[knarf]

Is there any precedent preventing active military from being deputized as Border Security ?

It would seem to me that if I was President and I COULD do it, I'd make the active and armed military a force directly attributable FOR border security.

Just because you don't WANT to shoot somebody shouldn't inhibit your DUTY to do so.

Cops face this every day and are trained to think in a certain fashion controlling bad shoots.

[Darksheare]

We had the military active on the Southern border in response to Pancho Villa.
So we have precedence to respond.

[WMarshal]

“Is there any precedent preventing active military from being deputized as Border Security?”

That idea is a non-starter. The very definition of the military is to be border security. I think that it's time to disband Border Security because, as a bureaucracy subject to Congressional and Judicial meddling, they have become corrupted and are failing to perform their intended purpose. It is time to put the responsibility of national defense back where it belongs with the Commander In Chief. It's a lot easier to vote out or impeach a treasonous president than it is Congress or the judiciary.

[central_va]

What we did in the Navy when performing interdiction (drugs) duty was to embed a Coast Guard officer with each unit. CG officers can make arrests where as Naval Officers can't (unless that person arrested is actually in the USN). So the CG officer would take a squad/patrol of armed US sailors to search a vessel and if contraband was found the CG Officer makes the formal arrest.

Even our CO couldn't do that. A US Navy officer arresting someone in international waters is considered an act of war. Where the Coast Guard can make arrests under international treaty.