A draft memo obtained by The Associated Press outlines a Trump administration proposal under consideration to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants. Millions of those who would be affected in 11 states live nowhere near the Mexico border.
The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana. If the proposal is implemented, governors in the affected states would have final approval on whether troops under their control participate.
The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.
The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.
Four states that border on Mexico are included in the proposal — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four — Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Governors in the 11 states would have a choice whether to have their guard troops participate, according to the memo, written by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general.
While National Guard personnel have been used to assist with immigration-related missions on the U.S.-Mexico border before, they have never been used as broadly or as far north.
The memo is addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would serve as guidance to implement the wide-ranging executive order on immigration and border security that President Donald Trump signed Jan. 25. Such memos are routinely issued to supplement executive orders.
Also dated Jan. 25, the draft memo says participating troops would be authorized "to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States." It describes how the troops would be activated under a revived state-federal partnership program, and states that personnel would be authorized to conduct searches and identify and arrest any unauthorized immigrants.
Requests to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment and a status report on the proposal were not answered.
The draft document has circulated among DHS staff over the last two weeks. As recently as Friday, staffers in several different offices reported discussions were underway
I think the idea is to dodge Posse Comitatus by leaving the guard under state authority and making participation optional.
Yeah there's a lot of wiggle room here. I could see TX opting for it and it would be completely legal.
True, however I have to think there would be a some PR and economic downsides to essentially changing to the state motto to "Papers, please".
The white house is denying this and it could very well be more fake news from the usual fake news media, but I'd be all in favor of it. Mobilize 20,000 national guard troops if needed, get the problem under control. Secure the border and start kicking out illegals.
The white house is denying this and it could very well be more fake news from the usual fake news media, but I'd be all in favor of it. Mobilize 20,000 national guard troops if needed, get the problem under control. Secure the border and start kicking out illegals.
The white house is denying this and it could very well be more fake news from the usual fake news media, but I'd be all in favor of it. Mobilize 20,000 national guard troops if needed, get the problem under control. Secure the border and start kicking out illegals.
You do know the AP reached out multiple times to the White House and didn't get comment, only for Spicer to falsely claim that he wished the AP would reach out... right? The fake news here is only coming from the White House.
And yeah, we figured you'd be jerking off to the thought of fewer brown people in the US.
Here's a possibility. Trump's administration is working on multiple scenarios with no present goal of implementation and we should expect that regarding any policy and administration. The mistake would be from going from possibilites to assuming this is going to be implimented. The story may be correct on one level and the assumption of some that this will materialize be fabrication.
The story did not say it was going to be implemented, just that they were considering it, which is entirely accurate. By all available evidence it is 0% fabrication. Regardless, one thing is for sure, you don't create and circulate 11 page draft memos to law enforcement agencies for things you are just spitballing. The good news at least is that California will ignore this order, although I fear for the immigrants in Texas. If they do try and implement this you're going to see some ugly, ugly stuff.
The good news at least is that California will ignore this order, although I fear for the immigrants in Texas. If they do try and implement this you're going to see some ugly, ugly stuff.
Do you have "papers" on you at all times in the US?True, however I have to think there would be a some PR and economic downsides to essentially changing to the state motto to "Papers, please".
Do you have "papers" on you at all times in the US?
I rarely have any ID on me when I'm pootling about here. I carry my wallet about 50% of the time and that has some bank cards in, does that count?
Permanent resident (green) card holders that are over 18 are required to carry them at all times when in public.
Most states I'm aware of require anyone operating a motor vehicle to have their driver's licence on them.
Glad to see you're buying into the 'all negative news is fake' lie. Trump appreciates useful idiots like you.
And yeah, we figured you'd be jerking off to the thought of fewer brown people in the US.
I know it wasn't mentioned, I carry my ID at all times. In some cases I carry 2 IDs, DL and CHL or TWIC.Operating a vehicle wasn't mentioned, but you would need a license to walk into a bar and buy a drink at any rate if you are not older.
Just taking a walk up the street some areas might even hassle you if you do not have ID these days.
Operating a vehicle wasn't mentioned, but you would need a license to walk into a bar and buy a drink at any rate if you are not older.
In some states everyone has to show ID to purchase alcohol. I had to show my ID when I bought champagne for New Years and my white beard surely should be a give away that I'm over 21.I haven't been asked for ID for beer in 25 years!