Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said she would reject a request from President Trump to dispatch National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. "If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no," Brown tweeted. "As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border." She added: "There’s been no outreach by the President or federal officials, and I have no intention of allowing Oregon’s guard troops to be used to distract from his troubles in Washington." Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation ordering National Guard troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border to address a "surge of illegal activity." In a memo to Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump ordered the National Guard be used to secure the border “to stop the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other criminals, and illegal aliens into this country.” Trump first suggested Tuesday he'd like to deploy troops to the southern border to secure the area until his proposed wall can be built. Trump in recent days has been tweeting his frustrations about current immigration laws. He has warned of "caravans" of migrants approaching the border and called on Congress to enact tougher regulations. http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ay-no-if-trump-asks-me-to-deploy-oregon-guard
She is well within her rights to do so, and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of her constituency would agree with her stance on this. I would not be surprised in the least if California says the same.
From what I have heard is that several states have said they will refuse to send the National Guard already. I can see an internal war brewing and Trump going on another meltdown over this. Maybe he needs to check into what he can and can't do before making blanket promises. The guy is the least informed President we have had and it's not from lack of others trying to help him.
Good. Aren't they supposed to help the state they're stationed in? It would be nice if this was an actual issue that necessitated shit like this, instead of "brown people scare me".
Trump is using Reagan's cowardly method of raising troops, because Congress opposes the new war and won't send active duty troops. Reagan asked governors to send their state national guards to fight Reagan's unpopular war in Nicaragua and El Salvador, which Congress opposed. Republican governors generally accepted; Democratic governors generally declined. A Democratic exception was the conservative Democrat running Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who sent his state national guard. So the intelligence agencies made the cooperative Democrat the party nominee for President. (Being blackmailable was another reason.) So this has happened before.
You have that wrong. Didn't you know that Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) are the poster child for "Liberal Democrats" (according to conservative Republicans I mean).
In most cases I've watched, the winner of the Democratic primary process is the most conservative Democrat running. The primaries are just a method for the powers-that-be to compare and decide. The most conservative debater usually is annointed by the controlled media as the leading candidate. Democrats read articles and think, "Oh, he's the leader. Then he's my candidate. The media says he won the debate. I didn't think so, but I must be wrong." The strongest examples were in 1976 and 2004.
Like I said in another thread, "Kate Brown will have no say if the National Guard is sent to secure our borders. The issue was pushed by Bush I, Bill Clinton and Bush II, but fully implemented by Obama's 2012 National Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 31, 2011 when it included promotion of the National Guard"s senior officer to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Commandant's are fully directed by the President > Sec. of Defense> Joint Chiefs of Staff." I do not like the policy/order either, but the fact is Obama was the one who solidified control.
Our pay to play National Security Advisor issued this statement: It said Nielsen discussed the planned National Guard deployment with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray on Wednesday and told him the troops will not carry arms. So what are they securing with no weapons?
Don't you get it? They are going to line up along the border and form a wall. It's the wall Trump promised. "Soylent Wall is people!" barfo
lol. well then why don't we just make cardboard cutouts and line them up? We can make them in the likeness of Trump, except the cutouts would claim bone spurs and not be able to do it.
Funny how the state is growing a conscience now, when they were whoring out our guardsmen during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The state gets money every time they deployed National Guard overseas. I'm not sure how it works if they're deployed in country, but I knew multiple guys that were sent on several deployments as National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn't hear any complaints from our state leadership back then. The likelihood of a guardsmen dying on the US border is essentially 0%. The likelihood of getting killed overseas was much higher.
I might be wrong here and please provide more clarity, but isn't the Governor the Commander in Cheif of their states National Guard? Who is the senior officer that sits as the Joint Chief?
There is a weird relationship between the Guard and the US Army. The Guard goes through bootcamp with the regular active duty troops. They wear the same uniforms. They have US Army on their chest. They fall in the chain of command of the regular Army (which I don't agree with.) To me, the national guard should be reserved for protecting our own borders (which funny enough is exactly what Kate Brown doesn't want to use them for.) They should exist as a fail safe in case we're attacked by a foreign army. They should not be deployed to combat unless absolutely necessary, and in my opinion it was not necessary to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan. But the state gets paid every time they do get deployed, so just keep on sendin those boys overseas!
I agree with your thought here. Especially deploying he guard to Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Guard is under the command of the Governor as is normal, they can be used for law enforcement. If the guard is call up, to active duty, then they are Federal troops, not under command of the Govenor. But then they can not be used for law enforcement as per the Posse Comitatus Act. I do not know exactly what is in plan, for guardsmen on active duty at the border, but repelling invasion would be legal, I think. Law enforcement activity would not. Perhaps Guardsmen guard the Border, with Border guards doing the law enforcement. I really can not see a role for our Governor in this action except run her mouth and please these lefties hanging on her next word.
