National Guard helped border agents arrest 1,600 ADDITIONAL illegals...

[Calminian]

Some were poo-pooing this move.

National Guard helped border agents arrest 1,600 ADDITIONAL illegals...

Border deployment leads to arrest of 1,600 more illegal immigrants
by Anna Giaritelli
May 09, 2018 10:45 AM

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have apprehended an additional 1,600 people attempting to illegally enter the country from Mexico since April 15 as a result of the deployment of National Guard troops to the southwest border, CBP and defense officials said Wednesday.

National Guard officials overseeing the border state deployments said troops helping monitor the international boundary have freed up more border agents to physically guard the border. The result has led to a surge in the amount of criminal activity agents have stopped.

[Related: Illegal immigrant apprehensions at US-Mexico border hit highest levels since Trump took office]

The increased surveillance and communication between guardsmen and border officers also led to CBP intercepting an additional 451 people who were turned back before illegally entering the U.S.

Those numbers could tick up considerably if the 4,000 National Guard troops President Trump approved on April 4 are called on in a future request from CBP.

As of Wednesday, 775 troops have been deployed and are on the ground providing "direct support on the ground" in seven sectors assisting law enforcement officers.

Troops are providing support from the air, surveillance back-up, and assistance with infrastructure projects like vegetation clearing and road maintenance, not including to the border wall construction. Another task is to specifically free up agents to leave their desks and get back out to the field. The troops monitoring remote video surveillance systems have then been able to report sightings to a greater field of agents and thus, the number of apprehensions has increased, officials said.

"Those folks are giving us the additional situational awareness in the radio rooms ... which are allowing the Border Patrol agents sitting in those areas to go into the field," said one National Guard official, who described the addition of the Guard as a "force-multiplier" for the CBP.

"As a reminder, these guardsmen are not carrying out law enforcement duties," an official representing the Texas National Guard said.

Guardsmen have been deployed to the following Border Patrol sectors: 200 to the Rio Grande Valley, 120 to Laredo, 90 to Del Rio, 70 to Big Bend, 110 to El Paso, 135 to Tuscon, and 50 to Yuma.

In late April, the California National Guard said 200 guardsmen were in training at Camp Roberts and would be deployed in early May. Around 55 troops are already working in those sectors.

The deployment is funded through the end of fiscal year 2018, September 30. Ronald Vitiello, CBP deputy commissioner, said in April the intent of the mission is for CBP to regain operational control of the border.​

 

[HankD]

National Guard helped border agents arrest 1,600 ADDITIONAL illegals...

from the left; with weeping voice; Oh the humanity of it all!!

 

[TheResister]

I realize that we have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to that buzz term "illegal alien," but there is more to the story that your average layman doesn't get.

For example, using the military to enforce domestic law is a REALLY bad idea. Unfortunately, it will not be until you are on the receiving end of the equation that you will appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Calminian]

I realize that we have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to that buzz term "illegal alien," but there is more to the story that your average layman doesn't get.

For example, using the military to enforce domestic law is a REALLY bad idea. Unfortunately, it will not be until you are on the receiving end of the equation that you will appreciate the sentiment.

So then what is the answer to illegal immigration?

 

[TheResister]

So then what is the answer to illegal immigration?

It is LONG answer, that much I promise, but we have three things that nobody considers from a constitutional view:

1) The ONLY power Congress has over foreigners on this issue is "To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization." See Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

It used to be that the states invited whomever they wanted to invite and people could partake of opportunities willingly offered without becoming a citizen

2) It was in 1876 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman that Congress granted all aspects of "immigration" to the federal government. The problem is, the Constitution does not contain any provision for allowing the Supreme Court to grant powers to any other branch of government

3) Everybody that washes up on America's shores does not; does not want to become; and should not be required to become a citizen in order to be here. Neither should the government provide for those by giving the benefits and privileges of citizenship to non-Americans.

We got in this mess incrementally AND with too much government regulation. IF we get out, it will be along the same path we arrived at this destination. Incrementally.

 

[HankD]

For example, using the military to enforce domestic law is a REALLY bad idea. Unfortunately, it will not be until you are on the receiving end of the equation that you will appreciate the sentiment.

But there is an intersection between domestic and military spheres which is why there is such a thing as National Guard Military Forces

 

[TheResister]

But there is an intersection between domestic and military spheres which is why there is such a thing as National Guard Military Forces

I was the Commanding Officer in a state militia for over 10 years (and a member for over 25 years.) The National Guard bills itself as the "state militia," however they are not. They draw their paychecks from the federal government and are under federal control.

We are leaving ourselves with no way to resist an over-sized government as it is. THAT is the primary danger.

Why The National Guard Is Not A Militia

 

[Calminian]

It is LONG answer, that much I promise, but we have three things that nobody considers from a constitutional view:

1) The ONLY power Congress has over foreigners on this issue is "To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization." See Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

It used to be that the states invited whomever they wanted to invite and people could partake of opportunities willingly offered without becoming a citizen

2) It was in 1876 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman that Congress granted all aspects of "immigration" to the federal government. The problem is, the Constitution does not contain any provision for allowing the Supreme Court to grant powers to any other branch of government

3) Everybody that washes up on America's shores does not; does not want to become; and should not be required to become a citizen in order to be here. Neither should the government provide for those by giving the benefits and privileges of citizenship to non-Americans.

We got in this mess incrementally AND with too much government regulation. IF we get out, it will be along the same path we arrived at this destination. Incrementally.

I see nothing Trump is doing that's not incremental.

 

[TheResister]

I see nothing Trump is doing that's not incremental.

Trump is setting the stage for a NEW WORLD ORDER / GOVERNMENT. Almost all of it is in place.

 

[HankD]

I was the Commanding Officer in a state militia for over 10 years (and a member for over 25 years.) The National Guard bills itself as the "state militia," however they are not. They draw their paychecks from the federal government and are under federal control.

We are leaving ourselves with no way to resist an over-sized government as it is. THAT is the primary danger.

Why The National Guard Is Not A Militia

While I was in the military no one considered the national guard as US military.

There is/was a moniker the Air force gave the Air National Guardsman which I can't repeat on the BB.

A legal technicality but the reason they are called the "State Militia" is/was for the very reason I stated.

 

[Calminian]

Trump is setting the stage for a NEW WORLD ORDER / GOVERNMENT. Almost all of it is in place.

Er, huh? So you believe guarding the borders is akin to globalism? Now that's a first.

 

[HankD]

Er, huh? So you believe guarding the borders is akin to globalism? Now that's a first.

Another TRUMPed up charge by the #NEVERTRUMPers and Trump haters.

 

[TheResister]

While I was in the military no one considered the national guard as US military.

There is/was a moniker the Air force gave the Air National Guardsman which I can't repeat on the BB.

A legal technicality but the reason they are called the "State Militia" is/was for the very reason I stated.

In law, words have meanings. FWIW, Trump lost in court on the Sanctuary City issue over this very principle.

Back when Congress passed the Brady Bill, they wanted local and state governments to enforce the federal laws. State and local governments didn't like the mandate from the feds. So, sheriffs from around the country filed a lawsuit. I was donating heavily and doing legal research for Sheriff Richard Mack who was the Plaintiff in one of those suits. All of the various lawsuits were rolled into one by the Courts and the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sheriffs. The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained:

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

That is the very case that Sanctuary Cities used to argue against Trump and his stance on immigration.

Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

So, here it is: Would you exchange our Republican form of government for a NEW WORLD ORDER in exchange for keeping out little brown people from south of the border?

I told you this was really long - that's just one of at least six issues we need to consider.

 

[TheResister]

Er, huh? So you believe guarding the borders is akin to globalism? Now that's a first.

See my above post. Do you want to visit some more of the legalities involved?

 

[Calminian]

See my above post. Do you want to visit some more of the legalities involved?

So, you don't even deny it? Guarding borders is globalism, and open borders is nationalism. I think we've reached an impasse.

 

[HankD]

In law, words have meanings. FWIW, Trump lost in court on the Sanctuary City issue over this very principle.

Back when Congress passed the Brady Bill, they wanted local and state governments to enforce the federal laws. State and local governments didn't like the mandate from the feds. So, sheriffs from around the country filed a lawsuit. I was donating heavily and doing legal research for Sheriff Richard Mack who was the Plaintiff in one of those suits. All of the various lawsuits were rolled into one by the Courts and the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sheriffs. The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained:

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

That is the very case that Sanctuary Cities used to argue against Trump and his stance on immigration.

Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

So, here it is: Would you exchange our Republican form of government for a NEW WORLD ORDER in exchange for keeping out little brown people from south of the border?

I told you this was really long - that's just one of at least six issues we need to consider.

NEW WORLD ORDER - right nice Alinsky trick of role reversal - Soetoro/Ayes/Soros brainchild - America's communist governmental form of Marxism
Also It remains to be seen if Trump has won or lost RE: Sanctuary cities.

 

[TheResister]

NEW WORLD ORDER - right nice Alinsky trick of role reversal - Soetoro/Ayes/Soros brainchild - America's communist governmental form of Marxism
Also It remains to be seen if Trump has won or lost RE: Sanctuary cities.

If you're insinuating I'm a communist, then this conversation won't last long. Donald Trump is not a Christian. He has always hobnobbed with the left. He is the lesser of two evils, serving as an opportunity for God's people to get their heads of their backsides and prepared for the inevitable.

When there are lines of demarcation between state and federal governments, you have the beginnings of a government that can be delivered into a world government. Your National Guard is a federal entity and nobody is protecting the interests of the state NOR the individual.

Quite frankly, I don't play mind games or semantics. I'm not on either side of the political spectrum because both are saying the same thing - it's two roads leading to the same destination.

I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, but he told you up front, he is a liar. He's telling you a lot of what you want to hear, but a lot of it will ultimately get over-ruled in the United States Supreme Court. BTW, if he felt so strongly about the subject, he would not have hired undocumented immigrants to work for him.

 

[Calminian]

If you're insinuating I'm a communist, then this conversation won't last long. Donald Trump is not a Christian.....

And here we go. NeverTrumpers just can't help themselves. He's not a Christian therefore he never will be, bla bla bla...

I can only imagine the look on some faces if Trump ends up in Heaven.

My goodness, I can only imagine the testimony some Christians have before this president. We come off so smug. We can't even commend a man for once being on the left and moving right and even becoming the most pro-life president in history? Then shame on us. I'd hate to see how this modern generation would have treated Paul.

 

[HankD]

If you're insinuating I'm a communist, then this conversation won't last long. Donald Trump is not a Christian. He has always hobnobbed with the left. He is the lesser of two evils, serving as an opportunity for God's people to get their heads of their backsides and prepared for the inevitable.

When there are lines of demarcation between state and federal governments, you have the beginnings of a government that can be delivered into a world government. Your National Guard is a federal entity and nobody is protecting the interests of the state NOR the individual.

Quite frankly, I don't play mind games or semantics. I'm not on either side of the political spectrum because both are saying the same thing - it's two roads leading to the same destination.

I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, but he told you up front, he is a liar. He's telling you a lot of what you want to hear, but a lot of it will ultimately get over-ruled in the United States Supreme Court. BTW, if he felt so strongly about the subject, he would not have hired undocumented immigrants to work for him.

Well, I didn't know for sure if you were a communist, socialist or whatever.

My statement was that THE NEW WORLD ORDER WAS and IS and is being perpetuated by many inside and outside our administration.

Judging by your negativity of THE NEW WORLD ORDER I assumed that probably you were not.

but I did suspect that you were trying to send me out on a guilt trip by "evil of association' which is one of the techniques taught by Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals. In my perverted brain I was returning the jab.

BTW - Socialism (the Bernie) or even a candidate of raw communism itself would be the legitimate candidate if they could get on a ballot assuming they had the constitutional requirements. that's what true freedom is all about.

 

[TheResister]

And here we go. NeverTrumpers just can't help themselves. He's not a Christian therefore he never will be, bla bla bla...

I can only imagine the look on some faces if Trump ends up in Heaven.

My goodness, I can only imagine the testimony some Christians have before this president. We come off so smug. We can't even commend a man for once being on the left and moving right and even becoming the most pro-life president in history? Then shame on us. I'd hate to see how this modern generation would have treated Paul.

You do realize that you are on a Christian board, do you not? Seems to me my Bible says:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" Proverbs 18: 13

That probably goes over your head when I clearly said I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But what are a facts worth when you have to argue against dishonest people that want to judge you without having the common courtesy of asking questions before getting their boxers in a bunch?

To be precise, I'm more of a legal and political strategist and not only do I not visit political hack sites, I'm not a member of anybody's little partisan group. That allows me to be objective and not judge others the way you're attempting to judge me.

Political gamesmanship doesn't impress me. On this immigration issue, the current anti - immigrant arguments were first put forth by neo nazis. They afford to have a civil conversation because they have to "win." Only a heretic would dare question the status quo, right? So, if somebody disagrees with you they are either a "Never Trumper," open borders nutjob, or maybe antifa. As someone who studied the Bible I cannot broach the topic of politics without considering what the Bible tells me:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” I John 4 : 1

Studying the message of the current climate on the left and the right; Democrat and Republican; conservative and liberal you will not find anybody that resembles a Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, or Paul Revere.

I'm grateful for what morsels we are fed by these political propaganda prostitutes and I thank God for what little we get. But, when I clearly see strategies one can articulate as being long term disasters for Christians and constitutionalists, it seems that you'd want to explore that instead of insinuating things an honest man would never say to another man over the Internet. Then again, anonymity allows cowards the opportunity to pretend they can read what's on a man's mind and in his heart after a couple of paragraphs on the Internet.

Don't flatter yourself; you're not that good.