Trump Plans to Send Nat'l Guard to Mexican Border

[_Quasimodo]

God, I wish all the people who say or said they're moving to Canada would make good on their promise.

- Doc

I have a lot of relatives in Canada. They are quite happy all those Yanks didn't come.

[_subgenius]

your post seems a little muddled at this point...if both Bush and Obama did it without much hair-fire then why so much of it now?

I have no idea how you could read "hair fire" in anything that I wrote. Most of the media reaction has been fairly muted as well. If you always use the same phrase to describe every different kind of reaction, the phrase becomes devoid of meaning.

To be fair, I am consistent with my use of that phrase. The mere fact that you has to provide a "other President have done this" qualifier points to the presence of a smoldering scalp somewhere (not yours necessarily). Hair-fire is a knee-jerk reaction to every tweet, every statement, and every day of this Presidency thus far...and that incessant outrage over anything and everything that is Trump is what is becoming devoid of meaning.

And while Trump is not actually deploying them for a broad, vague, and general mission - does the mission not always justify the action?...I mean, by definition as it were.

I'll take the blame on this one but I don't understand what you're asking or what point you're driving at. Can you rehash this one out?

sure, obviously Trump has a specific mission which is contrary to your characterization.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

What is this specific mission? Stopping the flow of guns from the US to Mexico, or to stop us from buying drugs from the people we sell the guns to?

Oh I know!

It's to stop the inflow of people trying to escape the threat from the people armed by weapons from US citizens selling drugs to US citizens...

Brilliant.

[_ajax18]

If the Republican party doesn't want to get smashed in 2018, they better fund the wall.

[_EAllusion]

If the Republican party doesn't want to get smashed in 2018, they better fund the wall.

Well, we've got Ajax's explanation for 2018 midterms already in hand.

[_Xenophon]

FYI, there's a paywall and I couldn't read the article. However, Google exists so I just used that.

Apologies, I subscribe so I don't always catch those. As a general FYI typically if you open a link in whatever your browser of choices private viewing mode is (incognito and the like) you can get around a newspapers soft paywalls.

sure, obviously Trump has a specific mission which is contrary to your characterization.

I think it really remains to be seen what the "specific mission" is. In my own state the National Guard is already being utilized, albeit in a small role, along the border to help with intelligence gathering and the like so this won't be much of a change, other than the numbers. Since these new troops are not allowed to perform any law enforcement type duties I think their presence is really more symbolic than anything, we will see though.

The part I really don't understand is what the perceived need for this is. Illegal immigration from the border has been trending down since the 2008 recession, couple that with the 2 million illegals Obama deported and the decrease again just for Trump being elected and it is at an all time low. I'm assuming the sharp uptick in March's numbers has something to do with the decision but I think it is too early to tell if that is a statistical oddity or an actual shift in trends.

[_MeDotOrg]

Some clarification on the deployment of U.S. troops on American soil:

The Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law on the books since the 1870s, restricts using the U.S. Army and other main branches of the military for civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, unless specifically authorized by Congress.

But the military can provide support services to law enforcement and has done so on occasion since the 1980s.

Under Republican President George W. Bush, the National Guard between 2006 and 2008 provided border-related intelligence analysis, but had no direct law enforcement role.

In 2010, President Barack Obama sent National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support to U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Some specific statutes authorize the president to deploy troops within the United States for riot control or relief efforts after natural disasters.

“The details really matter here,” said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“The real question is going to be if the president is serious about this, what kind of legal arguments do we get out of the White House and the Pentagon for such a deployment.”

A senior Republican aide in the U.S. House of Representatives said key lawmakers had not been briefed on the White House plan. The aide said there was no indication that a specific plan had even been formulated yet.

[_subgenius]

The part I really don't understand is what the perceived need for this is.

perhaps it is a scorched earth approach to the problem of illegal immigration from south of the Rio. But knowing Trump's methods, it is a negotiation strategy....NAFTA is looming and President still subscribes to "Art of the Deal". Illegal immigration is only political in regards to business, in regards to the Deal.

Think big
Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
Maximize your options
Know your market
Use your leverage
Enhance your location
Get the word out
Fight back
Deliver the goods
Contain the costs
Have fun

[_Xenophon]

perhaps it is a scorched earth approach to the problem of illegal immigration from south of the Rio. But knowing Trump's methods, it is a negotiation strategy....NAFTA is looming and President still subscribes to "Art of the Deal". Illegal immigration is only political in regards to business, in regards to the Deal.

Think big
Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
Maximize your options
Know your market
Use your leverage
Enhance your location
Get the word out
Fight back
Deliver the goods
Contain the costs
Have fun

Maybe you're right, but I sure don't see it. NAFTA basically already meets the requirements you've listed above (depending on of if you regard free trade as "fun" I'm willing to concede that one). The economic results of NAFTA were absolutely incredible for the US economy and I think you would be hard pressed to create a scenario that actually plays out better. Most of the real negative affects of NAFTA are ships that have sailed that I doubt you will undo; the some 500K manufacturing jobs exported(while creating some 5 million more in the US), the wholesale destruction of Mexico's agri business that led to a lot of the migrant workers we see today, unions losing a lot of power particularly in border states. Those are all cats that are out of the bag so I'm curious what you think could be renegotiated to be a net plus.

Everything about it just reads as a politically expedient move to make it seem like something is being done about immigration, for me anyways.

[_ajax18]

the wholesale destruction of Mexico's agri business that led to a lot of the migrant workers we see today

Was there no migrant worker illegal immigrant cheap labor problem before NAFTA? We didn't have NAFTA during the Eisenhower administration did we?