Posted on 02/03/2024 2:48:17 AM PST by Libloather
House Republicans are pushing a bill that would authorize the National Guard to use lethal force against individuals with weapons crossing from Mexico into the U.S.
The Defend Our Borders from Armed Invaders Act was introduced by Republican Rep. Morgan Luttrell of Texas, a former Navy SEAL who served in the Navy for 14 years.
In the last year, there have been multiple instances of migrants crossing into the U.S. carrying weapons, with some brandishing rifles like the AR-15.
And as the Biden administration and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott clash over border security policies, this bill, Luttrell claims, will enable the National Guard to better protect the U.S. by using 'any means necessary' to stop armed migrants.
'We're seeing violent crime continually escalate at the border and flow into our communities, as President Biden's policies have created an untenable national security crisis,' Luttrell told DailyMail.com in a statement.
'This legislation is a step in the right direction to reign in this crime by providing the National Guard the power to stop these armed individuals from crossing into the United States by any means necessary.'
The bill allows National Guardsmen 'to take such actions as may be necessary to repel persons attempting to enter the United States from Mexico who are carrying weapons, and for other purposes,' according to a copy of the text shared with DailyMail.com.
In August, Texas Rangers drone operators in Eagle Pass, Texas, observed a male with a presumed AR rifle guiding a group of illegal immigrants across the Rio Grande.
'The unidentified male made it back to Mexico,' Lt. Chris Olivarez of the Texas Department of Safety said at the time.
Another group of migrants was also spotted in August carrying rifles across the border into the U.S., according to a Fox News report...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
How nice it would be if Texas National Guard Captain Audie Murphy was still around to lend a voice to this.
The Biden (or whoever is running him) administration’s plan:
US Citizens with guns— bad.
Illegal immigrants with guns — OK.
That about sum it up?
Here’s a topic on the border if you’d like to discuss it.
Myself, I strongly advocate for killing armed invaders crossing our borders. They need to respect our sovereignty and stay in their own countries.
If they can’t mansge this then we should kill them to discourage any other such invaders.
Should be able to against all of them, while at the border.
They should do what they need to do.
They should do this in a series. Identify the crossing hot spots and, beginning with the busiest, seek the goal of reducing each crossing to zero, one at a time.
Are state authorities not allowed to enforce federal laws?
On the left: an illegal alien gesturing obscenely;part of a violent mob on tape
viciously attacking a NYPD officer; got off scott free, released without bail.
On the right is a father of 11, convicted in federal court
of praying at an abortion mill facing 11 years in jail.
If we get caught carrying a weapon into Mexico, we end up in a dungeon at the very least - and that’s going through a legal checkpoint. I say, shoot first, and screw the questions...
Totally unnecessary. The US Constitution already gives the militia the authority to use force, as it is implied for repelling invasions.
How else is an invasion repelled, Congressman?
Why didn’t they get arrested in Mexico for carrying a weapon? Did Mexico give them weapons?
>Totally unnecessary. <
It’s the debate that is necessary, especially in an election year with so much at stake.
EC
I can’t believe there’s even discussion on that issue. Of COURSE force — lethal force — should be used on people invading America!
But hey, I have a novel idea, how about we enforce immigration as defined by the Constitution & laws that we have been operating under for many years now.
Oh BTW, as much as people like you want to define as to what the topic of a thread is, that is the argument that a leftist would make. While threads may have a main overall topic, topics are not monolithic. There may indeed be relevant topics that relate to the the main topic. But the topic of Ukraine is always that of invasion, especially with you Zelenskyy/Ukraine cheerleaders which in the case of Ukraine includes Russia. Thus introducing invasion in our country, especially when our country is involved in the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, means that introducing the invasion of our nation is indeed staying on topic.
Especially when the leader of out nation is deeply involved in both invasions. They may be separate & distinct, but alas they both also contain commonalities that cannot be ignored. As such they both become legitimate topics. But it really presents a quandary into the topic, because how can you justify the leader supporting the sovereignty of one nation that he is not the leader of while ignoring the sovereignty of the nation he is the leader of. It just doesn't jibe in a rational mind. That's why you try so desperately to separate the two invasions & claim that they are off topic to the other.
Just because you do not want to talk about that invasion, does not mean it is not on topic. But then again, you really are not as smart as you mistakenly believe yourself to be, so I can understand why you fail to see that fact like you fail to see many other facts. Because the truth is you do not want to make the correlations that exist to be made, because they add a dimension you are not prepared to deal with, and they might actually present arguments that counter your arguments being made.
You see how topic work, they aren't stagnant, like your brain works, they are dynamic & complex just like the real world is. Because many things impact other things, even though we sometimes miss those correlated workings.
But simplistic people usually operate under the assumption that everything is simple, because their simple minds cannot comprehend complexity, even after they are shown the complexity.
In fact, I am willing to bet that you think I have strayed off topic yet again, but the topic you introduced was invasion. You may have desired it be limited strictly to the invasion of our nation, but the overall topic is still really invasion.
I had a bad thought. What if our leaders are being paid off by the Cartels to permit illegal immigration? We know that the Cartels have paid off Mexican political types—even the president of Mexico. What if Millions, hundreds of millions of dope money and cartel profits are going to “the Big Guy?” Corruption may have seeped in to let the newcomers in to feed upon the dying horse that is America, just as the Middle Easterners have sucked the life from European States. Its not about anything but greed?
Good luck getting that passed and Biden signing it.
That’s part of the mix, for sure. But the role of the UN, NGOs including the big religious charities, China, our government, etc., can’t be denied not only at and after the border, but in the multiple pipelines streaming in the invasion.
Even Bush, Carter and Obama have a new charity for flying them in directly.
What debate? You don’t make laws for rights you already have.
I like the idea, but realistically, schmucky Schumer will never even bring it up for a vote in the senate, and if somehow it passed, Traitor Joe would not "make his mark" on it to sign it into law.
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.
