12h ago

Blue states fear invasion by red-state National Guard troops for deportations

stateline.org Blue states fear invasion by red-state National Guard troops for deportations • Stateline

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.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250207122513/https://stateline.org/2025/02/05/blue-states-fear-invasion-by-red-state-national-guard-troops-for-deportations/

56 comments

Missouri goes into East St.Louis. They get robbed and have to walk back home.

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.
- 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.

Would be a shame if they tried that in a blue state that had a national guard.
Or maybe a state with the ability to call up their own State Guard. You know, in case the State's National Guard was considered compromised.
- I think thats called a State Guard

The red states sure love meddling. Hawaii has a good time avoiding them completely.
- Having an ocean between yourself and the nearest red state isn't practical for most of us.
  
  Not practical but definitely preferable

Is this the "state rights" I keep hearing about?

- The dubvee.org instance is going to ban you for this comment.
  
  Who?
- Nah fuck war I don’t want that and neither do you. We gotta figure out how to win without that.
  
  A necessary action is often times an unwanted one. We have already crossed the point where non-violent solutions were useful, they are little more than half measures. Perhaps we might get lucky, but as Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus once said " Hope for peace prepare for war"
  Edit: unwanted not unwarranted fucken auto correct
  
  Swift and early violence could prevent a bigger problem later on
- Pls do
- Are you gonna?
  
  If I was that persons attorney I would advise them not to answer this question
  
  Nice try FBI

"states' rights!"

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.
- 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
- there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it
  Whoever wrote this needs to go back and read Thomas Jefferson or pretty much any history of any collapsing authoritarian regime in history.
  They could obey the orders. Or, they could say "lol no". What's he going to do, activate their remote-control collars?
  The US military, National Guard included, goes through training that heavily emphasizes support for the constitution and what to do about illegal or unconstitutional orders.
  It's actually pretty dangerous to start to bend the knee to an authoritarian despot in this way. By presenting Trump's illegal bullshit as some kind of pre-ordained structure that other people will have to follow, of course, because that's the system, they are normalizing it. Even if he were following US law, which he isn't, they'd have the option to tell him to go fuck himself, and they'd be in some excellent historical company in doing so.
  
  Exactly. People need to move past this mindset that assumes these rules, and traditions, and norms are laws of nature. No, they’re just ideas that people created and no hand of god is going to sweep out of the sky and smite you if you just don’t do them. We need to start acknowledging and participating in the increasingly asymmetrical warfare that Republicans started.
- Isn't it illegal to obey illegal orders? Good soldiers don't follow illegal orders, at least; even if not illegal itself.
  
  I was a soldier and was taught to tell anyone who gives me an illegal order to fuck off. Including the president. You are absolutely not protected just because a superior gave you an order.
- 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.

So the blue states don't have a National Guard to respond?
- 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.
  
  Hey member in Iraq War II when we were losing a bunch of soldiers and instead of throwing more in or thinking about a draft they just sent over the National Guard?
  the National Guard. Who . . .were supposed to be guarding the nation?
  Anyway. Just in case some of you were not alive to remember that.
  
  I know Washington recently passed an assault weapons ban but we are running into “this is what the second amendment is actually for” territory.
  
  Authoritarian regimes receive the power we freely give right? "There's nothing we can do" is probably a reasonable alarmist statement if trying to get a bill passed, but I assume the "we" in this case is just legislatures not the general public?

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.

Nice.
- said the nazi filth.
  
  I can assure you I am anything but whatever thoughtless slur that slithers from your thoughts.

56 comments