on October 6, 2025, 9:41:58, in reply to "Democrats resist strenuously if you take away their cheap labor*"
Reagan bent the knee on this issue once with the promise that Democrats secure the border to prevent this from happening again. (Queue narrator). Why on earth would anyone acquiesce a second time? 
Previous MessagePrevious Message
to protect law enforcement from interference.
When local politicians prevent local law enforcement from enforcing laws, I think this judges ruling gets overruled.
It is also, only a 14 day delay currently, with a hearing on 10/17.
I do think that allowing this is a bit of a slippery slope that I don't particularly like going down. But so is the ability of states to allow themselves to be sanctuaries against Federal Law. These States need to either enforce Federal law when called upon to do so, or change the law. Fighting/ignoring Federal law certainly opens them up to Federal intervention. Previous Message
…that immigration laws cannot be enforced with regular local policing and federal ice agents. I believe the wording was something along the lines of “we live in a nation of constitutional law not martial law” and that even with the greatest deference afforded to them, the administration actions and brief are filed in bad faith. “Untethered from reality”
This isn’t some Obama or Clinton lackey…this is a Trump appointed and confirmed judge. Previous Message
The ONE time that Trump has cover to send in the National Guard is if the states can't or won't enforce Federal Law. Oregon and Illinois have both made it clear that they have zero intention of enforcing immigration law.
Enforce the laws (or at minimum, don't directly interfere with ICE enforcing the law) and Trump has no clear path to utilizing the NG. Previous MessagePrevious Message
...would end up in Chicago would be as a part of a federalized guard force under direct control of the DOD.
Greg Abbott certainly can't send his guard to Illinois but if he gives up operational control to the DOD for a portion of them, I feel like they could conceivably send them where-ever they want.
This is part of what I was getting at that makes me feel nervous about the whole idea...and giving them police powers without formally invoking the insurrection act or being absent some legitimate disaster relief effort.
Seems like some majorly bad precedent to be setting. Previous Message
. . . in order to enforce desegregation in Arkansas, he did use Arkansas troops.
Different scenario but a few years ago, our governor here in Kentucky dispatched Kentucky National Guard troops down to Texas to assist with "border security". No actual security was involved.
“the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.” - Peter Medawar27
