I think you're getting technical.
The point remains that if federal law enforcement tells local law enforcement to get out of the way, the locals get out of the way, regardless of local feeling. See, for reference, Little Rock High School and the University of Mississippi, when each were forced to admit black students for the first time.

Whether or not a situation is an emergency depends on a variety of factors some of which have already been described here. These factors should be considered holistically with the others. And yes the time that the thing started versus the time that somebody decides to call it an emergency is absolutely one of those factors. You can call it mental gymnastics on my part but to I don't see anyone else here offering a more helpful definition.  A helpful definition of "emergency" would apply to this situation and many others.  A definition that just says, "no border, no country.  Violate border, is emergency!" is begging the question.  Do you have a more helpful definition, if you don't like mine?

---

all the powers of the federal government are Supreme over the powers of the state governments, but obviously the rights of the people are Supreme over the powers of both. You and I both know let me have a right to free speech and communication that neither can touch. So what in the world are you talkin about right now?

Lol, I guess you really do have a Twister card for posting. You talk so much about definitions and then write something so divorced from reality, like you have any real understanding of the relationships of law enforcement organizations. You just open up and gush your opinion as though the feds are all-powerful, yet here in our own state we are defying their edicts without consequence.

1) are you not entertained?

2) what is incorrect, that I said?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We don't need to build an expensive barrier. We need to bring home our military men and women stationed overseas. Most of those countries don't even want us there. Work out a deal where those countries can use our military bases on a rental basis, thereby bringing in money to the U.S. I also build bases along our southern border for all branches of the military and I use them to continuously patrol the border daily. Making a strong military presence along the border is a much bigger deterrent to illegals than a wall.

Also, why are we keeping illegals in detention camps? I simply have them fill out the necessary paperwork for asylum, have them provide a contact number in Mexico and tell them they will be contacted when their case is ready. All cases will be heard in designated areas along the border to make it easier for the migrants to get to their hearings. After the paperwork is collected  to start their asylum process, I release them back to where the came from, the Mexican side of the border. If Mexico wouldn't have let them into their country to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem. Tell Mexico to either fix their own border problems or be overrun with migrants from Central or South America, waiting for their cases to be heard in the U.S.

I heard one retired general suggest using private military in situations like Syria & Afghanistan. I don't know the intricacies of something like that, but it sounds good on the surface.

---

We don't need to build an expensive barrier. We need to bring home our military men and women stationed overseas. Most of those countries don't even want us there. Work out a deal where those countries can use our military bases on a rental basis, thereby bringing in money to the U.S. I also build bases along our southern border for all branches of the military and I use them to continuously patrol the border daily. Making a strong military presence along the border is a much bigger deterrent to illegals than a wall.

Also, why are we keeping illegals in detention camps? I simply have them fill out the necessary paperwork for asylum, have them provide a contact number in Mexico and tell them they will be contacted when their case is ready. All cases will be heard in designated areas along the border to make it easier for the migrants to get to their hearings. After the paperwork is collected  to start their asylum process, I release them back to where the came from, the Mexican side of the border. If Mexico wouldn't have let them into their country to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem. Tell Mexico to either fix their own border problems or be overrun with migrants from Central or South America, waiting for their cases to be heard in the U.S.

I heard one retired general suggest using private military in situations like Syria & Afghanistan. I don't know the intricacies of something like that, but it sounds good on the surface.

What's the advantage of using private military?   Are you talking about mercenaries?   Would they have an air force to back them up?   Is there a private military that can support themselves logistically?  How would they be fed and supplied?   How would we oversee and coordinate their activities?   

I know that's a lot of questions.  I just don't see how a private military would have 1/100th of the capability of the US military.

---

I heard one retired general suggest using private military in situations like Syria & Afghanistan. I don't know the intricacies of something like that, but it sounds good on the surface.

What's the advantage of using private military?   Are you talking about mercenaries?   Would they have an air force to back them up?   Is there a private military that can support themselves logistically?  How would they be fed and supplied?   How would we oversee and coordinate their activities?   

I know that's a lot of questions.  I just don't see how a private military would have 1/100th of the capability of the US military.

It was more specifically discussed for the Syria withdraw and the 2000 troops that are there. Again, I don't have all the answers, just found it interesting a retired general brought it up. I think mercenaries and private military are one in the same, correct? Good questions. On paper, it seems like a private military would be sufficient to hold our position in a place like Syria and ensure ISIS doesn't gain any traction.

---

We don't need to build an expensive barrier. We need to bring home our military men and women stationed overseas. Most of those countries don't even want us there. Work out a deal where those countries can use our military bases on a rental basis, thereby bringing in money to the U.S. I also build bases along our southern border for all branches of the military and I use them to continuously patrol the border daily. Making a strong military presence along the border is a much bigger deterrent to illegals than a wall.

Also, why are we keeping illegals in detention camps? I simply have them fill out the necessary paperwork for asylum, have them provide a contact number in Mexico and tell them they will be contacted when their case is ready. All cases will be heard in designated areas along the border to make it easier for the migrants to get to their hearings. After the paperwork is collected  to start their asylum process, I release them back to where the came from, the Mexican side of the border. If Mexico wouldn't have let them into their country to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem. Tell Mexico to either fix their own border problems or be overrun with migrants from Central or South America, waiting for their cases to be heard in the U.S.

All of these are good ideas. Add in E-verify. It's not a binary choice, we can do all of that. The barrier (good choice of word) is expensive, but a drop in the bucket of wasteful government spending and it's a one-time cost. It would deter many foreigners from trying to cross illegally, and, if nothing else, slow down the progress of the other invaders making it easier to stop them. Someone posted on Facebook that the US has built over 2000 miles of interstate highway soundproofing wall. Whether or not that mileage number is true, I'd say defending our national sovereignty is more important than reducing traffic noise.

Right now, we need a start. With Trump as president, getting a barrier bill passed is easier than the others. There's no way the current congress would approve any of your worthwhile suggestions.

Whether it's a one time expense or not, it's wasteful. It would do nothing to stop foreign invaders either. They'd simply knock a hole through it with a missle. It would be a speed bump to invading foreign armies and as far as illegals, I'd be a lot more inclined to try and risk climbing some barrier, than I would trying to cross over illegally knowing there are soldiers at the border carrying M16's. A constant military presence would be much more effective.

---

We don't need to build an expensive barrier. We need to bring home our military men and women stationed overseas. Most of those countries don't even want us there. Work out a deal where those countries can use our military bases on a rental basis, thereby bringing in money to the U.S. I also build bases along our southern border for all branches of the military and I use them to continuously patrol the border daily. Making a strong military presence along the border is a much bigger deterrent to illegals than a wall.

Also, why are we keeping illegals in detention camps? I simply have them fill out the necessary paperwork for asylum, have them provide a contact number in Mexico and tell them they will be contacted when their case is ready. All cases will be heard in designated areas along the border to make it easier for the migrants to get to their hearings. After the paperwork is collected  to start their asylum process, I release them back to where the came from, the Mexican side of the border. If Mexico wouldn't have let them into their country to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem. Tell Mexico to either fix their own border problems or be overrun with migrants from Central or South America, waiting for their cases to be heard in the U.S.

I heard one retired general suggest using private military in situations like Syria & Afghanistan. I don't know the intricacies of something like that, but it sounds good on the surface.

Agreed 100%

---

I heard one retired general suggest using private military in situations like Syria & Afghanistan. I don't know the intricacies of something like that, but it sounds good on the surface.

What's the advantage of using private military?   Are you talking about mercenaries?   Would they have an air force to back them up?   Is there a private military that can support themselves logistically?  How would they be fed and supplied?   How would we oversee and coordinate their activities?   

I know that's a lot of questions.  I just don't see how a private military would have 1/100th of the capability of the US military.

Personally, I wouldn't care. If it was used in Afghanistan, they would work with the Afghani government to coordinate all the details and we would be left out of it completely. As far as Syria, that place is a giant clusterbomb. Let the U.N. handle it.

---

I heard one retired general suggest using private military in situations like Syria & Afghanistan. I don't know the intricacies of something like that, but it sounds good on the surface.

What's the advantage of using private military?   Are you talking about mercenaries?   Would they have an air force to back them up?   Is there a private military that can support themselves logistically?  How would they be fed and supplied?   How would we oversee and coordinate their activities?   

I know that's a lot of questions.  I just don't see how a private military would have 1/100th of the capability of the US military.

In all honesty, a Reserve component could rotate and spend their required drill/training time rotating in to perform border security alongside border patrol. The border patrol has aircraft and are very capable but addind a military piece makes them even more so. Chain of Command would not intertwine and have to run parallel.

---

What's the advantage of using private military?   Are you talking about mercenaries?   Would they have an air force to back them up?   Is there a private military that can support themselves logistically?  How would they be fed and supplied?   How would we oversee and coordinate their activities?   

I know that's a lot of questions.  I just don't see how a private military would have 1/100th of the capability of the US military.

In all honesty, a Reserve component could rotate and spend their required drill/training time rotating in to perform border security alongside border patrol. The border patrol has aircraft and are very capable but addind a military piece makes them even more so. Chain of Command would not intertwine and have to run parallel.

I was talking about Syria and Afghanistan.  Not the border with Mexico.  

"Private military" on the Mexican border would be the same as the border patrol.   So, no reason to use "private military" when you can just hire more border patrol.

---

In all honesty, a Reserve component could rotate and spend their required drill/training time rotating in to perform border security alongside border patrol. The border patrol has aircraft and are very capable but addind a military piece makes them even more so. Chain of Command would not intertwine and have to run parallel.

I was talking about Syria and Afghanistan.  Not the border with Mexico.  

"Private military" on the Mexican border would be the same as the border patrol.   So, no reason to use "private military" when you can just hire more border patrol.

I guess same could be said about the ME. Why pay double to contract out security when the military is better equipped in all facets? Of course, if contract and payment is directly with those countries that’s their business.

---

We used to have private military in Iraq to keep things under control. His name was Saddam Hussein and he outdistanced his leash.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Lol, I guess you really do have a Twister card for posting. You talk so much about definitions and then write something so divorced from reality, like you have any real understanding of the relationships of law enforcement organizations. You just open up and gush your opinion as though the feds are all-powerful, yet here in our own state we are defying their edicts without consequence.

1) are you not entertained?

2) what is incorrect, that I said?

1. Yes

2. http://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-an...juana-use/

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1) are you not entertained?

2) what is incorrect, that I said?

1. Yes

2. http://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-an...juana-use/

The federal government has chosen to leave that kind of thing alone. They have the legal power to preempt and effectively nullify these recent changes to state laws and regulations if they want to. What they lack is the manpower and willpower.

That said, these kinds of uncertain and confusing situations are exactly why we need to really rollback federal marijuana law.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1. Yes

2. http://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-an...juana-use/

The federal government has chosen to leave that kind of thing alone. They have the legal power to preempt and effectively nullify these recent changes to state laws and regulations if they want to. What they lack is the manpower and willpower.

That said, these kinds of uncertain and confusing situations are exactly why we need to really rollback federal marijuana law.

If what you said previously was true then #2 would not be reality as it is in dozens of states now. The States have power against the Federal Government, it is not omnipotent and the States are not mere subjects or colonies.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The federal government has chosen to leave that kind of thing alone. They have the legal power to preempt and effectively nullify these recent changes to state laws and regulations if they want to. What they lack is the manpower and willpower.

That said, these kinds of uncertain and confusing situations are exactly why we need to really rollback federal marijuana law.

If what you said previously was true then #2 would not be reality as it is in dozens of states now. The States have power against the Federal Government, it is not omnipotent and the States are not mere subjects or colonies.

Imagine a medical marijuana greenhouse in, say, California.  A state inspector has shown up with a gun, and he is there to make sure they are paying the proper amount of taxes and/or make sure that they're not mixing stuff into the marijuana that's not supposed to be there.  Everything is proceeding by the letter of state law.
Then the feds show up, as federal law says they should, and they also have guns.  The feds tell everyone that they are all being taken in for questioning and that the marijuana is all going to be confiscated and destroyed. 
What happens next?  Does the state law enforcement agent pull his gun and tell the feds that this is his site?  Or does he follow all of the orders and directions of the federal agents?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If what you said previously was true then #2 would not be reality as it is in dozens of states now. The States have power against the Federal Government, it is not omnipotent and the States are not mere subjects or colonies.

Imagine a medical marijuana greenhouse in, say, California.  A state inspector has shown up with a gun, and he is there to make sure they are paying the proper amount of taxes and/or make sure that they're not mixing stuff into the marijuana that's not supposed to be there.  Everything is proceeding by the letter of state law.
Then the feds show up, as federal law says they should, and they also have guns.  The feds tell everyone that they are all being taken in for questioning and that the marijuana is all going to be confiscated and destroyed. 
What happens next?  Does the state law enforcement agent pull his gun and tell the feds that this is his site?  Or does he follow all of the orders and directions of the federal agents?

Depending on his instructions from his duly elected authority the state agent just might stop them from doing so, he is, after all, duly sworn to uphold the laws of his State. I'm not saying that this isn't a troubling situation, I am saying that the states don't always just roll over to the feds.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Trump will be addressing the nation at 9PM tomorrow on the crisis at the border. It just got real!

---

Trump will be addressing the nation at 9PM tomorrow on the crisis at the border. It just got real!

Nobody but fools and supplicants are buying why that [BLEEP] is selling these days. Enjoy the show.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Trump will be addressing the nation at 9PM tomorrow on the crisis at the border. It just got real!

Nobody but fools and supplicants are buying why that [BLEEP] is selling these days. Enjoy the show.

Well, of course they aren't when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer interrupt Kirstjen Nielsen when she is trying to present FACTUAL numbers to them. Just in case you weren't familiar who Nielsen is, she is the actual secretary of Homeland Security.

Pelosi "rejected her facts". You know you will be watching.

---

Nobody but fools and supplicants are buying why that [BLEEP] is selling these days. Enjoy the show.

Well, of course they aren't when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer interrupt Kirstjen Nielsen when she is trying to present FACTUAL numbers to them. Just in case you weren't familiar who Nielsen is, she is the actual secretary of Homeland Security.

Pelosi "rejected her facts". You know you will be watching.

If I'm the county school superintendent, and you invite me over to your house to discuss what I know about your neighborhood elementary school, and I proceed to pontificate about whats going on at a high school on the other side of town, how would you feel about me? You would interrupt me and tell me you don't care about that right now, right?

Pelosi and Shumer wanted to discuss the border.  
Nielsen answered with stuff about people getting here via airports.  That's not the border.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Well, of course they aren't when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer interrupt Kirstjen Nielsen when she is trying to present FACTUAL numbers to them. Just in case you weren't familiar who Nielsen is, she is the actual secretary of Homeland Security.

Pelosi "rejected her facts". You know you will be watching.

If I'm the county school superintendent, and you invite me over to your house to discuss what I know about your neighborhood elementary school, and I proceed to pontificate about whats going on at a high school on the other side of town, how would you feel about me? You would interrupt me and tell me you don't care about that right now, right?

Pelosi and Shumer wanted to discuss the border.  
Nielsen answered with stuff about people getting here via airports.  That's not the border.

Your first paragraph may have some merit IF there weren't 3 border agents standing behind Trump at his last Rose Garden presser stating they needed a wall? 

Not sure how much closer they could get to the "neighborhood elementary school" without actually being in Mexico.

Pelosi and Schumer don't want to discuss the border. They have no answers outside of "Technology and drones". What does that even mean?

---

On a side note, you have to respect how POTUS magically turned this into a "steel" wall which in turn will be made in the USA by the very industry Obama said jobs weren't coming back to. The irony there is pretty steep.

---

If I'm the county school superintendent, and you invite me over to your house to discuss what I know about your neighborhood elementary school, and I proceed to pontificate about whats going on at a high school on the other side of town, how would you feel about me? You would interrupt me and tell me you don't care about that right now, right?

Pelosi and Shumer wanted to discuss the border.  
Nielsen answered with stuff about people getting here via airports.  That's not the border.

Your first paragraph may have some merit IF there weren't 3 border agents standing behind Trump at his last Rose Garden presser stating they needed a wall? 

Not sure how much closer they could get to the "neighborhood elementary school" without actually being in Mexico.

Pelosi and Schumer don't want to discuss the border. They have no answers outside of "Technology and drones". What does that even mean?

---

On a side note, you have to respect how POTUS magically turned this into a "steel" wall which in turn will be made in the USA by the very industry Obama said jobs weren't coming back to. The irony there is pretty steep.

Wait, I thought we were talking about something that happened in Congress.  Now you're talking about a Rose garden. I'm getting whiplash.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.