There is a nightmare of blue state: inspired by the call of President Donald Trump to an illegally summary of immigrants who are in the country, republican governors send their national guards to the states directed by democratic without the permission of these leaders.
This is a script that was such a disturbing representative of Washington. Sharlett Mena that she introduced legislation This would make the uninvited distribution of soldiers outside the state not illegal. Her act cleared the committee last week and has the support of the democratic governor Bob Ferguson, who pressed the proposal in his inaugural address last month.
The legislation consists in maintaining the autonomy and authorization of the state, the Mena, the Democrat, told her colleagues during the interrogation last week. “There is nothing to prevent without this bill.”
She later added: “Other states can take matters into their own hands when they want to enforce federal regulations.”
In December 26 Republican governors – everyone except the governor Vermont Phil Scott – I swear To facilitate Trump in the deportation of immigrants who “pose a threat to our communities and national security.” Their promise included the utilize of national guard soldiers.
Mena has reasons to worry, said Joseph Nunn, a lawyer at the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, the leftist New York pro-democracy of the Pro-Democracy Institute.
“Trump’s administration explained that they were going to use the army to help enforce the immigration law,” he said. “States that are against would be reasonable to take means to protect themselves and their countries.”
This week, Texas signed a contract Agreement Because the Trump administration has granted state rights of law enforcement authorities to arrest and assistance to detained migrants. The four -year program of the Republican governor Greg Abbott Lone Star has so far used the National Guard only for supervision and logistics support for federal agents.
Nunn said that other states opposite the Trump deportation program may be inspired by Washington’s regulations and introduce similar funds in the coming months. And the menu noticed it IdahoIN KansasIN MontanaIN Northern DakotaIN OxoplaholaIN Rhode IslandIN South Carolina AND Texas have rights that prevent other states from the National Guard soldiers without permission.
But, as she noticed to her colleagues last week, if Trump federalizes the national guard units, nothing could do to prevent this; The presidential order prevents state authorities.
The Republican representative of Jim Walsh rejects the fears of men.
“I think legislation is unnecessary,” Stateline said in an interview. “I think that this is generally considered an account from the statement, but you must take it seriously. I’m not sure what they get here, except for waving to Donald Trump. “
Washington’s state law prohibits the state and local law enforcement agencies cooperating with the federal immigration enforcement – which Walsh described as a “terrible” public policy. He said that Mena’s legislation would only add a “stupid” approach to the enforcement of immigration law.
Federal law
While the National Guard is generally organized and operates under state command by state financing, it can be called to federal service, acting with federal financing and subject to the president’s control. But in federal law there is a shadowy environment that would be such as a significant Washington.
Pursuant to one federal act, the title 32 The National Guard may be commanded by the governor, but operates using federal funds for a federal mission at the President’s request. While the policy was originally created in the 1950s as a way to pay for the Congress for extensive training requirements, since then the presidents extended their utilize.
Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump in their first term everyone implemented Branches of the National Guard to the south -western border to facilitate deter migration.
Trump too He used the law In 2020, the states were sending the units of the National Guard to Washington when he wanted to suppress the Black Lives Matter protests. Eleven governors voluntarily sent soldiers, despite the reservations of the mayor of the district. The district does not like the sovereignty of the states.
“No state is more sovereign than another state, and their sovereignty is also limited territorially,” said Nunn. “The sovereignty of Illinois stops on the Indiana State line and vice versa. Indiana cannot reach to Illinois and exercise government power there without Illinois’s consent, even if the president asked Indiana, and even if the Congress is the law. “
Simply put: no state can attack another state.
“Insurance policy”
For this reason, the provisions of the state of Washington may be unnecessary, said William Banks, a retired professor from Syracuse University College of Law, who studied and recently written on the distribution of the National Guard and the rhetoric of Trump “Invasion”.
“It’s like an insurance policy,” he said about the bill. “It can be a very good idea to draw attention to the independence of the state government and its perspective that they would love to be responsible for their own internal affairs, including migration or anything else.”
Banks said that the measure, if transferred as expected, can be something that state leaders indicate if, for example, Idaho or Montana considering the distribution of their national guard units in Seattle to perform the immigration enforcement of Trump.
However, he said that the whole discussion became irrelevant when Trump recalls the act on the uprising that would allow federal military intervention in a senseless state.
The Act of 1792 was sometimes used in response to unexpected crises that overwhelmed civil authorities or when the state hindered federal regulations regarding civil rights or other constitutional protection. Theoretically, however, the president could arrange one of his political priorities, such as immigration, as a national accident requiring a huge mobilization of troops. Trump already he asked His deputy examining the utilize of law.
“The Uprising Act is an euphemism when all hell widespread,” said Banks. “This is an extreme remedy for extreme times.”
As long as this happens, the legislators from Washington would wisely adopt preventive measures, said Nathan Bays, deputy director for the policy of the Governor of Washington. He told the committee members during the interrogation in the invoice that this is “caution” and will not hurt the readiness or training of the National Guard.
“Washington will still be a strong partner with our other national guard units throughout the country,” he said.
But the republican representative of Rob Chase told Stateline that legislation is a solution looking for a problem – waste of time when the legislator should focus on real issues, such as public safety, homelessness, apartment deficiency, fentanyl and education.
“This seems more fear by the ruling party in Olympia over what they perceive in the second Washington,” wrote We -mail.
