Agent Fisher wrote: ↑
I apologize for not quoting parts to make it easier to read, but I am posting from my phone.
I am not trying to be disingenuous when I maintain there is a difference between using the military in a support role to assist civilian law enforcement or agencies versus using the military in an enforcement capacity.
Sure, there's a difference. But both of them are unnecessary election stunts when done in this context, however. And both of them are illegal if done using active duty troops without Congressional approval.
Do I believe the US needs to do more to keep out foreigners, absolutely not. We need to make it easier for legal immigration. It’s a mess right now, how many hoops and how long the process takes to allow someone to move to this country. If there is someone from the far corners of the world who wants to move to the US and they’re willing to deal with the headache of doing it legally, I want them here. If there is someone who has skills or education that could possible help my country, I want them here.
I largely agree with this, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, getting real comprehensive immigration reform passed now is a non-starter. So people who should be able to come here legally are compelled instead to immigrate illegally, and should not be subjected to draconian punishments for doing so.
In any case, the caravan are not illegal immigrants. They're asylum seekers
(who Trump is portraying as a Democrat-sponsored invasion). That distinction, between "illegal immigrant" and "asylum seeker" is one that has often been lost in the debate over this.
But I firmly believe that just cause someone walks across our border does not give them the right to stay. If I just walked into Canada and declared that I live there now, I’d be sent packing.
I defend the right of a country to use a federal police service to provide their border security for actual hands on contacts and to use military assets for support such as transportation, logistics, observation.
Edit: and if none of those sound like reasonable ideas to you, then I doubt we will ever agree on the issue and I will withdraw from the discussion as I do not have the time or will to engage in what will be otherwise fruitless debate.
Again, Trump does not
have the right to unilaterally deploy active duty troops, if you want to look at the issue purely from a legal perspective. Nor should he- that limit prevents Presidents from implementing Martial Law for political reasons.
Looking at the larger question of whether a government has the right to secure their border, sure. Ultimately I'm a proponent of global government, but we're a long way from that, and as long as we have countries, their governments have a right to secure their border, within the limits set out by their constitution/laws, and any treaties to which they are signatories.
But you're still avoiding the real point: that just because countries do something, or have a right, legally-speaking, to do something, is not in and of itself
sufficient argument for why it should
do so. That's what you have to justify- not the legal right of governments to secure their border, but why
these policies should (or should not) be implemented.
I do think that there is a fundamental difference in our views here, in that I generally support freedom of movement between countries with only a few specific exceptions, and you (it appears) do not. But perhaps the difference is not so great as you imagine. I don't support a complete absence of border security, as there are some people who should be detained at the border- wanted fugitives, smugglers, and also quarantines in the event of a pandemic scenario. But anyone who does not pose a direct, demonstrable threat (ie they're a dangerous criminal or carrying an infectious, lethal disease) should be allowed to pass.* In other words, ideally, we would have a secure border and uphold our laws, but it would be much easier to enter legally. But since it is not easy to enter legally, and there is no political solution to that in sight, we have a choice- do we enforce needlessly harsh, authoritarian, inhumane, and xenophobic laws simply because they're the law? Or do we choose to disobey those laws and defend the rights of those who violate them, because we recognize that those laws should not exist in their current form, and that enforcing them does more harm than good? In short, in the absence of an ideal solution, do we choose to err on the side of enforcement, or of liberty?
For my part, I choose liberty.
Edit: Of course, all this is tangential to the simple fact that deploying active duty troops to aid in domestic law enforcement without Congressional approval is illegal, and that there is pretty much no benefit to doing so here other than (possibly) to the Republican's midterm campaign.
*I would also require every immigrant to take and pass a test on US law, but then, I also think that all high school students should have to pass an introductory law course to graduate.