5 ms·

Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against immigration agents

114 points by colinprince 1y ago

tiahura 1y ago
[flagged]
- itsanaccount 1y ago
  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.
- spicyusername 1y ago
  Sure, it's the process of determining legal status that everyone is taking issue with
- _lvbh 1y ago
  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.
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - _lvbh 1y ago
      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.
      - EnPissant 1y ago
        I'm just contradicting your logic: If Americans don't think about something often enough then it doesn't matter.
      - jaoane 1y ago
        [flagged]
        mariusor 1y ago
        > victimises ... especially the poorest And yet the solution is not to fight poverty, but immigration. Why?
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  [flagged]
srean 1y ago
The national guards, protests and a summer. That does remind me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings Almost the same time of the year.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
ty6853 1y ago
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.
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  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.
- kurtis_reed 1y ago
  [flagged]
- euroderf 1y ago
  That would require some exceptionally independent thinking on the part of Guard commanders.
  - ivape 1y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/jck93oZ4xu https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/jck93oZ4xu 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.
    - tastyface 1y ago
      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.
andrewinardeer 1y ago
One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS. Is this the case here?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > 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]. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_States%29#Duties_and_administrative_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_State...
  - andrewinardeer 1y ago
    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. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Trump feels the below warrants the NG? 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.
russellbeattie 1y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > 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.
  - genocidicbunny 1y ago
    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!"
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > 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.
      - genocidicbunny 1y ago
        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.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
lawn 1y ago
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.
- IAmGraydon 1y ago
  Can you link me to the part of Project 2025 that says that? Here's the full text to make it simple: https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
suraci 1y ago
[flagged]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hn_acker 1y ago
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]. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/poss... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States) [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 [4] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-national-guard-in-los-angeles https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-national-guard-in-l...
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > 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. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406 [1] compare 10 USC §§ 252-253 [2][3] to § 12406 [0] [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253

114 points by colinprince 1y ago

tiahura 1y ago

[flagged]

itsanaccount 1y ago
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.
spicyusername 1y ago
Sure, it's the process of determining legal status that everyone is taking issue with
_lvbh 1y ago
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.
- EnPissant 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - _lvbh 1y ago
    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.
    - EnPissant 1y ago
      I'm just contradicting your logic: If Americans don't think about something often enough then it doesn't matter.
    - jaoane 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - mariusor 1y ago
        > victimises ... especially the poorest And yet the solution is not to fight poverty, but immigration. Why?
genocidicbunny 1y ago
[flagged]

srean 1y ago

The national guards, protests and a summer. That does remind me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings Almost the same time of the year.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

ty6853 1y ago

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.

genocidicbunny 1y ago
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.
kurtis_reed 1y ago
[flagged]
euroderf 1y ago
That would require some exceptionally independent thinking on the part of Guard commanders.
- ivape 1y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/jck93oZ4xu https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/jck93oZ4xu 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.
  - tastyface 1y ago
    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.

andrewinardeer 1y ago

One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS. Is this the case here?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> 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]. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_States%29#Duties_and_administrative_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_State...
- andrewinardeer 1y ago
  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. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Trump feels the below warrants the NG? 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.

russellbeattie 1y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> 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.
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  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!"
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > 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.
    - genocidicbunny 1y ago
      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.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago

lawn 1y ago

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.

IAmGraydon 1y ago
Can you link me to the part of Project 2025 that says that? Here's the full text to make it simple: https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...

suraci 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hn_acker 1y ago

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]. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/poss... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States) [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 [4] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-national-guard-in-los-angeles https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-national-guard-in-l...

dragonwriter 1y ago
> 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. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406 [1] compare 10 USC §§ 252-253 [2][3] to § 12406 [0] [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253