20,000 thousand? Twenty million troops?!
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
104 points (99.1% liked)
politics
24061 readers
2946 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't see how this is legal, unless executed in a very particular way. I really only think this is legal if a state's governor allows their NG troops to work with ICE under Title 32 within that state alone. Once a state's Guard gets federalized, they are working under Title 10. The important difference is that Title 32 grants governors the ability to use their NG for law enforcement, but Title 10 means that they fall under DoD policy, and therefore subject to Posse Comitatus and unable to engage in law enforcement unless legislation is passed.
With that said, the only way I could see this being used is within states with friendly governors (so red states) who mobilize their NG and offer DHS their personnel as aid. But then those personnel could only be used in their state. So, if Indiana mobilized their Guard on Title 32 orders and aided ICE, then they could only operate within Indiana unless invited into another state. If ICE wants to do a raid with Guard personnel in Chicago, then they are SOL because then that would be an interstate invasion.
What this could do is allow ICE personnel to focus on Democratic states while Republicans use their NG to do the majority of ICE's dirty work. In other words, a bunch of ICE people will come to blue states to do the rounding up, while NG will do the rounding up in red states.
I agree, it's certainly illegal and probably the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
At this point the illegality is the status quo for this administration
I'm going to be real, this was only a matter of time. Like... The whole "Thank you for your service" shit doesn't really happen anywhere else in the world. At least not to the weird level that Americans do it. There's a bizarre glorifcation/worship of the military. When y'all started allowing police departments to equip themselves with military style bullshit, it triggered a snowball effect. Everything got more militarized until the point that it became natural for them to be. The only logical next step was the National Guard or US Army.
The whole “Thank you for your service” shit doesn’t really happen anywhere else in the world. At least not to the weird level that Americans do it. There’s a bizarre glorifcation/worship of the military.
For those of us old enough to remember, this "bizarre" "weird level" "glorification" is a backlash response to the treatment Vietnam Vets received on their return from that war. They were forgotten, shunned, unemployed, unhoused, unaccepted, etc. No one wanted anything to do with these Vets.
Due to Veteran's complaints and civilian guilt, the pendulum just swung the other direction. As pendulums do, they typically swing too far.
Now, your point about the militarization of LEO... Concede that most definitely.
"Support our troops" was a way to deflect criticism of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was propaganda.
I mean it may have swung but clearly in a meaningless gesture format considering the rates of homeless and suicide from veterans in the US
Plus, actual veterans and service members think it's stupid. "Thank you for your service" is a punch line.
"Immigration enforcement"
I’m not familiar with the national guard. I thought they were under the direction of the state?
Yes they are supposed to be under the direction of each states governor. The president can "federalize" them and then utilize them.
Another issue is the intent to use them in other states where those states governor's haven't given permission.
Basically the president can federalize a state's national gaurd and direct them within that state. That's legal, but is supposed to only be used during emergencies. Last time this was done was to prevent violence during the civil rights movement. However, moving them to another state without that state's permission is likely illegal as is using the national gaurd as a long term police force
They are under the direction of each state's governor, but could be mobilized into duty by the President under specific circumstances. In fact, many units were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan during those conflicts.
It's unclear, though, whether the President has any ability to direct troops from one state to conduct activities in another. That may require the governor's of both states to actually do the mobilization. However, there are a bunch of Republican states who would be happy exchanging troops to help arrest brown people.
Not just immigration. They'll be there to keep us from gathering, keep us indoors when we're not serving our masters. And to put down even peaceful protests.
"I have a gun, so I'm in charge! Many governments around the world function on this principle, and some of them last for months!"
- Gordon Freeman, Freeman's Mind, Episode 37