Border Security and Ron Paul. I need some questions answered..

[Lord Xar]

Okay,

Ron Paul will support border agents and national guardsmen at the borders. He does not believe in military at the border. Check, got it.


IF the national guardsmen are controlled at the state level, and that STATE does not want to protect its border with mexico --- lets say California and its liberal leaning politicians and questionable hispanic politicians decide to ONLY show a small token of protection by supplying lets say 400 guardsment (Lets say 10,000 are needed).....

Then what?

So, by way of california --- those illegals could now travel anywhere in the united states. So isn't this a FEDERAL issue guarding the border...

OR

IF the states can decide, what happens in that example above? What if they want to cut funding or whatever... what then?

This is a MAJOR point with me and Ron Paul... a major point. I need definitive clarification on this...

[kylejack]

I think you probably just need to learn a little bit more about the National Guard. The Army National Guard is part of the Army, and the President can direct them to defend the border.

According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

[MozoVote]

There are some examples now of pilot programs where the local PD is trained how to interrogate suspected illegals, and turn them over to the Feds. Ron Paul would (I assume) support expanding these programs. States do not need to be on the border to process illegals.

[foofighter20x]

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;" - Article I, Section 8, clause 4

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" - ibid, clause 15

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." - ibid, clause 18

Sounds like open license on border security for the federal government to me.

*shrug*

[Lord Xar]

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;" - Article I, Section 8, clause 4

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" - ibid, clause 15

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." - ibid, clause 18

Sounds like open license on border security for the federal government to me.

*shrug*

Well, it has been brought to my attention that Ron Paul does not want military at the border. So even though you have pointed out examples of allowing this, he has said he doesn't believe in it. Also - on terry anderson show (It was told to me) that he said he will leave the guarding up to the states.. so again, my question needs to be addressed...

What if the states do not fullfill their duties, what is the recourse?

[kylejack]

Well, it has been brought to my attention that Ron Paul does not want military at the border. So even though you have pointed out examples of allowing this, he has said he doesn't believe in it. Also - on terry anderson show (It was told to me) that he said he will leave the guarding up to the states.. so again, my question needs to be addressed...

What if the states do not fullfill their duties, what is the recourse?
He doesn't want the regular Army at the border. He does want the Army National Guard at the border. He would send the Army National Guard to defend our borders.

[foofighter20x]

Well, it has been brought to my attention that Ron Paul does not want military at the border. So even though you have pointed out examples of allowing this, he has said he doesn't believe in it. Also - on terry anderson show (It was told to me) that he said he will leave the guarding up to the states.. so again, my question needs to be addressed...

What if the states do not fullfill their duties, what is the recourse?

From www.ronpaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/):

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Sounds like he'd use the military to me, if it came to that...

[Lord Xar]

He doesn't want the regular Army at the border. He does want the Army National Guard at the border. He would send the Army National Guard to defend our borders.

Right, but isn't the national guard under the control of each individual state?

Maybe I have this wrong. I thought national guard and nation guard airforce are part of the states.. each state has its own deployment...

[DeadheadForPaul]

The borders are under federal jurisdiction, so the President could send the national guard to said borders

[foofighter20x]

Right, but isn't the national guard under the control of each individual state?

Maybe I have this wrong. I thought national guard and nation guard airforce are part of the states.. each state has its own deployment...

As currently configured under law, no.

They serve in a dual status and take two oaths of enlistment. The first is to the federal government, the second to their state. Thus the feds can call them up as needed.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Does that include torture? Shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of. Waterboarding? I would say every method they can think of . . .

Who said that? Hint: not Ron Paul.

A quote above from the Constitution specifically authorizes military to "repel invasions." But specifically Ron Paul wants to get our border guards back from Iraq.

[foofighter20x]

Does that include torture? Shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of. Waterboarding? I would say every method they can think of . . .

Who said that? Hint: not Ron Paul.

A quote above from the Constitution specifically authorizes military to "repel invasions." But specifically Ron Paul wants to get our border guards back from Iraq.

1. Torture is illegal under treaties to which the US has signed on.
2. In the context of Dr Paul's entire career, you are really going to have to reach to implicate that he would use torture on boarder jumpers. He'd enforce our current laws and use the Constitutional means available to him to do so.

To think otherwise is very naïve. :rolleyes:

[Lord Xar]

Does anybody know what Ron Pauls position would be on the situation in Hazeltown. Would he support Hazelton or side with the judge?

[foofighter20x]

Nothing in the constitution prohibits the state from enforcing federal law.

[Lord Xar]

Does anybody know what Ron Pauls position would be on the situation in Hazeltown. Would he support Hazelton or side with the judge?



Nothing in the constitution prohibits the state from enforcing federal law.


So, he would or would not support Hazelton?

[foofighter20x]

Dunno... Probably support. He does support enforcement of the law.

Question is, though, is Hazleton about local laws or federal laws that are being enforced?