"Under Title X of the US Code, the President has plenary authority..."

[Servus]

Considering that that's not one of the conditions that grants the President the authority to federalize the Guard, Trump should probably come up with some other justifications if he wants any hope of the courts allowing him to do it.

What other reason would he have?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What other reason would he have?

That's a very good question, but you seem to have missed the point of my post.

 

[wing2000]

So, in essence, Miller is claiming that Trump, as president, has absolute power to deploy the National Guard wherever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, and that he does not believe that the Courts (or state governors) have the authority to stop him. This should, I would hope, sound alarm bells in every American's head.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code grants the President authority over the National Guard and provides specific powers for their deployment, particularly within the United States during domestic emergencies established by the Constitution.

What emergency?

 

[Servus]

What emergency?

Whatever qualifies was covered by Miller. One can either agree or disagree with what he said.

 

[Servus]

That's a very good question, but you seem to have missed the point of my post.

I wanted to see if you or someone else had possible ulterior motives to offer.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Whatever qualifies was covered by Miller. One can either agree or disagree with what he said.

Whether one agrees or disagrees is irrelevant - this is a legal issue, not a matter of opinion.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I wanted to see if you or someone else had possible ulterior motives to offer.

Why would I speculate about ulterior motives? We're talking about whether or not the President has legal justification for his actions.

 

[wing2000]

Whatever qualifies was covered by Miller. One can either agree or disagree with what he said.

He didn't mention "emergency".

 

[Servus]

He didn't mention "emergency".

Oh so what he's describing is null and void if he doesn't use the magic word.

 

[wing2000]

Oh so what he's describing is null and void if he doesn't use the magic word.

It's null and void if he can't produce the evidence to back up it up...whatever words he uses. And apparently, you can't either.

 

[Servus]

Whether one agrees or disagrees is irrelevant - this is a legal issue, not a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of opinion for everyone not in authority to make that decision.

 

[Servus]

It's null and void if he can't produce the evidence to back up it up...whatever words he uses. And apparently, you can't either.

What difference does it make what I can do? I'm just as powerless in the matter as you are.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's a matter of opinion for everyone not in authority to make that decision.

Right, and opinions are, again, irrelevant. Because this is a legal question.

Saying "I agree with Miller on this" (or "I disagree with Miller") is meaningless to the question of whether or not what Trump is doing is legal.

 

[wing2000]

What difference does it make what I can do? I'm just as powerless in the matter as you are.

Servus said:
Title 10 of the U.S. Code grants the President authority over the National Guard and provides specific powers for their deployment, particularly within the United States during domestic emergencies established by the Constitution.

We are discussing what constitutes an emergency.

 

[Servus]

Servus said:
Title 10 of the U.S. Code grants the President authority over the National Guard and provides specific powers for their deployment, particularly within the United States during domestic emergencies established by the Constitution.

We are discussing what constitutes an emergency.

That would be when the president declares a state of emergency.

 

[Servus]

Right, and opinions are, again, irrelevant. Because this is a legal question.

Saying "I agree with Miller on this" (or "I disagree with Miller") is meaningless to the question of whether or not what Trump is doing is legal.

No kidding. What you decide regarding the matter is meaningless because it's completely out of your hands.

 

[eclipsenow]

The only reason why deportation is more prolific now is because the Biden administration let so many extra millions enter illegally.

Kamala was working south of the border on the push factors that compel people to leave.

She was lowering the rates!

This wasn't a hobby horse of the Clinton or Obama administration, both of which were strong on border security, illegal immigration and deportation.

Interesting. I did not realise that. I was younger - and not that interested in American politics back then. (Not since it became threatened by electing someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder who threatens American democracy!)

Also interesting - that if someone were concerned about 'illegals' - they should have voted Democrat from historical knowledge!

How many people were deported under Trump and Obama?​

During Trump’s term in office, approximately 1.2 million people were deported through removal orders. A further 805,770 were self-deported or turned away at the border between fiscal years 2017 and 2020.​

​

Immigration orders during the Trump-era were lower than either of Obama’s terms. Approximately 1.57 million and 1.49 million immigrants were removed in the fiscal years of Obama’s first and second presidencies respectively.​

​

In fact, Obama oversaw more deportations than any other U.S. president in history.​

The independent.​

​

​

But the same article shows your assertions about Biden to be wrong.​

​

This mess is a result of new radical left policies that are the real danger. The big threat Trump poses is putting an end to it.

My question is - why the urgency? They work hard, contribute more to the GPD than they take in welfare, and have MUCH lower crime rates than American born citizens. Doesn't America have a debt crisis? Why waste all this money exporting GOLD?

To return illegal migrants back to their home country, a single full flight of migrants can cost $250,000, according to ICE. At the very least, deportations by ICE cost taxpayers $10,854 each, according to 2016 figures from CNN.​

​

A report from the American Immigration Council estimated the one-time cost of deporting all immigrants without legal status at at least $315 billion.​

​

A more long-term plan involving the deportation of one million people a year would cost an average of $88 billion annually, according to the report, to a total of $968 billion overall.​

Why so serious?

 

[Servus]

Obama Leaves Office As 'Deporter-In-Chief'​

 

[wing2000]

....amazing. Prior presidents were able to deport illegal immigrants without declaring a national emergency.

In fact, illegal immigration has been a problem since the Reagan Administration.....yet today, 40 years later, it's now an *EMERGENCY*.

 

[Servus]

What emergency?