"Why a law exists doesn't matter if you can twist the original intent to do something else?"

 Yes.  The 2nd Amendment allows us to bear arms, but for some reason we can't own ballistic warheads, or even rocket launchers or just an anti-aircraft gun.  Something to do with applying that Amendment to todays existing situation instead of re-writing that Amendment, and we all know how people here feel about re-writing that one.

 Posse Comitatus was implemented to apply to Americans, at the time, but as it is written it limits the use of military, without taking the steps being done now, of integrating and being used as domestic law enforcement.  

 CPB and ICE are domestic law enforcement.  No invasion stops that from being true.

 CBP and ICE are getting assistance from the US military because nobody that allocates resources considers this an invasion.  No amount of typing invasion and complaining to your friends changes that.

 So if CBP and ICE are domestic law enforcement, and the military is integrating and implementing resource allocation as designated by ICE and CBP, the US military is assisting domestic law enforcement.

 If they said it was drug interdiction then it would be a different story, because Posse Comitatus as its applied today, because drug trafficking changed after the law was written, allows for US military resources to be allocated without House direct involvement for drug interdiction.  

 So keep crying invasion and see if that works, or see if calling it drug interdiction, which is permissable, allows for more resource allocation.  

Doing the JOB of ice or bp is outside the rules. Protecting them from attacks by Foreigners isn't.

Why are you so determined read a law that was intended to protect Americans from the government using the military against them in a way that limits our ability to control the influx of people into our country ?

Explain how you're able to infer their belief about it Not being an invasion because of just moving barriers.

 Let's see, people rushing your border, UNinvited..
You're repelling WHAT when you use gas and barriers?
My DICTIONARY calls that an
Invasion.

"My DICTIONARY calls that an
Invasion."

 Well your DICTIONARY isn't what's used to analyze the situation.  Maybe looking in more detail to Title 10, U.S. Code Sections 161–168 will help clarify how these situations are evaluated.  Then look into the Joint Chiefs of Staff force integration models and tell me how in any way the current situation is being treated as an invasion.

 Keep calling it an invasion that doesn't change the response, orders or actions that have actually happened.  I do not feel that when enlisted personnel are ordered to assist moving barriers, and not to engage, assist or implement ROE during the collective rush towards a fence line is a mobilization of forces to repel an invasion.

 That would be defined as a logistical support action, not a repelling force action.  The US Military is not fighting an invasion, also it is getting permission to assist in limited capacity domestic law enforcement.  Obviously everyone, including the President is doing this wrong way, they should just grab a DICTIONARY instead of using the current methods we are witnessing right now.

Serowbot wrote on 11/24/18 at 08:16:17:

These "invaders" are stopping at the border to apply for asylum, and asking for jobs... Did the Nazis do that?...

They did not, willingly, ’stop’ to ask.

If they were not stopped by, gate/wall/fence/etc.
They would have marched right in.

And many, were not hindered by a, gate/wall/fence/etc.
as they tried to defeat that thing,
and invade, any way they could.
before being repelled, by humane methods.