Blue states fear invasion by red-state National Guard troops for deportations • Stateline
stateline.org
There’s an emerging blue-state nightmare: Inspired by President Donald Trump’s call to round up immigrants who are in the country illegally, red-state governors might start sending their National Guard troops into blue states without those leaders’ permission.
  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    551·
    1 month ago

    Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh dismisses Mena’s concerns.

    “I believe that legislation is unnecessary,” he told Stateline in an interview. “I think it’s what is generally considered a statement bill, but you have to treat it seriously. I’m not sure what they’re getting at here other than a swipe at Donald Trump.”

    I won’t overrule Roe v Wade if you confirm my appointment. It’s settled law. (or something akin to that)

    The problem with this scenario is that it is completely wrong. The Supreme Court will not overrule Roe v. Wade.

    https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v34n03_dd1_sedler_final.pdf

    Stupid people fall for this shit. GOP are proven liars. Don’t take any chances with them. Orange gave them permission to be as awful as they want to be and they are seizing it… again, but even more this time.

    • Red_October@lemmy.world
      22·
      1 month ago

      Exactly. We can’t rely on any sort of subtly or assumption of law. Precedent, be it of the courts or simply the traditional way of doing things, won’t stop them. It has to be solid law, and they’re still going to take it to court.

  • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
    392·
    1 month ago

    if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.

    Why would blue states fear only red state national guard if this is the case? The local guard would have to enforce the federal edicts, right?

    I guess if they don’t, the only two options are do nothing or confront the invading guard, the latter of which sounds a lot like civil war.

    • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
      13·
      1 month ago

      if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.

      And yet I remember not so long ago at the Texas border where Abbott refused to have the NG stand down when Biden ordered it. So there’s precedent already there to ignore Cheeto in Charge’s orders

    • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
      8·
      1 month ago

      As much as we like to assume soldiers will follow orders and doctrine as if they were computers running code…they are ultimately human beings with their own free will, reasoning, biases, and agendas, to hell with what is and isn’t legal and proper on paper. It would be a crossroads for the country and everyone who serves.

      One of the oldest rules of quelling rebellion is to not use the local soldiers to do it. Too much emotional attachment. Bring in an outside force, preferably ones with standing ethnic or political hatred for those you want to crush.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      1 month ago

      Having an ocean between yourself and the nearest red state isn’t practical for most of us.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
      19·
      1 month ago

      It’s a scenario that was so concerning to Washington state Rep. Sharlett Mena that she introduced legislation that would make uninvited deployments of out-of-state troops illegal. Her bill cleared a committee last week and has the backing of Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, who pushed for the proposal in his inaugural address last month.

      …

      But, as she noted to her colleagues last week, if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.

  • SabinStargem@lemmings.worldEnglish
    8·
    1 month ago

    I would like it if Blue States mobilized their portion of the national guard to deter ICE and friends. That just seems prudent, especially if the GOP decides to launch a blitzkrieg with the goal of capturing the governors and other officials in Blue States.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    16·
    1 month ago

    Both sides are partially right. This bill is a dog and pony show. Federal law trumps (pun intended) state law. So this law is not really enforcable. And the blue gov can always order his guard to defend the state. Even if the administration federalizes them. Nothing really stops him. So the law doesn’t change much. But it does bring the idea into the news. And for the actual nation guardsmen from red states, it will sow doubt as to which laws they are supposed to follow. For the ones in the blue states it will help move some who might reject fighting other US troops into doing so if ordered. So it just moves the needle a little bit if such a thing were to happen. But it won’t. The administration knows some guardsman would refuse orders on both sides. And that would set an example for federal troops to do the same. So it would weaken them. And they have more than enough illegals to to deport already. They don’t need to trade control for more people to deport. Maybe in 3 years it might be a trade they see as valuable if other factors come into play relating to the next election.