The Justice Department is suing Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over a floating barrier that the state placed on the Rio Grande to stop migrants from entering the U.S.
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
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
I don’t think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Let us know when you hit 20.
Removed by mod
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?!
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 lawson 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
Removed by mod
It’s removing an obstruction at the border.
Removed by mod
Are you unclear on what obstruction means?
Removed by mod
Seems like you’re unclear on a lot.