It was due to another poster that was speaking of our involvement in Central America so i added more to the discussion.
Our involvement which he claims is the reason for illegal immigration. As this is afmittedly not an issue... it is not relevant to the conversation.
Actually it's not. The Chinese did it in Tibet and along the Russian boorder and the Muslims have done it in Europe.
Sure. Giver, I guess? I mean, it's not like the majority of illegals don't fly to the US on VISA's or anything. Honestly, if the Republicans and Trump were super duper serious about the illegal immigrant issue, they would use their majority in Congress to force all employers to use E-Verify on all employees of the company. Then they would add serious fines/punishment for those found violating said law. But they won't. Because it's all a show on both sides. Actually cracking down in a real and methodical way would require a wholesale upheaval of the economies of the Southern States, specifically in the agricultural industries who would lose workers by the truckload (heh) and either resort to raising wages to attract workers or invest in automation.
I am trying to stay on topic. If you need help try Guatemala, or more topically, the Honduras. Hell try our raid on Poncho Villa. See what sticks. Panama doesn't.
I made no such claim, only that nearly 100 years of American involvement and destabilization in the region certainly factors in to the equation.
Nowhere did I make the claim that our involvement is the sole reason for Central America's list of problems.
Ever think our involvement in various issues caused stabilization, and in fact our non involvement caused destabilization?
Are you ******** me? Ask any member of the National Guard if they would rather summer in Syria , California, (well maybe not California) Arizona, or Texas.
A lot depends on the leaders at the time as well, rather than blaming "America". I'd say that FDR 'stabilized' Europe by sending troops there in WWII while Barack Obama 'de-stabilized' the Middle East when he removed the troops from Iraq in Dec, 2011.
its not a violation if the States cant handle it and request help. Thats what the NG is for. A situation just like this. Wow lets hope those invaders dont get cocky.
OK, a president must get the permission of Congress to deploy U. S. military personnel on missions inside the borders of the United States...? BUT, in 1957, somehow, President Dwight Eisenhower sent FEDERAL TROOPS from the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to enforce FEDERAL law over the orders of the Governor of the State of Arkansas, Orval Faubus -- even though Faubus had deployed Arkansas National Guard troops to maintain law and order during issues that arose due to a school desegregation issue. Link: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/eisenhower/aa_eisenhower_littlerock_1.html Now, it occurs to me that maybe... just MAYBE, President Trump can use FEDERAL TROOPS from the United States Armed Forces to protect the borders and the security of this nation, from FOREIGN INVADERS -- not against American citizens, as Eisenhower did! Could President Trump not also "federalize" the National Guard members of the border states, in much the same way that President Eisenhower did...? If I'm wrong, please tell me why I'm wrong.... U.S. Army troops from the 101st Airborne Division disperse a crowd of American citizens at Little Rock's Central High School.
If the courts say that the border is a national security issue, then there is no violation. Number 2, Posse says that the military can't be used in direct law enforcement capacity.Sitting on the board watching and then calling the Border Patrol doesn't violate it either. Further more if a national emergency exists, which is open to debate, they can be used. See the 92' LA riots when Bush Sr. sent in Marines from 29 Palms to help the CA National Guard