Tuesday, November 12, 2024

DEPORTATION NATION--Trump Doctrine on Illegals--WLP/AI RESEARCH


WHITE LIGHTNING//OFFICE OF AI RESEARCH//IMMEDREL//11/13/24/0000EST

      #Trump Doctrine on Illegals 11/11/24/0000EST: Artificial Intel capsule on physical impossibility in #deportation of 10 million unregistered #immigrants even with assist of the US military forces, against Posse Comitatus legislation.

Perplexity AI: shorturl.at/1EZ5U

us military to hunt down illegal immigrants


(Begin Perplexity-AI)
     Based on the search results and recent election outcome, it appears Donald Trump has won re-election as President in 2024. Given his campaign promises and past statements, there are concerns about potential plans to use military forces for immigration enforcement if he returns to office. However, it's important to note several key points:




Legal and Constitutional Constraints

The use of military forces for domestic law enforcement, including immigration enforcement, is heavily restricted by law:
  • The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States
    2
    .
  • Previous deployments of National Guard troops to the border by both Republican and Democratic administrations have been limited to support roles, not direct law enforcement
    2
    .

Historical Precedent and Limitations

While presidents have deployed troops to the border before, their roles have been restricted:
  • Past deployments under Presidents Bush and Obama were in response to specific security concerns or surges in border crossings
    2
    .
  • Troops have been limited to support functions like vehicle maintenance, surveillance, and logistical assistance to Border Patrol
    2
    4
    .
  • Direct participation in arrests or deportations by military personnel has not been permitted
    4
    .

Potential Plans and Concerns

Trump and his allies have discussed expanded use of military resources for immigration enforcement:
  • Proposals include shifting thousands of troops from overseas to the border
    1
    .
  • There's talk of a "whole of government" approach involving multiple agencies, including the military
    3
    .
  • Some advisers have suggested using military bases for detention or deportation operations
    3
    .

Practical and Political Challenges

Implementing a large-scale militarized deportation effort would face significant obstacles:
  • The scale of operations required would be unprecedented and extremely costly
    3
    .
  • There would likely be strong opposition from many state and local governments
    3
    .
  • Legal challenges would almost certainly arise, potentially blocking or delaying implementation
    3
    .

Humanitarian and Foreign Policy Concerns

Critics and human rights advocates have raised alarms about the potential consequences:
  • Mass deportations could separate families and impact millions of long-term residents
    3
    7
    .
  • The use of military forces against immigrant communities could damage international relations and America's global image
    6
    .
While the exact plans remain unclear, the prospect of expanded military involvement in immigration enforcement is a significant concern for many observers. Any attempts to implement such policies would likely face substantial legal, practical, and political challenges. How
 do other countries handle military involvement in immigration 
enforcement.


012345678
Many countries have grappled with the question of using military forces for immigration enforcement, often in response to perceived crises or surges in unauthorized migration. Here's an overview of how some countries have approached this issue:

Examples of Military Involvement

  • Malaysia: Gave its army limited police powers to patrol border areas to counter illegal immigrants
    1
    .
  • Italy: Deployed military troops along its lower Adriatic coastline to prevent an influx of illegal migrants from Albania and other countries
    1
    .
  • South Africa: Stationed hundreds of soldiers on its border with Mozambique and Zimbabwe to curb illegal entrants
    1
    .
  • United States: Has used military forces in various supporting roles at the border, though direct law enforcement by active-duty military is generally prohibited
    2
    4
    .
  • Australia: Implemented Operation Sovereign Borders, a military-led patrol mission with a zero-tolerance policy for irregular maritime arrivals
    5
    .

Reasons for Military Deployment

Countries often justify using military forces for immigration enforcement due to:
  • Logistical challenges of managing large groups of people
  • Ability to create temporary housing or detention facilities quickly
  • Providing a show of force to prevent volatile situations
  • Assisting with interception and rescue operations at sea

Legal and Practical Challenges

Using military forces for immigration enforcement often faces significant obstacles:
  • Legal restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement
  • Concerns about militarization of borders and humanitarian impacts
  • Potential strain on international relations
  • High costs associated with large-scale military operations
  • Lack of specialized training for immigration enforcement tasks

Trends and Considerations

  • Increasing securitization of borders in many countries
  • Growing budgets for immigration enforcement, including military-style equipment
  • Shift towards "smart borders" and technological solutions in some cases
  • Concerns about the appropriateness of military involvement in civilian law enforcement
  • Debates over the effectiveness of militarized approaches in deterring unauthorized migration
While some countries have embraced military involvement in immigration enforcement, others have been more hesitant due to legal, practical, and ethical concerns. The use of military forces in this context remains a contentious issue in many parts of the world.
(End Perplexity-AI)

WHITE LIGHTNING//OFFICE OF AI RESEARCH//IMMEDREL//11/13/24/0000EST

...


RED FLAG
Checkpoint Charlie: NATO, Article 5 and the Berlin Wall

There was no North American Treaty Organization, NATO, immediately following the close of World War Two. By the close of the decade, due to pressure from the Soviet Union, particularly in Germany, the alliance was formed with 12 initial members. The concept of “collective security” had been around for over 30 years, at least on the Continent, with respect to the World War One League of Nations; neither the United States nor the Soviet Union were members. (09 March 2025)
Red Flag: The U.S.-Japan Security Pact of 1960
The recent statement by the White House concerning a “bilateral” treaty between the United States and Japan from 1960 raised the issue of the former’s lack of a security-military commitment, with the latter doing the heavy lifting. It comes as no surprise in light of other treaties such as NATO in Europe with the U.S. again carrying The Weight.
Part and parcel to how it all unfolded had to do with certain ambiguous positions by the two nations coupled with the American public not totally informed of the agreement. The situation was quite different in Japan. (09 March 2025)

...


BORDERLANDS
Ukraine: The Art of the (Peace) Deal
Nations are big on treaties, enforcing them is another matter. This paper traces some of the more recent, failed and otherwise, then takes a close look at one of the most controversial in history, The Versailles Treaty at the end of World War One. (09 March 2025)

Ukraine and The Rubio Doctrine The purpose of this report is to test the secretary’s three core principles against the Ukraine conflict to see if they are viable and would have been if he became president in the 2015 election. (09 March 2025)

Ukraine Betrayed: American Robber Barons to Steal Rare Minerals
Ukraine possesses significant reserves of rare earth minerals and other critical raw materials that are essential for modern technology and industry. According to reports, Ukraine has deposits of 22 out of 34 minerals identified as critical by the European Union. (09 March 2025)

...


MOONDUNES
Space Station Freedom 1993: The “Fiscal Black Hole"

Space Station Freedom was a NASA-led initiative proposed in the 1980s aimed at creating a permanently crewed space station in low Earth orbit. The project was initially announced by President Ronald Reagan in his 1984 State of the Union Address, highlighting its potential as a platform for scientific research and international collaboration in space exploration. (09 March 2025)