"No administration has ever deployed active duty troops within our own borders". Actually, that is incorrect. In the late 50's, Eisenhower sent elements if the 101st Airborne to Arkansas to help enforce integration and protect the black students. Also, during the LA riots, Bush federalized about 10,000 National Guard troops, making them active duty soldiers, and the supplemented those troops by sending in about 2500 soldiers from Ft. Ord and about 1500 Marines from Pendleton, all on active duty. It was little before my time, but I remember reading about Grover Cleveland sending in US Army troops to shut down rioters during a railroad strike. I get your point, but...

Also, during 1968 when I was stationed at Ft. Hood, TX, riot-control-trained troops were sent to Chicago during the Democratic Convention. They were there to provide backup if needed by the Chicago PD and other law enforcement. As I recall, it didn't become necessary. As determined later, it was the PD, encouraged by Mayor Daley, that rioted, not the young protestors.

Thanks for the fact check, which shows this is an extraordinary measure which has only been taken temporarily and in response to some immediate and real need—not as an open-ended political stunt. And I think we agree that the "need" here is so nebulous and remote to make it even more likely to lead to a slippery slope of reasons for deploying in the future.

You shouldn't presume what I think. The only thing we agree upon is that this was a political stunt, pure and simple and it failed miserably. Regular armed forces troops have been frequently been put into service during and after natural disasters. Federal troops can only be used for civil insurrection with the invocation of the Insurrection Act. I mentioned a couple examples, but it has used several other times. For example, Gen. MacArthur was in charge of an action after WWI, Federal troops intervened against the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee in the 70's, Harry Truman invoked it after WWII to break a strike. I'm sure you get the idea. As for the US being "occupied by our own military", WRONG!! The troops at the border are NOT an occupying force. They are there for logistical support and to supplement the BP in a NON LAW ENFORCEMENT capacity, as restricted by federal law and the US Constitution. They don't even have weapons. The only troops on the border with weapons in their possession are the Military police. I would also note that the troops at the border are not receiving imminent-danger pay since troops do not qualify for the special pay unless they are on duty "in foreign areas, designated as such because of wartime conditions, civil war, civil insurrection, or terrorism." Failed political stunt, yes! Unneeded and unwarranted, yes!! but "crossing the red line from our being a free country to one occupied by our own military", no. Not even close.

I fully agree. There is much more to this controversy, but for now it is worth noting that Trump is not Hitler, and never will be. He's thwarted at every turn it seems by courts that rule against his executive orders, even those that only cancel executive orders issued by his predecessors. This move was unnecessary, but it might be recalled that the presidential oath of office includes language about defending the nation from "enemies both foreign and domestic." These caravans exist because of complicity of the Mexican government, which is staying silent on them this time. Yeah, there's a new presidente coming into office there in a couple weeks, and that begets a wait-and-see attitude. Let's just remember that up until a decade ago, or thereabouts, the Mexican government had tight control of its border with Guatemala, and allowed little leakage, for whatever their reasons. Now they escort and transport the caravans across their sovereign territory.

Organized caravans of foreign nationals who declare their destination to be the US border can be alarming and intimidating. Letting this pass unchallenged or at least unanswered is a sure fire way to encourage more of it. But this reaction is no slippery slope toward military occupation of our own territory. I'd be far more concerned about a rogue FBI running rampant among the citizenry.

One balancing solution is realizing that when they are here they are probably here to stay and like it or not it is up to the community to care for them.

That being said food, clothes, medical care, legal aid and housing need to be provided to help them properly establish themselves. Donations to that effort can be made through www.QuickActionPac.org.

and if any aid is left over from them, send it to the 20,000+ left homeless by the recent fires