• @stanleytweedle
      link
      142 years ago

      I don’t think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.

        • dreadgoat
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Oh no, one of our states is unilaterally performing acts of war, but pOSsE cOmITatUS, guess our hands are tied, aw shucks

          • @Methylman
            link
            42 years ago

            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

            • @meco03211
              link
              32 years ago

              Let us know when you hit 20.

            • @shalafi
              link
              0
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              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?!

        • @stanleytweedle
          link
          52 years ago

          Sending the military to remove an obstruction at the border is not policing.

          • @Methylman
            link
            3
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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