politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.
Sending in the military to enforce legal guidelines is literally that but okay?
Sending the military to remove an obstruction at the border is not policing.
Your right, but OP was incorrect in using the word policing when the Act passed by congress actually uses the words "domestic" law enforcement; (imo) arguably this includes any action that stems from edit: ACTING ~~enforcing laws~~ on domestic, as opposed to foreign, soil. Further the exceptions allow for military to "provide" resources that support domestic enforcement officer which (again imo) would not extend to 'not providing/actually removing' resources that domestic enforcement officers do already have..
All that to say what the act does do is create a grey area that can be argued either way and which does force the federal government to have to think twice about using the military for such matters.. for better or for worse
Edit for clarity
What is it, then?
It's removing an obstruction from the border.
So they’re janitors?
Are you unclear on what obstruction means?
I’m unclear as to what y’all think the military does I guess?
Seems like you're unclear on a lot.
I mean I feel like I’m asking you how this is not a police action and you’ve given me nothing so ok
How is it not a medical action? Or a naval action? Or any other action I make up? If you can't show me it's not the nonsense I make up then it must be the nonsense I made up ;)
That seems like a great precedent to set. Send the military in to wherever, whenever, because the president wants to. That’s worked out so well for the rest of the world that I understand why you’d be down. I mean Texas even has oil.
The precedent has been set many times. If a states governor will not enforce federal laws or tries to interpret laws in their own warped way the federal government will let them know their mistake. Look at the 60's in the South. Oh, and look at what part of the country is having trouble interpreting established law again...yeah.
Yes- at the US border, pretty longstanding tradition that you fuck with US borders hard enough you fuck with the US military.
Maybe you should read some of the other responses. The framework for this has been clarified for you by more patient people than me- you're just being kind of willfully ignorant at this point.
Oh no, one of our states is unilaterally performing acts of war, but pOSsE cOmITatUS, guess our hands are tied, aw shucks
Yes - same way Trump couldn't send in the military and had to rely on states' national guards to clear protesters before that infamous photo-op in front of the church
Those guys were from BoP if I recall correctly
Sometimes it's good to be reminded teenagers use the internet, too, I guess.
Let us know when you hit 20.
My knees really wish
Well said!
And I left reddit for this...
You can always tell when you're debating a child. There's no factual debate, just emotional, cutesy quips that garner upvotes.
Works on social media! Not so much when you have to produce and report results IRL.
I'd love a "porn" social media, where you have to prove your age to participate. How much saner would that be?!