Anonymous ID: bffb0f Jan. 27, 2019, 12:07 p.m. No.4930223   🗄️.is đź”—kun

Thousands of National Guardsmen Have already Taken up temp residency at the Border

 

For almost three months, thousands of active duty U.S. military personnel—not the national guardsmen used in prior border deployments—have taken up temporary residence on the southern border. At times operating in full battledress, they have provided Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel with a diverse array of assistance, ranging from transportation and medical services to the deployment of concertina wire. Premised on the purported threat posed by large caravans of Central American migrants attempting to enter the United States, the deployment of these personnel was recently extended through September 2019. Until then, these troops will continue to operate at the intersection of military operations and civilian law enforcement efforts—two domains that the U.S. legal system has traditionally tried to keep separate.

 

Whatever policy concerns these military personnel may raise, most of their activities fit comfortably within existing statutory authorizations and therefore do not raise serious legal concerns. An important exception, however, are the “military protective activities” that Trump authorized on Nov. 20, which permit deployed servicemembers to use force if necessary to defend CBP personnel from the purported threats posed by the migrant caravans. Drafted to resemble certain practices set out in existing military guidelines, authorization of the deployment of military personnel for this purpose is a novel step that may reflect a new assertion of legal authority by the president. The Trump administration, however, has resisted providing the public with a legal justification for these activities. As a result, the full scope of this assertion—and its implications for the future scope of presidential authority—remains unclear.

 

Since 1878, Congress has made it a crime to intentionally use members of the Army (and later the Air Force) for the purposes of posse comitatus—a Latin phrase describing the enlistment of civilians to assist in law enforcement tasks—or to “otherwise … execute the laws,” except where expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Defense Department policies extend this same basic limitation to the Navy and Marine Corps but allow for certain case-by-case exceptions. National Guard personnel, however, are not subject to this restriction when they are acting pursuant to the authority of individual state governors—a fact that likely explains the central role such forces have played in prior border deployments.

 

The Justice Department maintains that the primary purpose of the posse comitatus restriction is to “prohibit military personnel from directly coercing, threatening to coerce, or otherwise regulating civilians in the execution of criminal or civil laws.” Under relevant case law, efforts at civilian law enforcement generally violate this restriction where they make “direct active use” of military personnel, are “pervade[d]” by military involvement, or use military power to subject civilians to measures that are “regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory in nature.” That said, this restriction does not reach activities that military personnel pursue for military or other non-law enforcement purposes, even if those activities incidentally benefit civilian law enforcement. Hence, the posse comitatus restriction does not prohibit security measures on military bases, the off-base investigation of servicemember conduct or even duly authorized military operations within the United States, provided they are all pursued for independent military purposes."

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitutional-quandary-already-border

Anonymous ID: bffb0f Jan. 27, 2019, 12:26 p.m. No.4930391   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0582

The Border Security Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 authorized National Guard deployment to the Southwest border to construct fencing.

 

The bill included $4.5 billion for border security measures, including $1.5 billion specifically for border fencing.

Notable Democrat Senators who voted FOR this bill:

Harry Reid - NV

Patrick Leahy - VT

Tim Kaine - VA

Mark Warner - VA

Joe Manchin - WV

Chuck Schumer - NY

Kirsten Gillibrand - NY

Mazie Hirono - HI

Dick Durbin - IL

Elizabeth Warren - MA

Amy Klobuchar - MN

Claire McCaskill - MO

Richard Blumenthal - CT

Dianne Feinstein - CA

Barbara Boxer - CA

Chris Coons - DE

Bill Nelson - FL

Mary Landrieu - LA

Sherrod Brown - OH

Sheldon Whitehouse - RI

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 planned to erect pedestrian "fences" 18-25 feet tall (700 miles), as well as vehicle barriers (299 miles)had a projected cost of $50 billion over 25 years.

The bill passed in the Senate 80-19, and the House 283-138.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744