UN White House authorizes lethal force for troops at Mexico border

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://nypost.com/2018/11/21/white...w&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

The White House gave troops stationed at the southern border the OK to use lethal force if necessary — a move that legal experts warn may violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from being used for civilian law enforcement.

The “cabinet order” was signed by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly — not President Trump — and authorizes “Department of Defense military personnel” to “perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary” to protect border agents, the Military Times reported.

That includes “a show or use of force (including lethal force, where necessary), crowd control, temporary detention and cursory search.”

There are about 5,900 active-duty troops and 2,100 National Guard forces deployed to the Mexican border.

Trump had said earlier this month that the troops could “fight back” if the Central American asylum seekers heading to the US border hurled rocks their way.

“They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. I told them to consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks like what they did to the Mexican military and police I say consider it a rifle,” the commander in chief said on Nov. 1.

He later walked back the comment that rocks are the same as rifles after widespread condemnation.

Some of the actions described in Kelly’s late Tuesday order, including crowd control and detention, could violate the 1898 Posse Comitatus Act.

The Congressional Research Service determined “case law indicates that ‘execution of the law’ in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act occurs (a) when the Armed Forces perform tasks assigned to an organ of civil government, or (b) when the Armed Forces perform tasks assigned to them solely for purposes of civilian government,” the website reported.

But the law also allows the president “to use military force to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority,” the service found.

Prior to the midterms, the president employed harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric to describe the “caravans” of migrants — many of them women and children — fleeing their homelands.

He repeatedly called the caravan an “invasion” of the US, claiming without evidence that “Middle Easterners,” terrorists and hordes of violent gang members had infiltrated the group in an effort to fire up his nationalist base.

He ordered the troop deployment, and ominously warned that the active duty troops would stop the asylum seekers, though their actual role turned out to be building camps and stringing barbed wire along the border.

Trump barely mentioned the caravans after the midterms, and the Pentagon announced that the border operation, briefly dubbed “Operation Patriot Freedom” before the brass scrapped that moniker, would be wound down and that the troops would be home by Christmas.

Some of the migrants have amassed at the border city of Tijuana, while others remain hundreds of miles away from the US.

Experts eyed the order warily.

Posse Comitatus is “always looming in the background. You never invoke it as such because it is such a background principle,” William Banks, author of “Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military” and the former director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, told the website.

Kelly said in the directive that the move was necessary because “credible evidence and intelligence” suggest that the migrants in Tijuana, “may prompt incidents of violence and disorder” that could threaten Border Patrol personnel.

But the White House could still find itself in legal hot water if the authorities in the memo are determined to be counter to the law, Banks said.

Personally im of a neutral opinion. But if the caravan is going to try to force its way across the border like it has been forcing its way through Mexico then they get what they deserve.
 
For a long time the term "asylum" was only used in respect of political dissidents and defectors and those seeking entry to a country for humanitarian reasons were always referred to as "refugees". I can't even remember when that changed, but it's interesting that it did.

It was when economic migrants and Democratic corporate neo-slavelords realized that they could crowbar in indentured servants by the thousands using the thin veneer of 'asylum seeker'.
 
Late but whatever

US agents fire tear gas at migrants in start of border clashes with Mexico
By Nikki Schwab

U.S. Customs and Border Protection closed a section of the southern border with Mexico on Sunday and fired tear gas at a group of migrants that tried to breach a fence separating the two countries.

CNN reported that road and pedestrian bridge access at the San Ysidro port had been closed.

The major artery connects San Diego, Calif., and Tijuana, Mexico.

Video footage from journalists on-site shows hundreds of migrants rushing toward the U.S. border.

The Associated Press reported that U.S. officials fired tear gas at the migrants as they attempted to break through the fence.

President Trump tweeted Sunday morning that Mexico “would be very SMART” to stop the caravans of migrants long before they near the country’s border with the United States.

Instead more than 5,000 migrants have been camping out in Tijuana just across the border.

The U.S. looked to have struck a deal with Mexico on Saturday, which would keep asylum-seekers in Mexico while they wait for U.S. courts to decide their fates.

The Washington Post quoted Mexico’s incoming Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero saying, “For now, we have agreed to this policy of Remain in Mexico.”

Later, however, she said that there was “no agreement of any sorts between the incoming Mexican government and the U.S. government.”

She told Reuters that “very delicate” negotiations about the Central American migrant caravans were ongoing, but the plans for Mexico to be a third party were “ruled out.”

Mexico’s new president, Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, will begin his term on Dec. 1.

MORE ON:
MIGRANTS
Mexico may be backing out of deal to host asylum seekers

US reaches deal that would make asylum seekers wait in Mexico

Trump calls for 'security package' that includes border wall funding

Native Americans mark Thanksgiving with day of mourning
The Trump administration wants migrants to stay in Mexico while they wait for their asylum claims to be adjudicated instead of coming into the U.S. and being released.

“Migrants at the Southern Border will not be allowed into the United States until their claims are individually approved in court,” Trump tweeted Saturday, adding that if it becomes “necessary, we will CLOSE our Southern Border.”

Trump administration officials have alleged widespread fraud, suggesting most asylum seekers disappear into the U.S. after making their initial claims.

The administration had also tried to make it so no one could apply for asylum if they crossed into the U.S. illegally, but a northern California judge blocked the order.

In turn, Trump went on a tear against the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will be next up at bat to hear the case.

“You cannot win if you’re us, a case in the Ninth Circuit, and I think it’s a disgrace when people file, every case gets filed in the Ninth Circuit. That’s not law. That’s not what this country stands for. Every case gets filed in the Ninth Circuit, we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court,” Trump fumed to reporters.
 
I'm sure the images distort the perspective, but in some of them the beach looks wide open - like people could use it to sneak over the border while authorities are busy with those trying to rush the checkpoint.
 
No, listen, let me tell you something. The shit jobs "nobody wants" are only jobs nobody wants anymore because they barely pay enough to survive on nowadays. Shit's more expensive and the wages of scrubbing toilets or picking vegetables simply aren't rising at an equitable rate.

I guaran-fucking-tee you your average non-asshole millenial WOULD be a janitor if they made enough that they wouldn't have to live in a shit apartment in Murder Street and eat ramen for all three meals. But that would require CEOs and stockbrokers get slightly less money, so instead they use immigrants as slaves and threaten to deport them if they raise a fuss.
I don't know, whenever I have this conversation with people, at least concerning east coast living conditions, the math never supports this argument.

The minimum wage in my state is $10/hour. Average 2 bedroom apartment costs $1500/month. Split it with a friend, get a shared phone plan, internet, health insurance (<$100/month), ride the bus, etc. You can live pretty decently on minimum wage on the east coast. I wouldn't call it "barely enough to survive on".

It's a little uncomfortable, sure. But still, you can afford some luxuries. You can have your own TV. You can split a case of beer with your roommate every so often. You can go even out to eat once in awhile. (Or you could save your money.)

I think it's important for minimum wage jobs to be slightly uncomfortable, to encourage people to strive for more. It's what encourages people to go to night school, or community college or to take up a useful trade.

No one should be sitting comfy as a life-long minimum wage employee.
No but I've heard from people who have, and this kind of shit is the routine. Rich white people who get in trouble generally didn't do their homework and just hire people who specialize in this shit, and you basically just have to budget it in that you spew enough money to beggars/hawkers/corrupt government/whatever that you can go about your business, and the places are so desperately poor that this doesn't take much by murrica standards. It's just part of the cost of doing business.
Heh, awhile ago I was in a foreign country, and whenever we were hiring (illegal) taxis or buying stuff at a market (or at the literal turkish bazaar), I had to keep my mouth shut. Because if anyone heard me speaking english, prices tripled.
 
The minimum wage in my state is $10/hour. Average 2 bedroom apartment costs $1500/month. Split it with a friend, get a shared phone plan, internet, health insurance (<$100/month), ride the bus, etc. You can live pretty decently on minimum wage on the east coast. I wouldn't call it "barely enough to survive on".

So low income people are looking at paying 50% of their *gross* income for shared accommodation. How much would the net income of someone earning $1600 a month be?
 
So low income people are looking at paying 50% of their *gross* income for shared accommodation. How much would the net income of someone earning $1600 a month be?
Depends on how cheaply you eat. If you go the rice and beans route, a few hundred bucks a month.
 
I don't know, whenever I have this conversation with people, at least concerning east coast living conditions, the math never supports this argument.

The minimum wage in my state is $10/hour. Average 2 bedroom apartment costs $1500/month. Split it with a friend, get a shared phone plan, internet, health insurance (<$100/month), ride the bus, etc. You can live pretty decently on minimum wage on the east coast. I wouldn't call it "barely enough to survive on".

It's a little uncomfortable, sure. But still, you can afford some luxuries. You can have your own TV. You can split a case of beer with your roommate every so often. You can go even out to eat once in awhile. (Or you could save your money.)

I think it's important for minimum wage jobs to be slightly uncomfortable, to encourage people to strive for more. It's what encourages people to go to night school, or community college or to take up a useful trade.

No one should be sitting comfy as a life-long minimum wage employee
But how do you balance that with the fact that the world needs ditch-diggers? Do we always need to have a class of people doing shit work for shit pay and justify it by telling them "you need to work harder so someone more foolish than you gets trapped into the shitty job you want to escape"?
 
But how do you balance that with the fact that the world needs ditch-diggers? Do we always need to have a class of people doing shit work for shit pay and justify it by telling them "you need to work harder so someone more foolish than you gets trapped into the shitty job you want to escape"?
I do think there's room for a class of jobs that are purely temporary. Teenagers. Or people looking for a part time job, like house wives or college students. People trying to earn a little extra scratch on the weekends, but not willing to commit to a long term, new career.

If you can't get past the temporary jobs, you're probably a consistent fuckup like Russell Greer. (Or, that's how things should be.)
 
I do think there's room for a class of jobs that are purely temporary. Teenagers. Or people looking for a part time job, like house wives or college students. People trying to earn a little extra scratch on the weekends, but not willing to commit to a long term, new career.

If you can't get past the temporary jobs, you're probably a consistent fuckup like Russell Greer. (Or, that's how things should be.)
I'm a little concerned that the robots are going to eliminate temp jobs. Or actually, far more likely it's going to be economic migrants, because who needs to innovate robots when you've got a perennial subclass of people willing to accept subpar employment standards?
 
I'm a little concerned that the robots are going to eliminate temp jobs. Or actually, far more likely it's going to be economic migrants, because who needs to innovate robots when you've got a perennial subclass of people willing to accept subpar employment standards?
That's why a minimum wage (not a ridiculous one though) and good, well enforced immigration policy are important.

I think robots will obliterate some classes of work. Long haul trucking might be on the chopping block in a few decades. (Not as quickly as some think, because I think it's going to take awhile before the public is willing to OK robot drivers on public roads. Every robot car that crashes is going to push back the deployment a bit.)

But I think some jobs will always remain much cheaper for humans to do.
 
That's why a minimum wage (not a ridiculous one though) and good, well enforced immigration policy are important.
I argue this is why it's good to have strong black-and-white differentiation between citizens and non-citizens. Who deserves that minimum wage? Residents. Why is anyone a resident if not a citizen? Ask the democrats.
 
Depends on how cheaply you eat. If you go the rice and beans route, a few hundred bucks a month.

I meant how much would their after tax income be.

I do think there's room for a class of jobs that are purely temporary. Teenagers. Or people looking for a part time job, like house wives or college students. People trying to earn a little extra scratch on the weekends, but not willing to commit to a long term, new career.

If you can't get past the temporary jobs, you're probably a consistent fuckup like Russell Greer. (Or, that's how things should be.)

What has happened here is that a lot of the jobs which were previously filled by teenagers are now being done by older people like housewives and retirees for whom their fast food or retail job isn't the main source of income but a welcome addition to their primary source of income.

Outside of peak seasons like Christmas, a lot of temporary work is either seasonal or it's for skilled people.
 
Was it in this thread where someone posted about the California judge who tried to say that they couldn't force the migrants to stay in Mexico until their asylum claims can be processed, because I feel like federal immigration laws and US border policy really aren't the purview of the California court system..
 
Was it in this thread where someone posted about the California judge who tried to say that they couldn't force the migrants to stay in Mexico until their asylum claims can be processed, because I feel like federal immigration laws and US border policy really aren't the purview of the California court system..
Was it a California state judge or a federal judge in California?
 
The problem is "refugee" is not a legally defined term. Anyone who jumps the border can claim to be one. Its up to an immigration court to descide if they ARE a refugee.

So much paperwork and time could be saved if Congress would actually codify into law what a Refugee is. IMO, it should be anyone from a country that, according to the State Department is in a "State of War", or is engaging in " in state sanctioned discriminatory practices resulting in death" who arrives in the United States having not stepped one foot inside the borders of a third country that does not meet these criteria.

Since Mexico is not at war, or engaged in genocidal discrimination, anyone claiming refugee status having crossed over from Mexico is to be immediately deported back to Mexico and given the phone number to the US Embassy in Mexico City where they can apply for a visa through normal channels. Beyond that, their refugee status is the responsibility of the third party country (Mexico) that they entered first.

This incidentally, is all that is required under international law and don't let any shill tell you otherwise. Even a refugee from a legitimate warzone is not allowed to cross through a safe country on the way to a "Safer" country. The moment a war refugee enters a third party state they are that states responsibility and nobody elses. And as they are that states responsibility, they can be lawfully deported back to that state. No matter the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
The problem is "refugee" is not a legally defined term. Anyone who jumps the border can claim to be one. Its up to an immigration court to descide if they ARE a refugee.

Sort of. Under international law a refugee is someone whose claim for asylum has been granted. An asylum seeker is someone whose claim has not yet been determined.

upload_2018-11-27_17-13-23.png


https://epthinktank.eu/2015/10/27/refugee-status-under-international-law/

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
 
But how do you balance that with the fact that the world needs ditch-diggers? Do we always need to have a class of people doing shit work for shit pay and justify it by telling them "you need to work harder so someone more foolish than you gets trapped into the shitty job you want to escape"?

Or maybe we should just pay a decent wage to people who do these jobs that need to be done. And maybe people who do these jobs should actually be considered good people for doing something that needs to be done.

People who dig ditches, clean toilets, cook hamburgers, and other similar tasks are doing something necessary and should be treated with dignity and paid a living wage.
 
Back
Top Bottom