Trump says he’ll use military in mass deportations

[HARK!]

President-elect Donald Trump signaled Monday that he plans to ask the U.S. military to assist with a massive deportation effort aimed at ousting some of the illegal immigrants who came during the Biden administration.
Mr. Trump took to Truth Social, his social media platform, where he confirmed a statement by conservative group Judicial Watch that he was preparing “to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.”

Trump says he’ll use military in mass deportations; details scant

President-elect Donald Trump signaled Monday that he plans to ask the U.S. military to assist with a massive deportation effort aimed at ousting some of the illegal immigrants who came during the Biden administration.

www.washingtontimes.com

I wonder if their votes will still count.

 

[Hammster]

That does fall under “all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

 

[Fantine]

I think only the Guard can be deployed domestically and it would be up to each governor to participate.
Some governors might choose not to, fearing violence.
If immigrants applied for asylum and are awaiting hearings, it would be unconstitutional.
I made the right voting decision and will be free from the angst and pangs of conscience many will have as the horrific impact of their decision settles in, because even those who want to fight immigration will see that this abuse of power can be employed in ways that will destroy our country.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I think only the Guard can be deployed domestically and it would be up to each governor to participate.
Some governors might choose not to, fearing violence.
If immigrants applied for asylum and are awaiting hearings, it would be unconstitutional.
I made the right voting decision and will be free from the angst and pangs of conscience many will have as the horrific impact of their decision settles in, because even those who want to fight immigration will see that this abuse of power can be employed in ways that will destroy our country.

Thanks for sharing a very important truth. This will backfire. I do believe our Father's will is being done but not in the they think. It's time to repent. Blessings

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think only the Guard can be deployed domestically and it would be up to each governor to participate.
Some governors might choose not to, fearing violence.
If immigrants applied for asylum and are awaiting hearings, it would be unconstitutional.
I made the right voting decision and will be free from the angst and pangs of conscience many will have as the horrific impact of their decision settles in, because even those who want to fight immigration will see that this abuse of power can be employed in ways that will destroy our country.

The president can deploy the national guard as well that is how they can end up overseas.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thats good...

If the states won't assist we will definitely need military personnel to round up the cartels and such, for sure.

 

[RDKirk]

Thats good...

If the states won't assist we will definitely need military personnel to round up the cartels and such, for sure.

Using the military to "round up" people will turn exceedingly nasty. Maybe provide transport when other agencies have rounded them up, okay. But using the military to bust doors in civilian communities will be exceedingly nasty.

People have gripes, many of which I fully agree should be resolved. But I'm not in favor of breaking the Constitution to accomplish them. I know a lot of people are willing to set aside the Constitution to make the nation look the way they want it to look, but I see that path leading to disaster.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Using the military to "round up" people will turn exceedingly nasty. Maybe provide transport when other agencies have rounded them up, okay. But using the military to bust doors in civilian communities will be exceedingly nasty.

People have gripes, many of which I fully agree should be resolved. But I'm not in favor of breaking the Constitution to accomplish them. I know a lot of people are willing to set aside the Constitution to make the nation look the way they want it to look, but I see that path leading to disaster.

yes very nasty very quickly and there would be a good chance it would require people ratting which plenty of people would but plenty of people would not.

 

[Arcangl86]

That seems like it would be a pretty clear violation of Posse Comitatus. The military, which includes the National Guard when acting under federal orders, cannot be used for law enforcement purposes.

 

[RDKirk]

That seems like it would be a pretty clear violation of Posse Comitatus. The military, which includes the National Guard when acting under federal orders, cannot be used for law enforcement purposes.

What scares me about the current situation is that Trump has Congress and the Supreme Court in his hands. They are no longer independent branches of government, but appear to be willing to roll over for the president.

This is not the way it was up through the 1980s. Until then, Senators and Representatives fiercely guarded the independence of Congress, even from presidents of their own party. Supreme Court Justices did as well...it was not at all unusual for a Justice to totally surprise the president who appointed him. It's not so today. A couple of days ago, I listened to a Representative from Texas making a long statement with his full chest that he believed the role of Congress was to do absolutely everything the president wants. In his words, "...if the president says jump, I'll ask him 'how high.'" They literally don't know how the US government was intended to operate. His diatribe was precisely what the classical Fascists called "Absolutism" and "Irrationalism," two of the three pillars of classical Fascism.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What scares me about the current situation is that Trump has Congress and the Supreme Court in his hands. They are no longer independent branches of government, but appear to be willing to roll over for the president.

This is not the way it was up through the 1980s. Until then, Senators and Representatives fiercely guarded the independence of Congress, even from presidents of their own party. Supreme Court Justices did as well...it was not at all unusual for a Justice to totally surprise the president who appointed him. It's not so today. A couple of days ago, I listened to a Representative from Texas making a long statement with his full chest that he believed the role of Congress was to do absolutely everything the president wants. In his words, "...if the president says jump, I'll ask him 'how high.'" They literally don't know how the US government was intended to operate. His diatribe was precisely what the classical Fascists called "Absolutism" and "Irrationalism," two of the three pillars of classical Fascism.

Well as it relates to congress and senators really the people voted for that knowing they were in the same party. In terms of SCOUNTS term limits may or may not" help" that situation. Term limits for the judges I mean.

 

[ozso]

Given his experience and expertise in the matter, it seems likely that Tom Homan will handle the matter efficiently and effectively.

 

[RDKirk]

Well as it relates to congress and senators really the people voted for that knowing they were in the same party. In terms of SCOUNTS term limits may or may not" help" that situation. Term limits for the judges I mean.

Which means we're about to enter a period with zero checks and balances on the Executive Branch and a madman at the helm.

 

[Nithavela]

Which means we're about to enter a period with zero checks and balances on the Executive Branch and a madman at the helm.

It's what you guys ordered from the menu, so now you guys eat it.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Which means we're about to enter a period with zero checks and balances on the Executive Branch and a madman at the helm.

My point was that the American people particularly if they voted republican down the line KNEW that and may have even wanted that when they voted.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

My point was that the American people particularly if they voted republican down the line KNEW that and may have even wanted that when they voted.

Perhaps - or perhaps they have been misled into thinking that's what they wanted. As @RDKirk said, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are meant to be checks on each other, and - up until the last decade or two - acted as such, even when the President's party held a majority in the legislature or a majority of the Court was appointed by the President or prior Presidents from the same party.

 

[Hammster]

Which means we're about to enter a period with zero checks and balances on the Executive Branch and a madman at the helm.

Sometimes the checkers actually agree with the one they are checking.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Perhaps - or perhaps they have been misled into thinking that's what they wanted. As @RDKirk said, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are meant to be checks on each other, and - up until the last decade or two - acted as such, even when the President's party held a majority in the legislature or a majority of the Court was appointed by the President or prior Presidents from the same party.

but now that has changed and so come January we will see what that is like.

 

[durangodawood]

My point was that the American people particularly if they voted republican down the line KNEW that and may have even wanted that when they voted.

The framers were rightly wary of revolutions (their own notwithstanding). The constitution was intended to be conservative, in that the various branches checking each other were meant to put the brakes on any single branch's desire for freewheeling fast change.

Also, they didnt anticipate the power of parties to consolidate congress into blocs, and select via partisan primaries, that pressure representatives to vote against their own better judgement, in the interest of political survival.

 

[RDKirk]

Sometimes the checkers actually agree with the one they are checking.

That's how laws ever get passed. But when the "checkers" state up front that they don't believe it's their role to do any checking, they don't understand the Constitution.