CanucksCorner.com Forums

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 11:10 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 9:26 am

Per wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 7:58 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.

I would assume that is exactly why it is done in the first place. Democracy gradually replaced by military rule.
Due process removed while people get rounded up by masked troopers and detained indefinitely.

Well the people have only themselves to blame for society getting to a place where a federal government could even attempt to justify the need for military intervention on a domestic level.

I would think a working democracy would have checks and balances to prevent this kind of slow creep into authoritarianism, regardless of what "place society is in". Besides, there are plenty of other solutions, like the National Guard (under state control), that are available. This is why the Posse Comitus act allows only very limited use of the military in domestic situations (e.g. Insurrection).

Unfortunately with the cooperation of Congress there seems to be no limit to what Trump can attempt. Checks and balances have failed entirely.

The working check is the Posse Commitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. And then there is the check of the judiciary.

One allowable use of federalization of the guard goes beyond insurrection, it applies in other circumstances where there is an unlawful combination that hinder the enforcement of federal law. Or when state authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law. Or to secure rights. Remember, the guard, federalized by President Eisenhower, escorted the Little Rock nine as part of desegregation.

To be sure, there were segregationist southerners claiming their city/state was a military state, and I am sure many expressed fear that the military presence would be permanent. These are concerns were real ones, but so too is the question what you do in a situation where federal law enforcement is being actively obstructed and the state is unwilling or incapable to address the problem.

I don't know whether the disruptions in Portland are actively obstructing ICE operations, but if they are, then we are in a factual category that if local and state officials cannot eliminate the obstruction, the consideration of an exceptional federal presence is at least in the bucket of consideration because it is a circumstance where law permits use of the guard. It doesn't mean they have to be deployed, but its why the law permits the exception. Personally, I would want to ensure all other more reasonable options were exhausted (and that there is truly a material obstruction to operations).

Understand that the guard being used to facilitate a locally unpopular law is the same in 1957 Arkansas as it is in 2025 Portland. The locally unpopular law in Arkansas was a federal court desegregation order; in Portland it is the immigration laws. The local/state response in Arkansas was a government opposing the order and a faction of the public willing to maintain segregation through physical obstruction and threats of violence. In Portland, (again, I don't know the facts but I know the claim) it is (claimed to be) a faction of the public willing to physically obstruct ICE operations and threats of violence against those enforcing the law, and a local government who has a sanctuary city policy to not cooperate with ICE and who is unable or unwilling to enforce local laws on the disruptors to permit ICE's operations. Query: is Arkansas good because you like the result and the federal law and Portland bad because you don't want to see the federal law enforced?

IF the facts are such that there IS an obstruction and the guard is used ONLY to eliminate the obstruction to federal enforcement of federal law (and once removed, so too are the Guard), then this is a limited use of the Guard, and its being done for reasons that seem to be contemplated by law (the courts will have their say). One can be vigilant against the routine use of the guard as police and recognize there can also be proper uses for it, and that there are going to be more difficult cases in grayer areas that people may disagree as to the propriety (and lawfulness) of the Guard's activation but that one is in a grayer area doesn't mean Fascism is next.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 12:11 pm UW's post about the legality of National Guard, checks and balances, and individual bias colouring the legality of the situation.

Good post UW, appreciate the perspective from the factual points of the actual law.

A question for you, what is your take on the reported actions of ICE, and their existence as a federal law enforcement agency under the department of Homeland Security? I raise this because up until this year, ICE was rarely even heard of up here in Canada, despite them being founded 22 years ago.

(Asking in the objective legal sense)

You go tiger.

“Because WE!…are the war department!…Godspeed.”

https://www.instagram.com/voteinorout/reel/DPOmBUfkR1E/

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 11:10 am

I would think a working democracy would have checks and balances to prevent this kind of slow creep into authoritarianism, regardless of what "place society is in".

I know this thread is USA focused, but we have this same creep in Canada. Limiting free speech, compelled speech. Property confiscation. Attempts to over-ride the constitution, and reducing accountability. It is all slow creep.

How can anyone get behind this shit? Holy Hot Hell

https://x.com/ericswalwell/status/1973360652824498279

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 4:02 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 12:11 pm UW's post about the legality of National Guard, checks and balances, and individual bias colouring the legality of the situation.

Good post UW, appreciate the perspective from the factual points of the actual law.

A question for you, what is your take on the reported actions of ICE, and their existence as a federal law enforcement agency under the department of Homeland Security? I raise this because up until this year, ICE was rarely even heard of up here in Canada, despite them being founded 22 years ago.

(Asking in the objective legal sense)

As for ICE actions today, I kind of think that there is a lot of “fog of war” stuff. Some of the early reporting painting arrestees as choir boys was bs, some arrestees appear to have been wrongfully arrested. Thing is, that will always happen, the question is whether the system sorts out people properly in the main and whether the error rate in enforcement actions is the result of recklessness or just baked into the equation. I don’t have a good handle on that question yet, I think thatnis something very difficult to tell in the moment, because early reports have incomplete facts, and there are narratives being spun on both sides. Obviously, we’ve seen stepped up enforcement at every level — criminals and gang members are still getting top priority, but we are seeing more employers busted now, and more day labor crews. I think when you consider it from the level of the individual who is just getting by, there is an empathetic response, it can be sad. But at the end of the day, if you have zero enforcement on visa overstays (or no visa) even with no aggravating factors, you have no immigration limits.

While ICE is relatively new, that’s branding and structural reorganization. ICE was previously known as INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services), and it was housed in the Department of Justice, ultimately under the supervision of the Attorney General. After September 11, the Department of Homeland Security was created to house the airport security folks — TSA (prior to that, security functions were the responsibility of the airlines, who generally contracted the function. Initially there was talk of moving more law enforcement into the Department of Homeland Security, especially since part of the after action review was that information sharing was poor. But by the end, FBI stayed in DOJ (as did DEA), and of course the defense department kept NSA and defense intelligence. DHS picked up INS (now ICE), the coast guard, and customs and border protection. The idea being the Department of Homeland Security basically controls US ports of entry and the border. Oh and it has FEMA, the federal emergency management administration. For whatever reason; probably because it is a red headed stepchild of an organization. In 2018, DHS got its own intelligence agency, too, something about cybersecurity. You can never have too many intel agencies, I guess, so they can all spy on one another….

Bottom line is that I think was a relatively cosmetic chance to move INS to DHS and rebrand it. INS did basically the same stuff 25 years ago as ICE has done since. Priorities and resources change, but the bottom line is they control immigration enforcement and also provide immigration services. (Edit: Immigration services is provided by another alphabet name, USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) that is within the Department of Homeland Security. So if memory serves, the old INS includes both the functions of what ICE does today and what USCIS does today. I think there was an interest in separating immigration enforcement from naturalization and other services.)

— criminals and gang members are still getting top priority, but we are seeing more employers busted now, and more day labor crews

With a quota of 3000 a day, I would say the opposite is true.

Home invasions like the one in Chicago last night? There is order to their methods. They are like trawlers skimming the oceans and catching anyt5in their path.