Well, you make a good point. Though i would doubt that their intentions are to just open fire. Thatd be wrong on so many levels.

But the national guard is a part of the constitutional militia (the "organized portion of the states' militias) and their mission is to protect the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Their duty is to uphold the law.

So, the way i see it, while the BP take their orders from king obama and friends like holder, the national guards top boss is the governor of the state in which that guard resides. So, if the governor of texas says to their guard not to let any illegals into the country, they have complete and utter constitutional authority to carry out such orders, especially against the unconsitutional orders the BP follow from their top boss.

The constitution trumps illegal orders. In this case, i feel that the guard would have more autbority than the BP, in that they would actually be enforcing the laws that the federal government put in place, which is their duty, rather than ignore it as the BP have been illegally instructed to do.

For these reasonings, i foresee a clash between the BP and the Texas National Guard...

Another good point. Im not sure haha.

I guess if enough of the guard just stands there with arms, (btw, the "unorganized militias" are gearing up to go to the border as well) that they could physically prevent illegals from crossing. No shots required. Unless, of course, for defensive purposes only (i.e. they were shot at first, etc...)

Regardless, i still foresee a squabble between the border patrol and the national guard...

Haha. Good one. Everyone knows that church donations go to fancier churches rather than helping the needy...

That was a half-joke, btw. Sorry if it was in bad taste...

The national guards units answer under an adjutant general who answers under thr governor of the state in which that national guard unit is residing. Not the president.

The only hierarchy he belongs in is under the "national guard bureau", which oversees Federal Funding of that states national guard program. Obama is not part of the actual units hierarchy. That top dude is the governor.

It explains alot in the constitution and other documents. It is the states militia. The union was formed on the agreement that the states reserve the right to form their own militias. The national guard in each state is a part of that militia. The guard represents one part of the "organized" militia, along with (in virginia) the virginia defense league. The unorganized militia is (again, this is also in virginia) every abled body ages 16-65.

However, i know the president may call up the national guard in extreme circumstances, amd in such a case im not sure who has constitutional authority of that guard unit when both the governor and the president tries to command that particular states national guard...

Thanks for this btw. I meant to say that yesterday...

Anyhow, i did look into that event a little bit, and all i keep finding is kennedy called the guard but the governor did not. This is also when kennedy signed executive order 11111 (i think that was formerly calling up the guard...)

But, what i was specifically asking is, what if the governor calls up the guard, and then afterwards the president calls up that same detail. Whos orders do they follow? Do you have any links to historical precedence for that type of thing?

I really did appreciate that link, and i have been looking into this. I havent come to a solid conclusion yet, but it is looking like you might be the one whos right. Im just looking for more info ;-)

What the consequences of that would be I have no idea.

Neither do i. However, maybe he chose not to do so. In that link you gave me, it stated that he was waiting for kennedy to call up the guard so he can be all like, "see! Kennedy is a tyrant!" in order to gain support. So maybe he decided not to call the guard, in a gambit of sorts, to do this? (Which ultimately backfired on him.)

At any rate, i woukd like to know what would happen if the governor calls the guard, and then afterwards the president nationalizes that same unit. At the very least i could foresee some shit going down with states rights proponents vs the feds. Lemme know if you find anything in regards to that type of situation. Im still looking but havent been successful yet.

The problem i personally have with the issue is that potus is not enforcing the laws like hes supposed to... like he swore he would. He has no right to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. It is his job as chief executive to execute the laws. That is thr issue i take with this.

And regardless of the mindset of these illegals, there mere precence of the massive amount of undocumented illegals or visa overstay illegals places a huge amount of financial burden, amd paid for out of taxpayers pockets. Not to mention the overtaxing of personnel in the judiciary process to send them back home or to process them.

These are real issues. And its only getting worse because of presidential inaction.

Your first point is true. Actually, we agree on alot. But, just because a certain leader or politician always lies and stuff doesnt make it okay, you know? Therr are probably a million reasons to be upset with said people. This immigration is but one of those reasons.

Your second point is much like the first. Those wars and stuff, yes those are monumental wastes of money as well. But, that doesnt allow for the discrediting of this immigration crisis. As before, this immigration thing is but one huge waste of money. There are certainly more, but for the sake of this post, im only really discussing the immigration issue.

Like i said, we agree on most things here. Where we differ seems to be our opinions on whether or not it is a waste of money. I view it as a governor doing his duty to protect our borders while the executive in chief pretends its not his duty to do the same. I feel you see it more as a knee jerk reaction type thing. Maybe you are right? Maybe i am. Perhaps we both are?

Either way, im just upset at the repeated attempts of mr. Obama to pick and choose which laws apply to him and his presidency, and which ones hell ignore. That is not american. It is not honest, nor respectable behavior. This immigration thing is just another proverbial feather atop this camels back...

I thought there were already laws on the books that did that? Correct me if im wrong, but i always assumed it was just another one of those things that dont go enforced, justifying the proponents of bigger government to pass more laws and stuff....?

I disagree. I dont see anything in mexico worth conquest. I say we need to tax illegals regardless of their citizen status. I dont believe in conscription, either. But, in order to facilitate the nationalization process and possibly expedite it, i coukd support a community service type program for interested folks in order to become nationalized.

And, just to point out, mexicos government isnt the only one thay reeks of corruption. But im sure i didnt have to tell you that ;-)

Still our corruption is nothing compared to the corruption in Mexico.

Good point. Although i would make an argument towards our governments more covert corruptions vs mexicos, which if was calculable, id posit that it is more than enough to tips the scales unfortunately towards the U.S.

Your second point was good too. Now that you mentioned it, i am reminded of an article i read last week or so about monsanto patenting a specific type off cannabis meant for industrial medicinal use of cannabis, centered in some s. American country. Fertile land, popular drug and the controversies they can profit from it, as well as influence (basic economics) within that country, this kind of makes sense now.

Im not quite sure what you were trying to accomplish with that statement.

Im not even sure if you understood what i said... Ill help you by emphasizing a certain part of my comment that i feel you missed:

And, just to point out, mexicos government isnt the only one thay reeks of corruption

"Isnt" is a contraction of two words: "is" and "not", as in, "is not."

I hope that helped your ability to comprehend my comment and the statements contained therein. Id suggest keeping emotional outbursts to yourself.

Mhmm. Again with the emotional outbursts huh?

Look if i offended you by telling you that your country (mexico) is corrupt, then im sorry the truth hurts. America is also corrupt. I understand that, and if someone else points it out i wouldnt get all butt hurt about it.

Now, since you want to talk about "growing up", why dont you stop your little tantrum and discuss the things that have obviously offended you? You know, like how adults do. If not, you can kindly stfu.

Btw, nothing i said was racist or xenophobic. If you feel differently you can always (politely) refer me to those comments you felt were racist and/or xenophobic. Also, it would quite hypocritical for an immigrant (i am a dual citizen) to be afraid of or to hate foreigners.

So, once again, kindly refer me to the comments that got you all upset.