clearly laying out the President’s ability to legally use the military at the border, would help prevent more serious problems if and when the crowds arrive, and would set an important precedent for the future.
the hradline should read. Put hillary at the boarder.
The issue is:
Why can’t the leftists fix the Central/South American problems left by Spain’s colonial rule?
H->! IS the boarder from H377.
Early in the 20th century we had military spread all across our southern border.
Take out their logistics.
I hear that a handful of sand in the fuel tank can stop a truck.
As always, Bob Barr makes sense as he did in the House. He used to be my district Congressman.
“As always, Bob Barr makes sense as he did in the House. He used to be my district Congressman.”
And he’s hard-core libertarian. If anyone would have an issue with deploying the military on US soil, he would - and yet he does not.
border....Posting this to show the very real danger our border patrol and military could face. This officer
was severely burned in a Paris protest. These cocktails are highly dangerous without question!
I think he ought to consider making McAllen (TX) International Airport a new base for the Texas Air National Guard. Same thing goes for the Arizona ANG and whatever airport would be most suitable there.
The leftists can’t resolve the three basic core problems: (1) corruption at every level, (2) family or political favoritism over the economy and national direction, and (3) no birth control policy.
Other than Costa Rica, I can’t think of a Latin American government that corruption doesn’t affect. In most of these countries...they’ve all got populations that the jobs simply don’t exist for, and it’d serve the public to convince people to limit family sizes.
Jerry Brown is going to have a hissy fit!!!
I just read that the 101st Airborne Division (Screaming Eagles) will also deploy troops, equipment and resources to the border.
MOTHBALLS are very destructive.
Horrific picture, he’s just doing his job...
If our military is attacked like this, I hope the response is aggressive and fast.
Other than Costa Rica, I can’t think of a Latin American government that corruption doesn’t affect. In most of these countries...they’ve all got populations that the jobs simply don’t exist for, and it’d serve the public to convince people to limit family sizes.”””
The Centuries old policies of the Catholic Church are coming home to roost.
The military is a constitutional entity. The Border Patrol is a creation of Congress. Frankly we should have had the military guarding our borders since 1789. We should build permanent bases along the southern border and have 24/7 patrols assigned to preventing incursions.
The Founders didn’t want a standing army.
How does posse comitatus enter into this? Our country is being invaded at its southern border! By that reasoning, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (incidentally before declaring war) it was a violation of the posse comitatus act for the remnant of our Air Force to go after them. This article was written by a non-thinker!
The only border we had in 1789 was 2000 miles of ocean. We didn’t need the army on the border to prevent an invasion. Right now we have a porous southern border that is being constantly invaded. We need the military there. We still have a standing navy of the ocean fronts but nothing covering about 5000 miles of open land to the north and south.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.