Send in the troops!

Send in the troops!

The democrats must have some internal polling that tells them to resist ICE at all costs. Why else would so many of them choose to go to ICE facilities to protest whatever they are protesting and even be arrested? They are uniformly proclaiming that they do not want ICE in their cities and the national guard sent into their states. The president wants to send in the guard for two separate reasons. The first is where there is a high crime rate and second to protect ICE facilities. In the first instant troops were sent into Washington, DC and there was a meeting at the White House where troops would be sent into Memphis. In the latter, troops were sent to Los Angeles to quell ICE related riots and the president is trying to send troops to Portland, Oregon to protect an ICE facility. In Chicago, Trump also wants troops to protect ICE personnel and ICE facilities. Chicago is the poster child for the need to address crime with the use of increased enforcement.

There are 2,500 troops in DC to deter violent crime. I would guess that crime is down significantly where they are present. They will be deployed until the end of November. The troops are engaged in other activities as well. They are picking up garbage, hosing down graffiti, mulching, painting fences and replanting grass. Some locals refer to them as the National Gardeners. A spokesman said “We believe a clean and well-maintained environment contributes to overall community well-being and can indirectly deter crime.” I presume that they are deployed in high crime areas of DC mainly across the Anacostia river. However, one suspects that violent crime will return once the troops are gone.

As to the ICE protests, the courts have ruled that the president had the authority to send troops into Los Angeles but have ruled that the president does not have the authority to send them to Portland. Los Angeles was a full blown riot completely beyond the control of the local authorities, regardless of what the mayor and the governor were saying. Even though the president said that Portland was burning to the ground, the protests have been confined to a one block area and is a localized protest against an ICE facility. The court questioned the need to send in 500 national guardsmen to handle the situation. However, it is apparent that the Portland mayor, the governor of Oregon and both senators (all democrats) have bought into the resist ICE mantra. They are not using local law enforcement to protect the ICE facility. Given that it is a federal facility, then why cannot Federal law enforcement protect it if the locals won’t? Again 500 troops seem a bit overkill.

The judge in the Portland case is a Trump appointee so partisan bias cannot be alleged by those who disagree with her ruling. She was quite forceful in her ruling. She said that the president’s description of “War ravaged Portland” was “simply untethered to the facts.” The president had tweeted “At the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The judge did not agree. She noted that although there were some incidences of violence she found that “these incidents are inexcusable,” but “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces. She also noted that recent events in Portland are “categorically different from the violent incidents in Los Angeles.” So she issued a restraining order against the president’s order to deploy Oregon National Guardsmen to Portland. The president then tried a cute one by ordering California guardsmen and Texas guardsmen to Portland instead. Of course, California governor Gavin Newsom sued. The judge almost immediately issued another restraining order saying that Trump’s move was “in direct contravention of the court’s order issued yesterday” and she then said that her order covered “the relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon.”

The judge wrote the president “lacks constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard once he exceeds the constitutional authority that Congress granted him.” Since the president is “federalizing the Oregon National Guard absent constitutional authority, his actions undermine the sovereign interest of Oregon as protected by the Tenth Amendment. Oregon has a Tenth Amendment power to control its National Guard to the extent it is not cabined by the Militia Clause.” 

The judge’s ruling is important since Trump has sent troops into Chicago authorizing the deployment of 300 National Guardsmen. The mayor of Chicago Brandon Johnson and the governor of Illinois JB Pritzker both oppose the deployment. Pritzker said he would challenge the deployment. “Their plan all along has been to cause chaos, and then they can use that chaos to consolidate Donald Trump’s power.” He then referred to the deployment as “Trump’s invasion” and that “there is no reason a president should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation.” Chicago’s mayor went even further. “Today, we are signing an executive order aimed at reining in this out-of-control administration. The order establishes ICE-free zones. That means that city property and unwilling private businesses will no longer serve as staging grounds for these raids.” 

So does the president have the legal authority to unilaterally call out the troops? The judge in the Portland case has made that clear that the president’s citing of his authority under 10 USC 12406 was not persuasive in that “the protests in Portland were not ‘a rebellion’ and did not pose a ‘danger of a rebellion,’ especially in the days leading up to the federalization.” While the government presented evidence of sporadic violence against federal officers and property damage to a federal building, it did not offer any evidence demonstrating that those episodes of violence were part of an organized attempt to overthrow the government as a whole.” I guess this one is destined to the Supreme Court too.

Maybe it is just me but isn’t there an obvious solution to all of this? First, where the protests are against ICE and ICE facilities, then why call out 300-500 troops? Can’t Federal law enforcement be used to protect federal agents and property if the local authorities refuse? The national guard should be used only when the situation has escalated beyond the control of local law enforcement or when requested by state and local officials.

I can actually understand why governors would resist the Federal government sending in troops without their consent. Yet there are circumstances that merit it. The Civil Rights era comes to mind where National Guardsmen were sent to allow black students to go to previously all white schools in the face of often violent protests by whites. Who could ever forget the poignant picture of Ruby Bridges, aged 6, being escorted to elementary school in New Orleans by US marshals? I think even Newsom, Pritzker and Johnson would not object to that.