OT - test case for martial law?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by spdrun on February 17, 2017 - 10:29am

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...

Trump wants state governors to call out the National Guard to do immigration enforcement within the US. This plan is, at the very least, a trial balloon for martial law.

At worst, once Guard is deployed to the interior doing domestic law enforcement, they won't go away. The next time, he won't ask governors' permission to redeploy them, just use them as a private army.

I hope that:
(a) as may governors as possible will oppose this dangerous plan. At least CA and OR will likely tell the slob to go bugger himself with an M-4.
(b) if Guard units are given illegal or un-Constitutional orders, that they'll refuse to obey. A lot of Guardsmen come from immigrant families or minorities that Trump has made a career out of disparaging.

Submitted by harvey on February 17, 2017 - 10:50am.

I don't doubt that Trump would be ok with using the military as a deportation force, but I'd like more confirmation that this memo really exists.

Trump's team is denying it, so even if it's real they would have a have a really hard time implementing it now.

Submitted by spdrun on February 17, 2017 - 11:35am.

Deliberate "leak" to test public reaction?

Followed by "only" using 50,000 vs 100,000 Guardmen six months from now.

That's how Trump and his people work. Propose something outrageous -- say banning re-entry of all visa-holders from certain countries. Then agree to let green card holders in while neglecting student visas.

Ask for a mile, backtrack a half mile.

Submitted by harvey on February 17, 2017 - 12:19pm.

Unless this a total fake, the memo does exist:

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_...

The relevant part:

Additionally, I am directing the Commissioner of CBP and the Director of ICE to immediately engage with the Governors of the States adjacent to the land border with Mexico and those States adjoining such border States for the purpose of entering into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA to authorize qualified members of the State National Guard, while such members are not in federal service, or qualified members of a state militia or state defense force under the command of the Governor, to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, and detention of aliens in the United States.

This was a draft so we don't know how far from implementation is really was, but it's pretty fucked up nonetheless.

I served in the army reserve and know that most in the military have zero training in law enforcement. The only thing they have in common with police is that they are armed and generally follow orders.

Activating reservists, issuing them a weapon with live ammo and then instructing them to "round up illegals" - what could go wrong?

Submitted by XBoxBoy on February 17, 2017 - 3:03pm.

spdrun wrote:
if Guard units are given illegal or un-Constitutional orders, that they'll refuse to obey.

Why would these orders be unconstitutional or illegal? What part of the constitution bans using the national guard for rounding up illegal immigrants or doing law enforcement? I don't disagree that this is a bad idea, but would this order be subject to challenge in the courts? (Assuming the governor of the state agreed.)

Submitted by harvey on February 17, 2017 - 3:42pm.

Not unconstitutional and may not be illegal, depending upon how implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comi...

It can and has been done legally. Ironically the last time the president used the military for law enforcement was to protect civil rights of blacks. But Eisenhower Republicans are long gone...

Trump's folks planned to work around the Posse Comitatus Act by using the National Guard, which is technically under the command of the state governors. That's why the text I cited above says "engage with the Governors of the States" - it's a legal loophole.

Either way, it is definitely a terrible idea and against core American principles of limited federal government. The idea that someone in a position of authority is actually considering using military troops in our own communities to protect us from the people we employ to harvest our crops and clean our toilets would be laughable - except that it's a little too spooky.

Submitted by spdrun on February 17, 2017 - 3:57pm.

Hopefully, Brown will not only tell 45 "no" but "hells fucking no."

Submitted by XBoxBoy on February 17, 2017 - 3:57pm.

harvey wrote:
Not unconstitutional and may not be illegal, depending upon how implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comi...

In the wikipedia article you quote it's pretty clear that only applies to the US Army and Air Force. So no basis for a legal challenge from that angle. Any other basis for a legal challenge?

harvey wrote:

Either way, it is definitely a terrible idea and against core American principles of limited federal government.

Agreed. But not the question I'm looking for an answer to.

Submitted by harvey on February 17, 2017 - 4:21pm.

The answer is that it's not illegal or unconstitutional at face value. I don't believe a National Guard officer given the order could refuse to deploy based on the constitutionality or legality of the deployment order.

The ugly part would come when they were given more specific orders. I don't see how this could be done without some serious 4th Amendment questions. What would these troops actually be told to do?

I was in the reserves, not the National Guard. Either way I'm glad I was never put in such a situation. Given the order, I would have obediently gone to any shithole corner of the earth, but I would have not been very enthusiastic about "enforcing" US immigration law on US soil. I know many officers would agree, and there would be some serious political backlash if Trump attempted this stunt.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.