These national guard are sworn to protect against foreign and domestic enemies. ICE and CBP have continually conspired to violate the constitution of the united states, and the orders of the courts. Therefore the action the officers and guard must take is to arrest ICE and let the prosecutor charge them with depravation of rights under color of law.
Perhaps, but unfortunately far too many of the guardsmen see their fellow citizens that have the audacity to disagree with them as domestic enemies. As far as they're concerned, if you don't bend the knee and kiss the jackboot, you're the enemy.
Maybe I’m just lucky, but I have no idea how an ICE agent looks themselves in the face. Like is money everything? I don’t even want to blame the ICE agents, I think we made such a horrendous economic system that people will do any job to pay the rent. Prostitutes do more honest work.
So, yeah, the “national guard” either figure out morality on the spot, or not.
Anyone that works for Palantir, fuck you. They are building a database.
The answer is simple, but uncomfortable. Many of them are radicalized white supremacists who relish doing this kind of stuff, especially now that they have institutional support.
The USA should break up ICE. ERO (Trumps SS) should be stay in ice, the name is simply burned and HSI should be indipendent. HSI is focused on actual crimes committed against people, but bundled with ERO makes even them uncormfotable at least since they need trust from the community that is broken by ERO.
> These national guard are sworn to protect against foreign and domestic enemies.
Yeah and we're talking about foreign and domestic enemies here. People burning down cars, destroying property and attacking the police, all while waving Mexican and Palestinian flags are very much foreign enemies, or at least foreign-supporting enemies.
Well, illegals are busy throwing rocks, explosives and burning cars of federal agents. The LA police chief himself has said that the rioting and violence has gotten out of control. That the violence he has seen has been disgusting. That everyone doing the violence has masks on and are coming from several places.
He also said that "Federal officials have their mission...they have every right to do that"
So, it looks like the officials in charge don't share your extraordinary delusions.
Its not an argument, its a question. I assumed following orders against illegal aliens was a more obvious course of acron for a guardsmen than mutiny when the guys giving the orders dont follow the contitution.
Foreign people do not have a constitutional right to be here and the federal government is obligated by the constitution to protect the states from invasion. That's almost the entire point of the thing. Not doing this would be a violation of the constitution.
If you think there's an issue with this the correct (both moral and practical) thing to do would be to campaign for secession.
There is a constitutional way to remove people, and an unconstitutional way. When the unconstitutional way is intentionally chosen, the agency doing it is an enemy of the USA and we don't have due process to ensure individual rights are protected.
The 'entire point' of the thing of the government is to protect the rights of individuals in our borders, and all else falls downstream from that.
As for secession, I agree the states should have that right, however the civil war and subsequent litigation established that states have no right to secession.
That's absurd. If an invading force shows up they have no constitutional rights to hearings etc and as foreigners no they are not obligated to anything from us under the constitution (otherwise we'd be an international economic zone like the EU, not a country.)
You're essentially appealing to the natural right to self defense. I'll grant you the constitution isn't a suicide pact -- if people are in imminent danger of death or disability then they or anyone else has a natural right to swiftly and severely deal with the transgressor. Any society that doesn't will perish, this supersedes all laws written by man.
However, after that happens there will be judgement. And the judgement is finding that quite often these renditions without process were not so justified. If you are going to act without process, you damn well better be right, and if you are not you should be judged as if you acted violently lawlessly.
> One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS
Only "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]. Otherwise, the National Guard is banned from domestic law enforcment at the command of the President [2].
The Brennan Centre site doesn't show the complete text. Dare I say Trump feels the below warrants the NG? I guess it could be argued that the civil unrest falls within the below reference?
§253. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
Oh, totally. I’d even argue that interpretation is correct. How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me, but I guess this is a good stress test.
> How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me
It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations. Jon Stewart has made that point that because of this, most of what Trump has been doing is perfectly legal.
> It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations
When people talk about Congress ceding its power to the executive, this is what they're describing. It's a modern phenomenon, a product of lazy legislating.
We need a generation of lawmakers to rewrite decades of statute to be clear about what the federal government has the power to do, and then have the discipline to end it there. No extraordinary powers. The Constitution already extraordinarily empowers the President in military emergencies. Other emergencies can be dealt by an emergency session of the Congress. (There is no reason the President should have emergency tariff powers, for instance.)
It was Congress who voted to change the definition of a calendar day so that the President's temporary emergency powers could last indefinitely. They aren't lazy, they're complicit.
So it's for the next step in the Project 2025 plan: use the protests as an excuse to give the president even more power and take another step towards dictatorship.
The National Guard is managed by states, so states can use the National Guard to enforce state laws [1]. However, when the president calls on National Guard members, the members become part of the Army and Air Force [2]. Trump is violating the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits anyone from using the Army or Air Force for law enforcement [3][4]. Exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act include authorization from Congress and the Insurrection Act (which Trump has not invoked yet) [3][4].
> Trump is violating the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits anyone from using the Army or Air Force for law enforcement
... It only prohibits this veing done without specific statutory authority. In addition to provisions of the Insurrection Act, specific statutory authority for Presidential use of the National Guard specifically for, among other purpose, executing the laws of the United States is found in 10 USC § 12406 regarding federalizing the Guard [0], which is the basis cited for the recent mobilization. So, the argument that it is violating Posse Comitatus requires arguing as well that the invocation of § 12406 is invalid. There is an argument for that, as § 12406 explicitly requires orders for its purposes shall be issued through the Governors of the states involved, so the argument is that, by bypassing the Governor, Trump is acting outside of the cited statutory authority of § 12406, and therefore also violating Posse Comitatus.
The problem with that technical argument is that it probably achieves nothing in practice even if it works, as the conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act encompass those for § 12406, allow federalizing any of the universal militia (including the Guard) and not just the Guard, and do not require orders through the Governor of the State [1], so if there were found to a legal issue, a new order with the same effect founded in 10 USC § 253 instead of 10 USC § 12406 could immediately be issued.
I think responses would significantly differ depending on wording and context. Most people probably don't think much about "illegal aliens", and it's the negative wording that makes them instinctively support deportation. Given current events and the scale at which deportations are being carried out, I would suspect a much lower amount of support.
In terms of statistics I could find:
> An AP-NORC poll, conducted from January 9 to 13 among 1,147 adults, found that 83 percent of Americans support deporting migrants living in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of a violent crime, while only 6 percent would oppose doing so.
> Americans are more split on deporting all undocumented migrants. The poll found that 43 percent support doing so, with 37 percent against.
Still a surprisingly high number but given the qualifier of "all" illegal immigrants, it's definitely not a majority.
That feels a bit like a strawman. Murder has a direct victim while illegal immigration is often just a matter of process.
I'm not American and hold no political opinion on this matter so not really here to argue about the downstream effects - obviously not qualified to so, but there's certainly some more nuance.
Considering the underhanded tactics of showing up to immigration hearings, ignoring the law, ridiculous language (invasion of criminals seriously?) and fascist errata of ICE (masks, body armor, no name tags), you posting that sentence is bullshit.
No 2/3rds of America doesn't support this. If people want to have a reasonable discussion of the loophole to the Posse Comitatus Act they should avoid people who try to manufacture consent like the parent poster.
> Lots and lots of drones, flying high over the heads of ICE agents and their enforcement buddies, dispensing joy to all those below
Just document. We need evidence of the individuals at ICE and the National Guard who may be breaking the law so we can, down the road, prosecute them. (Or right now if a Democrat state AG grows a pair.)
Dropping glitter or slime on the National Guard would be incredibly provocative, childish and counterproductive.
>Dropping glitter or slime on the National Guard would be incredibly provocative, childish and counterproductive.
And Flashbangs and Teargas is not?
"LOS ANGELES (AP) — After federal immigration authorities arrested dozens of people across Los Angeles, protesters turned out to demand their release. Police in riot gear responded with tear gas to disperse the demonstrators."
https://apnews.com/photo-gallery/immigration-raids-los-angel...
As if they're not going to take being recorded as provocation on its own. Or they're going to take an off the shelf drone, strap a spent shotgun casing to it with some duct tape, shoot it a few times, and then proclaim "See? They're targeting us with weaponized drones! We need to bring in the military!"
> As if they're not going to take being recorded as provocation on its own
Someone else being an idiot is irrelevant. Getting provoked by unknown substances being dropped on you is reasonable. Getting provoked by a camera is not.
Except they're the ones getting to decide what's reasonable and what isn't. As far as they're concerned, the rules are like points on Whose Line is it Anyway.
Someone else being an idiot is absolutely relevant when that idiot is the one deciding on what the rules are.
Documentation ain't going to do much for you when you're shipped off to a black hole of a prison, or tossed out of a helicopter over the ocean, or shot for resisting 'a lawful order to disperse' when you're protesting. So yeah, they are deciding the rules, because if you don't like their rules, and don't want to follow them, pretty soon you'll be finding yourself disappeared or provided with a half dozen new ventilation holes in your head and chest. Maybe, maybe, in some distant happy future, they will be prosecuted for their actions, if there's anyone left to argue your case that is.
> if you don't like their rules, and don't want to follow them, pretty soon you'll be finding yourself disappeared or provided with a half dozen new ventilation holes in your head and chest
Except this isn’t happening. Plenty of people are standing up to the administration, from lawyers to judges to activists and universities and administration. Nobody is helped by this kind of baseless hyperbole.
Um, Ukraine is whole country with the backing of a major economic bloc (or two, if you include US as well as EU).
We are lucky folks are showing up at all. Now you want them to spend thousands if not millions or billions on weaponry? Who would they even buy it from, Anduril? Smuggle it from China?
We're talking about the kind of drones you can 3d print most parts of, not the long-range ones that can carry dozens of pounds. Some 3d printed parts, a handful of small servos, an arduino or raspi and a camera module. Not all that expensive.
reply