Trump Planning to Mobilize the National Guard to Arrest Illegal Immigrants

**The Oblivion** · 2017-02-23, 01:43 AM

the sooner we get rid of the illegals the better. come legally or not at all scum.

**PACOX** · 2017-02-23, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Oblivion

the sooner we get rid of the illegals the better. come legally or not at all scum.

Because American's are going to jump all over the jobs that illegal workers currently occupy?

**The Oblivion** · 2017-02-23, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by pacox

Because American's are going to jump all over the jobs that illegal workers currently occupy?

yep, wages will rise for those positions and they will quickly be filled.

you could use the same BS to support slavery, should we have kept that since no one wanted to do those jobs for free either?

**Mormolyce** · 2017-02-23, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Seiko Sora

Will they get a fancy outfit?

They should contact Hugo Boss to design it.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by mage21

There is no evidence that Trump was planning to mobilize 100,000 troops to round up immigrants. The Associated Press pulled numbers from some other source than the memo that they were basing their entire article on.

The story was completely false.

If it was completely false then why did the White House say it was a rejected proposal?

Donald Trump: White House flatly denies plan to mobilise National Guard troops

The Trump administration has denied it is working on a plan to use the National Guard to help round up illegal immigrants in up to 11 US states.

An 11-page document, authorised under the name of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, was leaked to the Associated Press.

Administration officials said the proposal, which called for mobilising up to 100,000 troops in 11 states, was rejected, and would not be part of plans to carry out US President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration policy.

The draft is dated January 25 — the same day Mr Trump issued an executive order on illegal migrants.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-1...-guard/8282720

The news story was generally reported as the White House "considering" the action, the leaked document appears to be genuine, it was simply (according to the WH) passed on at some point. So considered and rejected. I'd judge that as the opposite of fake news.

**Allybeboba** · 2017-02-23, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Felya

Other than this?:

... or do you want a quote how you compared the OP to the Mayan apocalypse?

No, you explicitly asked why the uproar over Trump, but not Obama's deportation in the press. Completely ignoring the issue being national guard, which is bias in its own right. You actually claim Obama's was ineffective. Yet, instead of bitching how Trump doing what you claimed is a turnstile, you bitch that the press didn't cover it?

So, there is a differance between Trump's deportation and this, or is this some strange way to defend Trump for what you are attacking Obama over.

Seeing as how I quoted what your actual comment was... the next reply should be... "oops"?

- - - Updated - - -

Then why are you asking about Obama not getting any crap for his deportation? You want him to both, get credit for deportations like Trump and blamed for it being ineffective unlike Trump? Then, after bitching about the press, you literally ask him to check the press? Still don't see bias?

- - - Updated - - -

Trump said he would deport 2-3 million immediately after inauguration. How do you think he planned to do it... magic? or is this not it?

Wow, you make me blush by going back and finding all those quotes. I feel special.

The thing is has Trump activated the National Guard? No... "planning" and "considering" is not the same as done. This is how false rumors get started.

I still don't see any "biased" statements I have made. The Obama administration did deport more illegal immigrants than any other in history. Yet, did not get the negative press the current administration has.

I am not defending Trump nor am I attacking Obama. Kindly find where I have in this thread. I am simply stating what has happened and what is happening. Even the Operation Fast and the Furious debacle under the previous administration did not receive that much negative press. Supposedly, one of the guns in the Paris terrorist attacks came from that and it did not make the mainstream media news.

There is no need to quote me on comparing the OP to the Mayan apocalypse I shall paraphrase it for you. I simply compared the two as predicting an unknown future. Of which may not ever happen. Or in the case of 12/21/12 didn't happen. Understand now?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Mormolyce

They should contact Hugo Boss to design it.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was completely false then why did the White House say it was a rejected proposal?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-1...-guard/8282720

The news story was generally reported as the White House "considering" the action, the leaked document appears to be genuine, it was simply (according to the WH) passed on at some point. So considered and rejected. I'd judge that as the opposite of fake news.

In other words, just as I said. Much ado about nothing.
Chicken Littles running around screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING"!

**mage21** · 2017-02-23, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mormolyce

They should contact Hugo Boss to design it.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was completely false then why did the White House say it was a rejected proposal?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-1...-guard/8282720

The news story was generally reported as the White House "considering" the action, the leaked document appears to be genuine, it was simply (according to the WH) passed on at some point. So considered and rejected. I'd judge that as the opposite of fake news.

In the very same article it states, "Mr Spicer flatly denied that the idea was under consideration, describing the report as '100 per cent false'." He also said that he had no information about the origin of the report, according to Bloomberg, and the National Guard says it hasn’t seen any proposal or where it came from(1). So nobody knows anything about this memo, where it came from or who wrote it, including the White House or the National Guard, yet we're to believe it somehow made it's way exclusively to Trump's desk? No, I'm lead to believe that the proposal, once it hit the press, and Trump was obviously made aware of it's existence, was acknowledged and rejected by the administration. Of course, Spicer didn't say who rejected it. We're literally parsing language now to try to find evidence that Trump knew of this memo. That the phrasing that was used could mean that Trump knew about the memo. That's the best we have.

I don't have a problem with the report itself if it were accurate. My problem is with the dishonest reporting. If this story were true I wouldn't feel like it was a stain on the administration, so I have no interest in refuting it's legitimacy because I'm afraid of how it will make Trump look. I think this was dishonest reporting. If you want my honest opinion, I think that the dangerous brew of the existence of a huge market for anti-Trump news combined with the American public not knowing who or what to believe, lead the Associated Press to just spit this out. Even if some people are smart enough to piece together that this story doesn't pass muster, it's factually shaky nature will be camouflaged by the white noise of non-stop anti-Trump coverage anyway.

**Taneras** · 2017-02-23, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by cubby

But yeah, literally militarizing the police to nullify the populace is right out of the Fascist play book.

Actually disarming the public, thus making them easier to control, is.

That said, enforcing border laws isn't fascist. People are losing their minds lately.

**Mormolyce** · 2017-02-23, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by mage21

In the very same article it states, "Mr Spicer flatly denied that the idea was under consideration, describing the report as '100 per cent false'." He also said that he had no information about the origin of the report, according to Bloomberg, and the National Guard says it hasn’t seen any proposal or where it came from(1). So nobody knows anything about this memo, where it came from or who wrote it, including the White House or the National Guard, yet we're to believe it somehow made it's way exclusively to Trump's desk? No, I'm lead to believe that the proposal, once it hit the press, and Trump was obviously made aware of it's existence, was acknowledged and rejected by the administration. Of course, Spicer didn't say who rejected it. We're literally parsing language now to try to find evidence that Trump knew of this memo. That the phrasing that was used could mean that Trump knew about the memo. That's the best we have.

I don't have a problem with the report itself if it were accurate. My problem is with the dishonest reporting. If this story were true I wouldn't feel like it was a stain on the administration, so I have no interest in refuting it's legitimacy because I'm afraid of how it will make Trump look. I think this was dishonest reporting. If you want my honest opinion, I think that the dangerous brew of the existence of a huge market for anti-Trump news combined with the American public not knowing who or what to believe, lead the Associated Press to just spit this out. Even if some people are smart enough to piece together that this story doesn't pass muster, it's factually shaky nature will be camouflaged by the white noise of non-stop anti-Trump coverage anyway.

Well of course we should always take the word of Sean Spi...

Sorry couldn't get through that sentence without laughing.

**Daelak** · 2017-02-23, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by mage21

A Homeland Security staffer drew up an "early, early document", a memo, and there's no evidence Trump even knew it existed, and it didn't mention any number of troops. This became, "Trump considering mobilizing 100,000 troops..."

That's just false.

The 100,000 number was injected artificially into the story. They were dishonest about Kelly's knowledge of the memo, and they have never proven that Trump even knew the memo existed, much less that he was considering it. It's a news story with no substance, but heavy on assumption and guessing. That's all there is to it.

The staffer drew it up per the directive of the WH, because DHS staffers don't draft up memo's for policies on the whim. The WH wanted to see what avenues they could use not just through the DHS, but INS, DEA, FBI, etc., this one just rose to the top because of it's ability to activate more resources.

**mage21** · 2017-02-23, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Daelak

The staffer drew it up per the directive of the WH, because DHS staffers don't draft up memo's for policies on the whim. The WH wanted to see what avenues they could use not just through the DHS, but INS, DEA, FBI, etc., this one just rose to the top because of it's ability to activate more resources.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. The White House flatly denies that they knew where it came from or that they were considering it.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but a staffer creating a memo around a policy directive is not the same as the White House automatically signing off on the contents of that memo, endorsing that memo, or considering it.

**Flarelaine** · 2017-02-23, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jyggalag

Straight from Wikipedia -
"The Associated Press (AP) is an American multinational nonprofit news agency headquartered in New York City that operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. The AP is owned by its contributing newspapers and radio and television stations in the United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalists. Most of the AP staff are union members and are represented by the Newspaper Guild, which operates under the Communications Workers of America, which operates under the AFL–CIO."

Tell me again why i'm ignorant to assume this was an American based company that only Americans will have heard of?

By the same logic, you could claim there is no reason a non-American should have ever heard of the White House or the Academy Awards.

**PACOX** · 2017-02-23, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by The Oblivion

yep, wages will rise for those positions and they will quickly be filled.

you could use the same BS to support slavery, should we have kept that since no one wanted to do those jobs for free either?

False equilvences, as if brings up slavery changes the point. For one thing, unless you believe in "trickle down" economics, slavery didn't contribute to the economy a whole lot.

And wages are going rise?!? You might want to tell right-wing conservatives that. You know the guys who don't believe in livable wages?

**Poopymonster** · 2017-02-23, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by pacox

Because American's are going to jump all over the jobs that illegal workers currently occupy?

It'll be great, it'll be so good. The best. So many jobs available, you'll have to work 2 or 3. We'll win at jobs. #MAGA

**Alydael** · 2017-02-23, 10:08 PM

Obama did this as well (mobilized National Guard agents on illegals) in 2010.

The California Governor did it in 2010 as well.

Curious how you guys weren't all up in arms about that........

I bet it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Obama was a Dem/Lib and Trump isn't.........

Same ole' liberal double standard (we can do it- you guys can't), same ole' playbook (will net the same result).........

Oh and this is most likely a "fake news" story (they got you guys again, it is getting kind of easy)

https://americaswatchtower.com/2017/...port-illegals/

Some history (since it appears no one knows history anymore), both Obama and Bush did this:

http://www.headlineoftheday.com/2017...r-enforcement/

OMG! Look at this! Billy-boy did this too!!!!

http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/08/...inal-illegals/

Wow! Where have you guys been? Listen, we know you hate Trump, we get it. Stop trying to hide your hate behind some "issue" that we know isn't the real "issue." Listen to Lord Vader "Use your anger, it will make you stronger!"

**Edge-** · 2017-02-23, 10:19 PM