A lot of people are clearly terrified of immigrants- the fact that EVERY GOP political ad harps on illegal aliens, deporting criminals and MS-13 makes it likely that these are things that old fogeys are worried about.
But I think there’s some merit in the idea of applying a broken windows policing style policy to immigration- if you make it known that we’re going to ship you back, or turn you back, maybe you can discourage a lot of the attempts in the first place.
That would work with potential immigrants who have a passable life where they are, but desire a better life.
That is a lot less likely to work with people who fear for their lives or those of their children, either due to violence or starvation.
We’re seeing a lot of that these days. I don’t understand the hearts of those who don’t want our nation to be a refuge for people in situations like that.
No, we can’t solve everyone’s problems. But we can open the door to people like that who make their way here. They’re not showing up in anything remotely like overwhelming numbers.
Hysterical much?
Because the caravan is 1000 miles away. They’re traveling on foot.
You think they’re all going to get here?
There have been previous caravans formed with large numbers of people heading north from Central America. How many of them have still had a thousand or more people when they reached the U.S. border?
And how would they eat while hiking 1000 miles through Mexico?
But just to be nice, some inspiring music for them.
In my scenario, those would likely be legitimate asylum seekers, assuming that there’s real famine and/or violence going on. And that’s the rub; just wanting to make a better life doesn’t cut it- go through the legal channels for that.
What is the magic number that would make you say “no more”? It’s clearly not 10,000.
Also, how many of these immigrants would you be willing to take in for a year in your house?
From the Los Angeles Times:
So the number of people in the caravan has diminished by half in the first couple hundred miles. If it shrinks by 50% every 200 miles, my calculator says that an invasion force of between 100 and 125 extremely tired, hungry Hondurans will arrive at our southern border shortly before Christmas.
I don’t know how we can possibly stand against such an onslaught.
Maybe 1 immigrant for every 1000 people in my house? I think we could manage that.
My preferred country is Monaco. May I show up at their border, after traveling through other countries, and claim asylum?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Very short answer - no. There’s a reasonable chance most or even all of these new troops won’t routinely be carrying weapons.
I’ve seen some discussion that the initial DOD statement doesn’t specify component. Sending more National Guard troops under Title 32 for a relatively long mission is tough given the time frames. IIRC it took us about a week and a half to put troops in airports post 9-11. There are already National Guard troops at the border like there have been for most of the time since 9-11. (Under Bush there were even NG missions supporting some Canadian border crossings.) Federal troops and NG operating under state authority have some important differences and we’re likely looking at a mix in the border area in the near future.
Federal troops are legally unable to perform domestic law enforcement tasks under the Posse Commitatus Act unless the exceptions in the Insurrection Act of 1807 are in effect. They aren’t. That puts the deployment under the Defense Support to Civil Authories (DSCA) framework. Legally they can be given non-law enforcement type tasks. Setting up temporary detention facilities if needed for CBP to process an extra surge, by setting up tents, toilets, generators, and food service would be legal. Helping CBP with adminstrative tasks like paperwork or delivering supplies would be legal. Building temporary fencing near suspected caravan crossing points to support CBP efforts would be legal. Giving the active duty troops a sector of the border to watch with orders to detain those crossing would not be a legal mission. Commanders and their supporting Staff Judge Advocates could reasonably be expected to have issues with blatantly illegal orders.
NG troops, as long as not federalized, can do more. I haven’t seen if UAS (unmanned aircraft systems aka drones) monitoring of the border is currently included in the ongoing mission. It was part of the Obama administration NG mission at the border. That’s a mission that NG troops could legally perform to assist CBP. NG troops could be armed and monitor portions of the border although that’s not a mission they are currently performing. Everything I have seen about the ongoing mission has them performing tasks that don’t require their unique ability to perform law enforcement tasks. There is legal ability to adjust that mission though. That authority existed even without new deployments. It would take the Governors of the border states and the Governors of states providing troops to make the changes. Trump can’t just order ttose adjustments.
There’s not a lot of need to arm troops performing the types of tasks allowed to federal troops. I could see some potential, if there’s sufficient threat, to legally provide limited self-defense capability to those operating closer to the border due to ongoing threats from well armed smugglers. That’s pretty much the same right to self-defense any civilian in the area. In theory, Rules of Engagement aren’t supposed to ever constrain that common law right of self-defense. Whether they do anyway can be arguable in some cases. National Guard, even with their ability to perform law enforcement type tasks when on state duty are generally constrained in use of force even more than the sworn law enforcement officers in the state. (Something like whether it’s acceptable to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon that presents a risk to others but not an immediate threat is an example that might see a difference.) That’s a wormhole of differing border state laws. It probably is either just self-defense or very close for NG troops. The ROE should pretty clearly lay out the acceptable use of force. That gives commanders and their lawyers time to flip out if the ROE seems to authorize the illegal use of force.
The image of sleepy-eyed active duty killers staring down the barrels of their weapons at the border isn’t accurate unless this skews ways off into the blatantly illegal. So far it’s being presented entirely in the realm of legal usage of the military. It’s a much more boring and less “shooty and stabby” reality. They’ll be doing things far more like the multiple deployments inside the US to support civil authorities that have already happened this year…and every year. We regularly manage to avoid troops massacring civilians.
This is one of the most fantastically informative post I’ve seen on the SDMB in quite some time. Excellent work!
The caravan exposes the main point of divergence on the immigration issue: There are those who think the default position should be “Allow immigrants in unless there is a valid reason they should be kept out,” and there are those who think that the default position should be “Keep immigrants out unless there is a valid reason they should be let in.”
That’s actually very well put, IMHO.
Aye; well done Velocity.
And suddenly I’m considerably more okay with the military being there.
“Laughing in our face”…guess what, we are laughing in YOUR face. You’re so fragile, you feel compelled to deploy weaponry against a slow trickle of dirt poor children, women, and men who are desperately FLEEING the kind of armed threat you pretend to pose… Get a life, loser!
So do I, since you wouldn’t have a valid claim.
Try Galt’s Gulch.
For a moment, I was about to check upthread to see the rest of (Doper) Barack Obama’s post. Then my brain kicked in. (It’s still early.)