Posted on 04/26/2006 5:41:15 AM PDT by shortstop
In many cases, there's no compromise at all. But what does that have to do with anything? You made an incredibly borad statement, which you capitalized to emphasize how broadly you intended it to be.
EVERY time Republicans compromise with Democrats, incremental socialism advances.
That's a RIDICULOUS statement, and I gave you the example of the 2001 tax cut compromise. You know, the one that netted a $1.35T tax cut rather than the $0 we'd have gotten if we'd insisted only on getting everything we wanted.
Compromises are bad when the status quo is better. If the Dems demand a $20B increase in social spending, I don't consider "compromising" at $10B to be good for us. Because the status quo of no increase at all is better. But when the status quo is worse than the compromise, you're better off taking the compromise rather than getting nothing at all. That should be pretty obvious, except to extremists who make claims like EVERY compromise incrementally advances socialism.
That should be the point of reference for discussions on immigration. Don't compromise at all if the compromise is worse that than the status quo. BUT, if we can't get everything we want on immigration, and what we can get is an improvement over where we are now, you take the compromise. Just like we took that $1.35T.
Well...the Posse Comitatus act prevents the military from enforcing domestic law. Until Mexico declares war and attacks us, you can forget that option.
The Feds arrested those fugitives after a year of preparation.....they have done this once a year for the last two years. At that rate, it would take 1333 years to deport 12 million illegals.
I was thinking of trains with a few hundred cattle cars attached to 'em. They need to arrive alive and in relatively good shape, but they don't have to be comfortable during the trip...
Yeah, too bad the Mexican IAs don't have any fear.
Actually, A.Hun is correct - the Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement, whether against citizens or non-citizens. Next try?
Please point to me the Article and Section in the Constitution that states the military will catch illegal aliens?
UNITED STATES Constitution.
Thank you clawrence....
la...see wikipedia for an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Exceptions
this is another discussion of Posse COmitatus:
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Commentary/barnes.htm
You're welcome - that's where I got the recap, but some here get upset if you link to Wikipedia - I'm not sure why. Here is something else interesting I found too about the erosion of the Act - still supposed to be no "direct" military involvement in law enforcement:
"One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the 'war on drugs.' Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in 10 U.S.C., sections 371–381. This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areas—immigration control and tariff enforcement.
The use of the military in opposing drug smuggling and illegal immigration was a significant step away from the act’s central tenet that there was no proper role for the military in the direct enforcement of the laws. The legislative history explains that this new policy is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military involvement still amounted to an indirect and logistical support of civilian law enforcement and not direct enforcement.
The weakness of the analysis of passive versus direct involvement in law enforcement was most graphically demonstrated in the tragic 1999 shooting of a shepherd by marines who had been assigned a mission to interdict smuggling and illegal immigration in the remote Southwest. An investigation revealed that for some inexplicable reason the 16-year-old shepherd fired his weapon in the direction of the marines. Return fire killed the boy. This tragedy demonstrates that when armed troops are placed in a position where they are being asked to counter potential criminal activity, it is a mere semantic exercise to argue that the military is being used in a passive support role. The fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine."
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
I never use wikipedia as a sole source because at one time it could be user modified...ended up with lots of biased stuff.
It is pretty straight forward on PC though. Thanks for the additional link, I'll file it away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.