It's probably worth noting that Caeser's not the only one that has to be convinced of the necessity of these actions, but the folks underneath him carrying out those orders as well. And from early reporting, a number of the boots on the ground are NOT convinced:
"Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions."
"'The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,' said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans."
"'Families are scared not just for their loved ones’ safety, although that’s a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.'"
"Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to 'mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy', said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. 'Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,' he said."[1]
Now, I make no claims whether the sentiments expressed are representative or will matter in the big scheme of things, but if I'm one of Caeser's advisors, I'd be keeping an eye on the sentiment of those ACTUALLY doing the work. ICE agents may have signed up so that they could play out their power fantasies, but a good number of Marines and California National Guard members come out of these affected minority communities and probably didn't sign up to be a (4x) draft dodger's plastic Army men toys.
What a disappointment this opinion site has become. I was impressed when most of the vitriolic, know-it-all, insulting name caller commenters and authors (with one exception) were discouraged enough to leave. Nothing left now but my right-wing viewpoints and whiny anti-Trump rhetoric, half-truths and outright lies. I believe the nation is slowly devolving into anarchy and almost everyone else believes that it's a sin for someone to take charge and overwhelm the glacial pace of Congress or force the courts to rule on constitutional authority. The prevailing opinion here is to ignore the law and hope the bad actors do not get around to us.
I'm not going to get into a longer argument with you on stuff that we've already hashed out until we're sick of it, but your comment made me reflect on just how inverted the "conservative" movement (those in power anyways) now reflects a philosophy where the President is free to do what he wants, only until a court gets around to telling him not to.
Conservatives used to be the party of limited and localized power. The President was only allowed to fullfil the specific duties that the Constitution enumerated, while the more general powers to do as wanted was reserved to the States and their governments, under the theory that since the State government sat closer to the electorate, it was more readily accountable to the people than faraway folks in the capital. (And as Justice Brandeis implied in his praise of federalism's "laboratories of democracy", any damage that a State caused through bad policy was limited to its borders.)
The past week has been interesting to watch as "conservatives" argue the President should enjoy the general police powers that have typically been reserved for States, and that States should shut up and sit down as Washington attempts to usurp their power and responsibility. We see a few months ago, Kristi Noem as South Dakota governor promising hell to pay if Biden nationalized the SD state militia, and then yesterday we see her as a Federal representative promising to "liberate" California from its elected leadership.
And before I'm accused of being one-sided, I've also been VERY amused by Democratic legislators grilling Trump's economic team on raising the debt ceiling in the bill pending before them.
Makes me wish that G.K. Chesterton were still around to offer his thoughts.
(Also, I'd be interested to hear your take on yesterday's Breyer ruling on the passages we were debating if you've taken time to read it.)
The President is simply pushing the limits to do what the voters elected him to do. My opinion is that allowing an unfettered, unvetted illegal invasion is riskier and more dangerous and more unconstitutional than anything Trump is doing to gain control of the situation. It's certainly less drastic than Reconstruction. I do not think any governor would like his or her "Army men" being taken away by the President - especially those already mobilized for a legitimate purpose. Having said that, I still believe it's legal.
As of now, Judge Breyer's ruling is moot. We will see if it's upheld. My opinion is that if the case goes far enough in the court system, Trump will prevail.
One further comment. I cannot agree with Justice Brandeis. I do not have the context, but, based on the face value of the words, bad state policies can have national consequences. There could be dozens of examples, but two easy ones are Jim Crow laws and immigrant sanctuary laws.
I guess one man's "pushing the limits" is another man's "breaking the law and to see what's actually being enforced today".
A good example of the this would be the multiple Hatch Act and Emolument Clause violations committed around Trump's speech at Fort Bragg.
Disappointed that you didn't read Breyer's ruling - even if it is currently on pause pending appeal. He had some really interesting Constitutional points in laying out his rationale that Trump broke the law that he cited as his permission to federalize the California Guard. I expect the Appeals Court to affirm Breyer's ruling, then it should be a lot of fun watching the self-proclaimed textualists on SCOTUS take a run at it.
The legality of some actions cannot be determined without going to court. There were hundreds of court cases questioning the legality of some COVID orders. Most were allowed even though there were strong constitutional arguments to the contrary.
This one quote from the ruling makes me think the whole thing is BS. Accepting speculation from one party only while accusing the other party of speculation indicates a lot of personal bias on the part of the San Francisco judge.
"they contend that “Defendants’ unlawful federalization of 4,000 California National Guard members … diverts necessary state resources” from addressing serious problems facing California, such as wildfires and drug trafficking. Id. at 17–18. Defendants respond that these harms are “speculative” and “unsubstantiated.” Opp. at 26.As for Plaintiffs’ first asserted harm, they have established that the continued presence of National Guard members and Marines in Los Angeles risks worsening, not improving, tensions on the ground. “The presence of the National Guard seemed only to inflame the protesters further.” Olmstead Decl. ¶ 12. Indeed, local law enforcement arrests jumped after the National Guard was deployed."
My experience (ancient history) is that regular Army soldiers are not trained in riot control while Reservists and National Guard soldiers are. I served six years in the Army Reserves and received that training as a Reserve officer during the unrest after MLK's assassination.
I think you just elucidated the problem even more effectively than I have been doing: "The legality of some actions cannot be determined without going to court."
In the federalization case, Judge Breyer asked the defendants for the federal gov't where their authority flows from and their lawyer cited the Take Care Clause. What is that?
From Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution[1], enumerating the powers of the President:
"... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Hold on to the phrase "faithfully executed" for a minute.
In your comment on the legality of laws, you present a world where some laws are so unclearly drafted that multiple interpretations exist, and we don’t know what’s legal “without going to court”.
If the law is this nebulous thing that requires specialized interpretation to nail down, how can the President “faithfully execute” those laws when there is a cloud of uncertainty around them? I would suspect that being responsible in the execution of those laws would fall under the “faithfully executed” umbrella, and responsibility means eliminating the uncertainty BEFORE executing those laws. ("Measure twice, cut once.") In this case, this would be consulting with the Courts and Congress about whether the Courts will interpret the law that Congress drafted in a manner that the President wishes to use. Once Congress and the Courts sign off on an interpretation, then the President proceeds under that guidance in executing those laws.
That’s not what’s happening. Instead, we have a President who has proclaimed that HE is the final arbitrator of what the Law means. Congress has no input on this, and Courts are mere barriers to overcome in ramming through the interpretation of the President over the other branches. Balance of powers is a suggestion, not a requirement.
There’s a second question of why a President carelessly executing the laws is a problem. The answer’s pretty simple – he enjoys the full force of the federal government behind him, and that immense power magnifies the mistakes he can make in the execution of the law. The individuals affected have no similar lever or recourse. This is why we have Courts and Congress and checks and balances – to ensure that the law is applied justly and people don’t have to fear that they’ll become collateral damage as the governmental Leviathan takes a stroll through your city. This is why we have things like notice periods on deportations, the Administrative Procedure Act for the public and other governmental bodies to review and comment on proposed action, and the Courts themselves.
You complain that this is too slow. That those safeguards are preventing the President from acting quickly in response to a (dubious) invasion. I’ll point out one more time that the reason that this is slow because the President, when he was a Candidate, marshalled his forces to defeat the James Lankford immigration bill, which would have enshrined in Law resources and procedures and penalties that would allow us to enforce our immigration laws more efficiently and effectively. Sensing that Lankford’s bill might just actually do that – and take the issue of immigration off of the table for the presidential campaign – Candidate Trump (and his minions in the House) had the bill killed, to *prolong the inefficiency and difficulties* that you now insist that he needs authoritarian powers to address.
Forgive me if I REFUSE to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on this issue, and see this as anything other than an orchestrated power grab going back a couple of years. In this specific case (as well as others), he is shirking his Constitutional obligations to Article II, Section 3 that he cites as his authority (as well as violating the plain English text of the law itself).
--
On the Breyer quote, your comment is a bit unclear. What is the speculation that California made that you don't think was substantiated? That federalizing the CA National Guard negatively impacted the performance of that militia? And that it's more speculative that the federalization of the Guard inflamed the protesters? Trying to wrap my head around your objection here. (It's late on a Friday, so forgive me for being more dense than usual.)
Easy first. There is no real proof that the presence of military exacerbated the problem of law enforcement. Only a statement that arrests increased as time wore on. BS.
You are not dense. You just think you can read minds. Donald Trump is not the only person who opposed the Lankford "compromise". I and millions of others did not see it as a compromise. It was only something democrats would accept because it legitimized Biden/Mayorkas open borders policy. Lankford found it acceptable because it reduced illegal entries by 20% but it did not eliminate the "asylum" scam. We still would have 18 million additional dangerous illegals (I think more, others think less) to contend with.
I did not gain much insight from you link except may this:
"According to Cushing, the President’s power as Commander in Chief is “constitutionally inherent in the person of the President” such that “[n]o act of Congress, no act even of the President himself, can, by constitutional possibility, authorize or create any military officer not subordinate to the President.”
I once regretted not mentioning this to my proud Dad at my commissioning ceremony, the day I graduated from Georgia Tech, that it took an act of Congress.
Okay so the courts decided he once again overstepped his authority. So you want Trump to turn over the national guard to California like ordered right?
If appeals fail, that's what I would expect. Of course, if the situation is still unstable, I would expect Trump to invoke an insurrection proclamation just as other presidents have done.
So far we haven't had a repeat of the 2020 "summer of love." At least not to the same numbers of those killed, the amount of damage to property, or the intensity of the rioting. But I will posit this: suppose Trump ignored the LA riots, the ones in the other cities like NYC and so forth. And we know that the riots and demonstrations aren't over, as a massive one is planned for the weekend. If Trump sat on his hands and did nothing how many would lose their lives? How much damage to property? Would the intensity of the riots equal or surpass 2020? Would Trump then have to resort to declaring martial law? Not to mention the spectre of a possible civil war. Just some things to ponder.
This is one of those situations where Competence is very important.
Ideally, we would be in a situation where local law enforcement worked hand-in-hand with federal law enforcement to minimize injuries, deaths, and property damage WHILE ALSO fully respecting the Constitutional rights to free speech, protest, and assembly of those folks who are there to be heard and not using the chaos to play out anarchist or criminal fantasies.
This means the federal gov't NOT going out of its way to demonize and insult those jurisdictions and populations that it needs to work with to be effective. It means building and maintaining credibility and trust with officials and populations it needs to work with.
Unfortunately, that is NOT the administration we have. We have a convicted felon who stood by as his supporters raided the Capitol building to disrupt the legal process for a safe and calm transfer of power when he lost.[1] He further nuked any credibility he had when he issued a blanket pardon for those who broke the law on January 6th[2]. We have an administration with the least qualified FBI director in the history of the institution and seems more interested in being seen at sporting events[3] than leading federal law enforcement. He's backed up by a whiny podcaster (Bongino) who complains that the job is too hard for him[4]. His Attorney General has been more concerned being the President's personal lawyer[5] and not the legal representative of the people of the United States. And most recently, this administration put a 22-year old Heritage Foundation intern to lead the federal efforts in anti-terrorism[6].
I couldn't assemble a more Incompetent and Unqualified and Inexperienced (and Corrupt) federal law enforcement leadership group if I tried. Hell, we have thousands of National Guard members sitting around doing nothing as a "show of force" intended to protect four blocks in downtown L.A.[7]
These are not serious people, so it's entirely understandable when actual serious people with responsibility would rather the clown college stay put in Washington D.C.
This weekend is a great opportunity to run a natural experiment. Illinois and Chicago is crystal clear that we don't want the Trump troupe around here preventing anything. Leave us alone and let's see what happens. If Texas Gov. Abbott wants federal help keeping Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin sedate, send Patel, Bongino, Bondi, and as many troops as they request there. Let's compare outcomes next week.
Of course this won't happen, because there's a very good chance that Chicago and Illinois polices itself just fine, and Texas becomes a mess due to federal provocations and missteps. Whatever aura of strength and invincibility the clowns in Washington think they have will be gone, for everyone to see.
If there's a Civil War in this country, it will be driven by the fact that States figure out that they're better off without a Washington helmed by #MAGA. (And as recently history shows, #MAGA's doing a splendid job making that exact case to Californians.) A Civil War is not going going to start because of too many protesters in Daley Plaza.
A civil war this time won't be states vs states, it will be ideology vs ideology. At some point if the left keeps up their bent for mayhem and destruction, there will be an Archbishop Ferdinand moment, or perhaps a Fort Sumter moment, and it will be on. More likely though, will be a strong man, Trump? who will take a drastic step and use the military not just as a show of force, but to actively put down any and all pockets of rebellion. This will be the worst thing that could ever happen to our beloved nation. As an aside, you couldn't be more wrong in how you have described the events of Jan. 6th. And not for nothing, but Jan. 6th looks like a Sunday school picnic compared to the summer of 2020, and if you are honest, you would admit it. Of course, I don't see that happening.
If there's a Civil War, it will be between the economically productive Blue regions that fund this nation and the dying Red areas that take from it. I'm happy to be on the side I'm on, and if Red America wishes to leave and join the BRIC coalition of nations, they have my blessing.
Now, let's talk 2020. As events unfolded here in Chicago, I listened on my police scanner as organized crime took advantage of the local police spread thin to loot stores in U-Haul trucks. I have friends with businesses in downtown Chicago who had their windows busted in and contents stolen. It's too bad I no longer have an Instagram account, as I had a sobering series of photos that I took of boarded up stores, as those small businesses around me feared that the violence and chaos would spread up to us. I argued online (and lost a few friends) when I pushed back against their arguments that looting and destruction was okay, just because "insurance would cover it". (That also revealed who had no idea what went into building a small business and how insurance worked.)
I have a lot of feelings about the summer of 2020, and I really couldn't care less which bucket a persistent January 6th denialist thinks I belong in.
That said, despite my antipathy towards what was going on in my city, those protesting had a point about George Floyd and how our police conduct themselves with impunity. I've been a constant opponent of qualified immunity, and I was glad to see Derek Chauvin convicted for ending Floyd's life. Did that justify what happened in Minnesota, Chicago, and elsewhere? Absolutely not. However, expecting people to sit at home meekly to avoid disrupting the status quo wasn't an option when the status quo *needed* disrupting.
Now, let's get to this weekend. You're under the impression that people should once more meekly stand aside for an authoritarian and his minions wishing to change the status quo from one where we all have a say in how we are governed into one where we're installing a king in all but name. A unitary executive who isn't beholden to the other branches of government, and has the final say on what the law is and is not.
That's not American. Hell, our origin story begins when colonists got tired of that crap and decided that THEY knew better how to manage their affairs than some remote despot. They threw off those chains and erected a pretty good structure (after one false start) that worked pretty well until Congress decided that it wanted to be a reality TV show or a podcast more than a sober legislative body, and abandoned its structural role to be present and relevant for what people send them there to do - to represent them and their interests. We're in an unsustainable situation right now that is fluid and changing daily, and I'll be out marching with my red, white, and blue flag representing a desire to return to the Schoolhouse Rock USA I studied in my Civics course, during my summer attending (and later summer helping run) Boys State, and I've been supporting as an election judge for a decade now.
In another comment thread, Curtis accused me of attending a "Trump-hater" rally. Let's be clear - I hate Donald Trump with every fiber of my being for what he's done to this country that I love. I watched his goons raid the Capitol on January 6th under his banner under a lie that he himself knew was false, just because was too immature of a man to admit when he had lost, and it was his time to retire with whatever dignity he had left. I watched in horror as a good friend's husband stood after the counting of the Electoral votes on the floor of the Senate continued AND continued to peddle Trump's Big Lie. I was horrified when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate failed to stand up for this country and impeach Trump.
I could go on (and on and on and on...), but I'll put a pin in the Trump talk by confessing that I have a nice bottle of whiskey that I'm saving to drink when that blowhard shuffles off his mortal coil. But - contra-Curtis - what's happening this weekend is bigger than that. Trump's an old man and the actuarial tables are not on his side. Father Time will solve that problem before too long. What I'll be marching for on Saturday is for what comes next. Are we to continue our authoritarian slide with Don Jr., J.D. Vance (who I used to REALLY respect), or Tucker Carlson wearing the crown? Or do we - as Americans - rediscover our roots, and get back to being serious about how we are governed, and get serious about the challenges we face (growing debt, a poisonous information environment, a world order that can flip on one bad international incident) as freaking adults, and not wannabe influencers, podcasters, and reality TV (and ketamine and meth) addicts.
I'm bearish that this weekend will change much of anything one way or another. But in the off-chance that it tips in a direction that really sucks (and we have no shortage of examples how this can happen - see Hungary, the Philippines, Russia, and El Salvador), and someone asks me what I was doing during the Summer of 2025, I can talk about how I tried to convince Republicans to go a different way when I was still a member of the Party. I can talk about how I tried to vote serious people into office. I can talk about working the polls and using that experience as a refutation to the election denialism that gave us the failed insurrection on January 6th. I'll describe how I added my body to thousands of other bodies that filled the Chicago streets chanting "This is not acceptable." I'm not someone to sit on my ass when something needs doing and NOW is when something needs doing.
You mention above that your vision of an American civil war will pit ideology against ideology. What precisely is YOUR ideology? Mine's Schoolhouse Rock and Civics Class and Boys State and Working The Polls. You claim to NOT be a Trump fan, but in thread after thread, I can count on you being a reliable apologist for the man and the status quo that he represents. Here's a fun test - where do you stand on deporting the Californian farm workers who do the hard work of picking the produce we grow in this country? Are you for it, underneath a Stephen Miller-esque "all must leave" philosophy? Or are you against it, as Trump seemed to be this afternoon after learning about the completely predictable disruption that's causing? If you have to go see what someone else said about it before you can answer, you don't have an ideology. You're just a megaphone for whoever knows how to pick you up and blow hot air up your backside.
As with the economy, if the civil war will be fought ideology versus ideology, I feel pretty good where my ideology stands in relation to yours.
Hopefully that's enough honesty and admission to satisfy you for a while.
I am a Christian Constitutional Conservative, in that order. My first allegiance is to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then the greatest document of governance ever penned on parchment, and by the way, I take the words literally, I don't try to twist it into a pretzel thus making it ineffective. Lastly, I am a true conservative, which is why when Trump descended the escalator in Trump tower in 2015, I was immediately a #nevertrumper. Now, having said all that, let's talk about my feelings toward Trump. I have never voted for him, but I am in favor of SOME of his policies, such as immigration. I am staunchly pro legal immigration, to the point that if I were President I would advocate for raising the numbers that we allow in. But I am also strongly anti illegal immigration, except those who might have legitimate hardships from injustices in their home countries. Now, as far as those who have been let in under Joe Biden's disastrous policy, I want them deported, and they can later on come here legally. There is no excuse for illegals committing crimes in America and thinking they can get away with them. Let's now deal with these anti ice protests. Though I am a #nevertrumper, I am at the same time a truthseeker and truthteller, and I will not lie for Trump's opposition nor will I tell lies just because I don't like him as a President, hence the pushback I proudly give to the lies propagated by his opponents on Jan. 6th and other issues. If you can't handle my standing on these and other issues of the day, then I guess we indeed have nothing further to discuss. Just know, however, I am not a backer downer. I am more than willing to stand up for what I believe in, as you have stated that you are.
"If you can't handle my standing on these and other issues of the day, then I guess we indeed have nothing further to discuss."
Probably not, as we seem to be some kind of scientific miracle, arguing with each other from completely separate realities. As a self-proclaimed man of Christ, you'll appreciate the difficulty I have denying what I watched unfold throughout the day on January 6th (Civics nerd here), despite the fact that the witness I bore apparently is completely at odds with however you experienced that event.
Given the discontinuity between the universes we inhabit, there's no telling what other ruptures exist in the fabric of an otherwise objective existence, so I wish you well in your realm, while I work to make mine suck a little bit less.
I too watched about 6 hours of coverage of the Jan. 6th attack, and admittedly, i was initially horrified that conservatives and those on the right could take this kind of action, it was in the days and weeks after that that I began to realize what it actually was. Yes, a riot to be sure, and I certainly wanted the criminal element within the crowd prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But after some further investigation on my part, I began to see that a lot of what the media wanted me to get from their reporting just wasn't so. I read every word of Trump's speech on that day, and there was absolutely nothing in it that could be construed as him fomenting insurrection, in fact he exhorted his followers to march to the Capitol PEACEFULLY. Another thing that kept being reported was that some cops were killed as a result of the rioting, which also wasn't true, in fact the ONLY person who lost their life that day was Ashley Babbitt. And of course much of what I was finding out only reinforced my distrust and skepticism of the press
Always love the capitalization of Conservative: it just emphasizes how that's a group label rather than an actual principle/ideology.
What you don't like is that those that claimed asylum were paroled into the country while their cases are pending. That's still legal immigration - at least until the relevant cases are completed and any that are not granted asylum status given their determinations.
If it was only criminal immigrants that were being targeted, there'd be little issue here. That it's involving racial profiling is the issue at hand right now: ICE is just cruising around Home Depots and farms and restaurants grabbing anyone they think might be an immigrant. That's what people don't like.
To quote a conservative: "I continue to believe that a solid majority of the country wants birthright citizenship maintained, the borders secured, illegal immigrants who commit crimes while here (other than merely being here) deported, and the rest of them given a path to legalization if not citizenship."
The Confederate states explicitly said it was about slavery, not states' rights - the latter is some BS used by sore losers to try to make themselves sound better.
Those that lit the Waymos on fire were arrested almost immediately after. I think it's a mistake to think that vandalism in such instances can be prevented entirely. It's pretty quick to smash a window or light a car on fire, after all.
The thing about protests is it brings out all sorts - including those that just want to cause trouble or even harm the protest itself. Barring there being more coordination between protests and law enforcement - e.g. more law enforcement assigned to escort the protest and arrest vandals as they pop up - it's just going to be something that has to be dealt with.
"The incident took place at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles where Marines took charge of the mission to protect the building earlier on Friday, in a rare domestic use of U.S. troops after days of protests over immigration raids."
"Reuters images showed Marines apprehending the man, restraining his hands with zip ties and then handing him over to civilians from the Department of Homeland Security."
"Asked about the incident, the U.S. military's Northern Command spokesperson said active duty forces 'may temporarily detain an individual in specific circumstances.'"
"'Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual(s) can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel,' a spokesperson said."
"Speaking to reporters after he was released, the civilian identified himself as Marcos Leao, 27. Leao said he was an Army veteran on his way to an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs when he crossed a yellow tape boundary and was asked to stop."
This story has a happy ending in that the man felt he was "treated fairly" and released. I think he's lucky he dealt with a Marine, as if it were ICE or CBP, he might find himself framed for being a gang member of some sort so that they could check of one more person for Stephen Miller's 3,000 deportations per day quota.
It's probably worth noting that Caeser's not the only one that has to be convinced of the necessity of these actions, but the folks underneath him carrying out those orders as well. And from early reporting, a number of the boots on the ground are NOT convinced:
"Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions."
"'The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,' said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans."
"'Families are scared not just for their loved ones’ safety, although that’s a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.'"
"Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to 'mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy', said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. 'Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,' he said."[1]
Now, I make no claims whether the sentiments expressed are representative or will matter in the big scheme of things, but if I'm one of Caeser's advisors, I'd be keeping an eye on the sentiment of those ACTUALLY doing the work. ICE agents may have signed up so that they could play out their power fantasies, but a good number of Marines and California National Guard members come out of these affected minority communities and probably didn't sign up to be a (4x) draft dodger's plastic Army men toys.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/12/los-angeles-national-guard-troops-marines-morale
More thuggery as FBI agents manhandle the US Senator from California for attempting to ask a question at Kristi Noem's press conference:
https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lrglainv4225
What a disappointment this opinion site has become. I was impressed when most of the vitriolic, know-it-all, insulting name caller commenters and authors (with one exception) were discouraged enough to leave. Nothing left now but my right-wing viewpoints and whiny anti-Trump rhetoric, half-truths and outright lies. I believe the nation is slowly devolving into anarchy and almost everyone else believes that it's a sin for someone to take charge and overwhelm the glacial pace of Congress or force the courts to rule on constitutional authority. The prevailing opinion here is to ignore the law and hope the bad actors do not get around to us.
I'm not going to get into a longer argument with you on stuff that we've already hashed out until we're sick of it, but your comment made me reflect on just how inverted the "conservative" movement (those in power anyways) now reflects a philosophy where the President is free to do what he wants, only until a court gets around to telling him not to.
Conservatives used to be the party of limited and localized power. The President was only allowed to fullfil the specific duties that the Constitution enumerated, while the more general powers to do as wanted was reserved to the States and their governments, under the theory that since the State government sat closer to the electorate, it was more readily accountable to the people than faraway folks in the capital. (And as Justice Brandeis implied in his praise of federalism's "laboratories of democracy", any damage that a State caused through bad policy was limited to its borders.)
The past week has been interesting to watch as "conservatives" argue the President should enjoy the general police powers that have typically been reserved for States, and that States should shut up and sit down as Washington attempts to usurp their power and responsibility. We see a few months ago, Kristi Noem as South Dakota governor promising hell to pay if Biden nationalized the SD state militia, and then yesterday we see her as a Federal representative promising to "liberate" California from its elected leadership.
And before I'm accused of being one-sided, I've also been VERY amused by Democratic legislators grilling Trump's economic team on raising the debt ceiling in the bill pending before them.
Makes me wish that G.K. Chesterton were still around to offer his thoughts.
(Also, I'd be interested to hear your take on yesterday's Breyer ruling on the passages we were debating if you've taken time to read it.)
The President is simply pushing the limits to do what the voters elected him to do. My opinion is that allowing an unfettered, unvetted illegal invasion is riskier and more dangerous and more unconstitutional than anything Trump is doing to gain control of the situation. It's certainly less drastic than Reconstruction. I do not think any governor would like his or her "Army men" being taken away by the President - especially those already mobilized for a legitimate purpose. Having said that, I still believe it's legal.
As of now, Judge Breyer's ruling is moot. We will see if it's upheld. My opinion is that if the case goes far enough in the court system, Trump will prevail.
One further comment. I cannot agree with Justice Brandeis. I do not have the context, but, based on the face value of the words, bad state policies can have national consequences. There could be dozens of examples, but two easy ones are Jim Crow laws and immigrant sanctuary laws.
I guess one man's "pushing the limits" is another man's "breaking the law and to see what's actually being enforced today".
A good example of the this would be the multiple Hatch Act and Emolument Clause violations committed around Trump's speech at Fort Bragg.
Disappointed that you didn't read Breyer's ruling - even if it is currently on pause pending appeal. He had some really interesting Constitutional points in laying out his rationale that Trump broke the law that he cited as his permission to federalize the California Guard. I expect the Appeals Court to affirm Breyer's ruling, then it should be a lot of fun watching the self-proclaimed textualists on SCOTUS take a run at it.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-merchandise-sold-army-base-presidents-speech-now/story?id=122764288
The legality of some actions cannot be determined without going to court. There were hundreds of court cases questioning the legality of some COVID orders. Most were allowed even though there were strong constitutional arguments to the contrary.
This one quote from the ruling makes me think the whole thing is BS. Accepting speculation from one party only while accusing the other party of speculation indicates a lot of personal bias on the part of the San Francisco judge.
"they contend that “Defendants’ unlawful federalization of 4,000 California National Guard members … diverts necessary state resources” from addressing serious problems facing California, such as wildfires and drug trafficking. Id. at 17–18. Defendants respond that these harms are “speculative” and “unsubstantiated.” Opp. at 26.As for Plaintiffs’ first asserted harm, they have established that the continued presence of National Guard members and Marines in Los Angeles risks worsening, not improving, tensions on the ground. “The presence of the National Guard seemed only to inflame the protesters further.” Olmstead Decl. ¶ 12. Indeed, local law enforcement arrests jumped after the National Guard was deployed."
My experience (ancient history) is that regular Army soldiers are not trained in riot control while Reservists and National Guard soldiers are. I served six years in the Army Reserves and received that training as a Reserve officer during the unrest after MLK's assassination.
I think you just elucidated the problem even more effectively than I have been doing: "The legality of some actions cannot be determined without going to court."
In the federalization case, Judge Breyer asked the defendants for the federal gov't where their authority flows from and their lawyer cited the Take Care Clause. What is that?
From Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution[1], enumerating the powers of the President:
"... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Hold on to the phrase "faithfully executed" for a minute.
In your comment on the legality of laws, you present a world where some laws are so unclearly drafted that multiple interpretations exist, and we don’t know what’s legal “without going to court”.
If the law is this nebulous thing that requires specialized interpretation to nail down, how can the President “faithfully execute” those laws when there is a cloud of uncertainty around them? I would suspect that being responsible in the execution of those laws would fall under the “faithfully executed” umbrella, and responsibility means eliminating the uncertainty BEFORE executing those laws. ("Measure twice, cut once.") In this case, this would be consulting with the Courts and Congress about whether the Courts will interpret the law that Congress drafted in a manner that the President wishes to use. Once Congress and the Courts sign off on an interpretation, then the President proceeds under that guidance in executing those laws.
That’s not what’s happening. Instead, we have a President who has proclaimed that HE is the final arbitrator of what the Law means. Congress has no input on this, and Courts are mere barriers to overcome in ramming through the interpretation of the President over the other branches. Balance of powers is a suggestion, not a requirement.
There’s a second question of why a President carelessly executing the laws is a problem. The answer’s pretty simple – he enjoys the full force of the federal government behind him, and that immense power magnifies the mistakes he can make in the execution of the law. The individuals affected have no similar lever or recourse. This is why we have Courts and Congress and checks and balances – to ensure that the law is applied justly and people don’t have to fear that they’ll become collateral damage as the governmental Leviathan takes a stroll through your city. This is why we have things like notice periods on deportations, the Administrative Procedure Act for the public and other governmental bodies to review and comment on proposed action, and the Courts themselves.
You complain that this is too slow. That those safeguards are preventing the President from acting quickly in response to a (dubious) invasion. I’ll point out one more time that the reason that this is slow because the President, when he was a Candidate, marshalled his forces to defeat the James Lankford immigration bill, which would have enshrined in Law resources and procedures and penalties that would allow us to enforce our immigration laws more efficiently and effectively. Sensing that Lankford’s bill might just actually do that – and take the issue of immigration off of the table for the presidential campaign – Candidate Trump (and his minions in the House) had the bill killed, to *prolong the inefficiency and difficulties* that you now insist that he needs authoritarian powers to address.
Forgive me if I REFUSE to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on this issue, and see this as anything other than an orchestrated power grab going back a couple of years. In this specific case (as well as others), he is shirking his Constitutional obligations to Article II, Section 3 that he cites as his authority (as well as violating the plain English text of the law itself).
--
On the Breyer quote, your comment is a bit unclear. What is the speculation that California made that you don't think was substantiated? That federalizing the CA National Guard negatively impacted the performance of that militia? And that it's more speculative that the federalization of the Guard inflamed the protesters? Trying to wrap my head around your objection here. (It's late on a Friday, so forgive me for being more dense than usual.)
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/overview-of-the-take-care-clause
Easy first. There is no real proof that the presence of military exacerbated the problem of law enforcement. Only a statement that arrests increased as time wore on. BS.
You are not dense. You just think you can read minds. Donald Trump is not the only person who opposed the Lankford "compromise". I and millions of others did not see it as a compromise. It was only something democrats would accept because it legitimized Biden/Mayorkas open borders policy. Lankford found it acceptable because it reduced illegal entries by 20% but it did not eliminate the "asylum" scam. We still would have 18 million additional dangerous illegals (I think more, others think less) to contend with.
I did not gain much insight from you link except may this:
"According to Cushing, the President’s power as Commander in Chief is “constitutionally inherent in the person of the President” such that “[n]o act of Congress, no act even of the President himself, can, by constitutional possibility, authorize or create any military officer not subordinate to the President.”
I once regretted not mentioning this to my proud Dad at my commissioning ceremony, the day I graduated from Georgia Tech, that it took an act of Congress.
What a way to say your mad others still believe in the constitution.
Not mad man. Just do not believe Constitution is under attack. Trump's decisions will be sorted out by the courts.
Okay so the courts decided he once again overstepped his authority. So you want Trump to turn over the national guard to California like ordered right?
If appeals fail, that's what I would expect. Of course, if the situation is still unstable, I would expect Trump to invoke an insurrection proclamation just as other presidents have done.
So far we haven't had a repeat of the 2020 "summer of love." At least not to the same numbers of those killed, the amount of damage to property, or the intensity of the rioting. But I will posit this: suppose Trump ignored the LA riots, the ones in the other cities like NYC and so forth. And we know that the riots and demonstrations aren't over, as a massive one is planned for the weekend. If Trump sat on his hands and did nothing how many would lose their lives? How much damage to property? Would the intensity of the riots equal or surpass 2020? Would Trump then have to resort to declaring martial law? Not to mention the spectre of a possible civil war. Just some things to ponder.
This is one of those situations where Competence is very important.
Ideally, we would be in a situation where local law enforcement worked hand-in-hand with federal law enforcement to minimize injuries, deaths, and property damage WHILE ALSO fully respecting the Constitutional rights to free speech, protest, and assembly of those folks who are there to be heard and not using the chaos to play out anarchist or criminal fantasies.
This means the federal gov't NOT going out of its way to demonize and insult those jurisdictions and populations that it needs to work with to be effective. It means building and maintaining credibility and trust with officials and populations it needs to work with.
Unfortunately, that is NOT the administration we have. We have a convicted felon who stood by as his supporters raided the Capitol building to disrupt the legal process for a safe and calm transfer of power when he lost.[1] He further nuked any credibility he had when he issued a blanket pardon for those who broke the law on January 6th[2]. We have an administration with the least qualified FBI director in the history of the institution and seems more interested in being seen at sporting events[3] than leading federal law enforcement. He's backed up by a whiny podcaster (Bongino) who complains that the job is too hard for him[4]. His Attorney General has been more concerned being the President's personal lawyer[5] and not the legal representative of the people of the United States. And most recently, this administration put a 22-year old Heritage Foundation intern to lead the federal efforts in anti-terrorism[6].
I couldn't assemble a more Incompetent and Unqualified and Inexperienced (and Corrupt) federal law enforcement leadership group if I tried. Hell, we have thousands of National Guard members sitting around doing nothing as a "show of force" intended to protect four blocks in downtown L.A.[7]
These are not serious people, so it's entirely understandable when actual serious people with responsibility would rather the clown college stay put in Washington D.C.
This weekend is a great opportunity to run a natural experiment. Illinois and Chicago is crystal clear that we don't want the Trump troupe around here preventing anything. Leave us alone and let's see what happens. If Texas Gov. Abbott wants federal help keeping Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin sedate, send Patel, Bongino, Bondi, and as many troops as they request there. Let's compare outcomes next week.
Of course this won't happen, because there's a very good chance that Chicago and Illinois polices itself just fine, and Texas becomes a mess due to federal provocations and missteps. Whatever aura of strength and invincibility the clowns in Washington think they have will be gone, for everyone to see.
If there's a Civil War in this country, it will be driven by the fact that States figure out that they're better off without a Washington helmed by #MAGA. (And as recently history shows, #MAGA's doing a splendid job making that exact case to Californians.) A Civil War is not going going to start because of too many protesters in Daley Plaza.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs
[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/22/camp-auschwitz-jan-6-rioter-trump-pardoned/77884230007/
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/kash-patels-new-way-leading-fbi-fewer-morning-intel-briefings-sports-e-rcna202865
[4] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/dan-bongino-fox-kash-patel-fbi-rcna209863
[5] https://apnews.com/article/fbi-justice-department-trump-bondi-bove-adams-a003af9d9aebe89cd289361a65c9401b
[6] https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-thomas-fugate-cp3-terrorism-prevention
[7] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trumps-national-guard-troops-are-sitting-unused-without-orders-after-being-deployed-for-la-protests-gavin-newsom-reveals/ar-AA1GrwB0
A civil war this time won't be states vs states, it will be ideology vs ideology. At some point if the left keeps up their bent for mayhem and destruction, there will be an Archbishop Ferdinand moment, or perhaps a Fort Sumter moment, and it will be on. More likely though, will be a strong man, Trump? who will take a drastic step and use the military not just as a show of force, but to actively put down any and all pockets of rebellion. This will be the worst thing that could ever happen to our beloved nation. As an aside, you couldn't be more wrong in how you have described the events of Jan. 6th. And not for nothing, but Jan. 6th looks like a Sunday school picnic compared to the summer of 2020, and if you are honest, you would admit it. Of course, I don't see that happening.
If there's a Civil War, it will be between the economically productive Blue regions that fund this nation and the dying Red areas that take from it. I'm happy to be on the side I'm on, and if Red America wishes to leave and join the BRIC coalition of nations, they have my blessing.
Now, let's talk 2020. As events unfolded here in Chicago, I listened on my police scanner as organized crime took advantage of the local police spread thin to loot stores in U-Haul trucks. I have friends with businesses in downtown Chicago who had their windows busted in and contents stolen. It's too bad I no longer have an Instagram account, as I had a sobering series of photos that I took of boarded up stores, as those small businesses around me feared that the violence and chaos would spread up to us. I argued online (and lost a few friends) when I pushed back against their arguments that looting and destruction was okay, just because "insurance would cover it". (That also revealed who had no idea what went into building a small business and how insurance worked.)
I have a lot of feelings about the summer of 2020, and I really couldn't care less which bucket a persistent January 6th denialist thinks I belong in.
That said, despite my antipathy towards what was going on in my city, those protesting had a point about George Floyd and how our police conduct themselves with impunity. I've been a constant opponent of qualified immunity, and I was glad to see Derek Chauvin convicted for ending Floyd's life. Did that justify what happened in Minnesota, Chicago, and elsewhere? Absolutely not. However, expecting people to sit at home meekly to avoid disrupting the status quo wasn't an option when the status quo *needed* disrupting.
Now, let's get to this weekend. You're under the impression that people should once more meekly stand aside for an authoritarian and his minions wishing to change the status quo from one where we all have a say in how we are governed into one where we're installing a king in all but name. A unitary executive who isn't beholden to the other branches of government, and has the final say on what the law is and is not.
That's not American. Hell, our origin story begins when colonists got tired of that crap and decided that THEY knew better how to manage their affairs than some remote despot. They threw off those chains and erected a pretty good structure (after one false start) that worked pretty well until Congress decided that it wanted to be a reality TV show or a podcast more than a sober legislative body, and abandoned its structural role to be present and relevant for what people send them there to do - to represent them and their interests. We're in an unsustainable situation right now that is fluid and changing daily, and I'll be out marching with my red, white, and blue flag representing a desire to return to the Schoolhouse Rock USA I studied in my Civics course, during my summer attending (and later summer helping run) Boys State, and I've been supporting as an election judge for a decade now.
In another comment thread, Curtis accused me of attending a "Trump-hater" rally. Let's be clear - I hate Donald Trump with every fiber of my being for what he's done to this country that I love. I watched his goons raid the Capitol on January 6th under his banner under a lie that he himself knew was false, just because was too immature of a man to admit when he had lost, and it was his time to retire with whatever dignity he had left. I watched in horror as a good friend's husband stood after the counting of the Electoral votes on the floor of the Senate continued AND continued to peddle Trump's Big Lie. I was horrified when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate failed to stand up for this country and impeach Trump.
I could go on (and on and on and on...), but I'll put a pin in the Trump talk by confessing that I have a nice bottle of whiskey that I'm saving to drink when that blowhard shuffles off his mortal coil. But - contra-Curtis - what's happening this weekend is bigger than that. Trump's an old man and the actuarial tables are not on his side. Father Time will solve that problem before too long. What I'll be marching for on Saturday is for what comes next. Are we to continue our authoritarian slide with Don Jr., J.D. Vance (who I used to REALLY respect), or Tucker Carlson wearing the crown? Or do we - as Americans - rediscover our roots, and get back to being serious about how we are governed, and get serious about the challenges we face (growing debt, a poisonous information environment, a world order that can flip on one bad international incident) as freaking adults, and not wannabe influencers, podcasters, and reality TV (and ketamine and meth) addicts.
I'm bearish that this weekend will change much of anything one way or another. But in the off-chance that it tips in a direction that really sucks (and we have no shortage of examples how this can happen - see Hungary, the Philippines, Russia, and El Salvador), and someone asks me what I was doing during the Summer of 2025, I can talk about how I tried to convince Republicans to go a different way when I was still a member of the Party. I can talk about how I tried to vote serious people into office. I can talk about working the polls and using that experience as a refutation to the election denialism that gave us the failed insurrection on January 6th. I'll describe how I added my body to thousands of other bodies that filled the Chicago streets chanting "This is not acceptable." I'm not someone to sit on my ass when something needs doing and NOW is when something needs doing.
You mention above that your vision of an American civil war will pit ideology against ideology. What precisely is YOUR ideology? Mine's Schoolhouse Rock and Civics Class and Boys State and Working The Polls. You claim to NOT be a Trump fan, but in thread after thread, I can count on you being a reliable apologist for the man and the status quo that he represents. Here's a fun test - where do you stand on deporting the Californian farm workers who do the hard work of picking the produce we grow in this country? Are you for it, underneath a Stephen Miller-esque "all must leave" philosophy? Or are you against it, as Trump seemed to be this afternoon after learning about the completely predictable disruption that's causing? If you have to go see what someone else said about it before you can answer, you don't have an ideology. You're just a megaphone for whoever knows how to pick you up and blow hot air up your backside.
As with the economy, if the civil war will be fought ideology versus ideology, I feel pretty good where my ideology stands in relation to yours.
Hopefully that's enough honesty and admission to satisfy you for a while.
I am a Christian Constitutional Conservative, in that order. My first allegiance is to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then the greatest document of governance ever penned on parchment, and by the way, I take the words literally, I don't try to twist it into a pretzel thus making it ineffective. Lastly, I am a true conservative, which is why when Trump descended the escalator in Trump tower in 2015, I was immediately a #nevertrumper. Now, having said all that, let's talk about my feelings toward Trump. I have never voted for him, but I am in favor of SOME of his policies, such as immigration. I am staunchly pro legal immigration, to the point that if I were President I would advocate for raising the numbers that we allow in. But I am also strongly anti illegal immigration, except those who might have legitimate hardships from injustices in their home countries. Now, as far as those who have been let in under Joe Biden's disastrous policy, I want them deported, and they can later on come here legally. There is no excuse for illegals committing crimes in America and thinking they can get away with them. Let's now deal with these anti ice protests. Though I am a #nevertrumper, I am at the same time a truthseeker and truthteller, and I will not lie for Trump's opposition nor will I tell lies just because I don't like him as a President, hence the pushback I proudly give to the lies propagated by his opponents on Jan. 6th and other issues. If you can't handle my standing on these and other issues of the day, then I guess we indeed have nothing further to discuss. Just know, however, I am not a backer downer. I am more than willing to stand up for what I believe in, as you have stated that you are.
"If you can't handle my standing on these and other issues of the day, then I guess we indeed have nothing further to discuss."
Probably not, as we seem to be some kind of scientific miracle, arguing with each other from completely separate realities. As a self-proclaimed man of Christ, you'll appreciate the difficulty I have denying what I watched unfold throughout the day on January 6th (Civics nerd here), despite the fact that the witness I bore apparently is completely at odds with however you experienced that event.
Given the discontinuity between the universes we inhabit, there's no telling what other ruptures exist in the fabric of an otherwise objective existence, so I wish you well in your realm, while I work to make mine suck a little bit less.
I too watched about 6 hours of coverage of the Jan. 6th attack, and admittedly, i was initially horrified that conservatives and those on the right could take this kind of action, it was in the days and weeks after that that I began to realize what it actually was. Yes, a riot to be sure, and I certainly wanted the criminal element within the crowd prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But after some further investigation on my part, I began to see that a lot of what the media wanted me to get from their reporting just wasn't so. I read every word of Trump's speech on that day, and there was absolutely nothing in it that could be construed as him fomenting insurrection, in fact he exhorted his followers to march to the Capitol PEACEFULLY. Another thing that kept being reported was that some cops were killed as a result of the rioting, which also wasn't true, in fact the ONLY person who lost their life that day was Ashley Babbitt. And of course much of what I was finding out only reinforced my distrust and skepticism of the press
Always love the capitalization of Conservative: it just emphasizes how that's a group label rather than an actual principle/ideology.
What you don't like is that those that claimed asylum were paroled into the country while their cases are pending. That's still legal immigration - at least until the relevant cases are completed and any that are not granted asylum status given their determinations.
If it was only criminal immigrants that were being targeted, there'd be little issue here. That it's involving racial profiling is the issue at hand right now: ICE is just cruising around Home Depots and farms and restaurants grabbing anyone they think might be an immigrant. That's what people don't like.
To quote a conservative: "I continue to believe that a solid majority of the country wants birthright citizenship maintained, the borders secured, illegal immigrants who commit crimes while here (other than merely being here) deported, and the rest of them given a path to legalization if not citizenship."
Random vandalism - however widespread - is much less of a concern than a direct attack on Congress in an effort to stop the transition of power.
The Civil War was about ideology, too.
States rights and slavery ideologies? Ehh, not really.
The Confederate states explicitly said it was about slavery, not states' rights - the latter is some BS used by sore losers to try to make themselves sound better.
Which didn't happen
Ah yes, our eyes just lied about what happened. Sure.
I'm not saying your eyes lied, your lips...?
Sorry, archduke Ferdinand
Those that lit the Waymos on fire were arrested almost immediately after. I think it's a mistake to think that vandalism in such instances can be prevented entirely. It's pretty quick to smash a window or light a car on fire, after all.
The main thing here is keep perspective on the scope of the protests and any clashes/rioting. For example, this map has a to-scale indicator for where the events occurred (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtMCdB8WcAA4sNP?format=jpg&name=small), and this zoomed-in portion shows just how small it really is (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtMEiYoWQAAjrnr?format=jpg&name=small).
The thing about protests is it brings out all sorts - including those that just want to cause trouble or even harm the protest itself. Barring there being more coordination between protests and law enforcement - e.g. more law enforcement assigned to escort the protest and arrest vandals as they pop up - it's just going to be something that has to be dealt with.
This sounds like Trump should take control of ICE out of Stephen Miller's hands, since he seems to disagree with the actions happening right now: https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1933205206755340390
"The incident took place at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles where Marines took charge of the mission to protect the building earlier on Friday, in a rare domestic use of U.S. troops after days of protests over immigration raids."
"Reuters images showed Marines apprehending the man, restraining his hands with zip ties and then handing him over to civilians from the Department of Homeland Security."
"Asked about the incident, the U.S. military's Northern Command spokesperson said active duty forces 'may temporarily detain an individual in specific circumstances.'"
"'Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual(s) can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel,' a spokesperson said."
"Speaking to reporters after he was released, the civilian identified himself as Marcos Leao, 27. Leao said he was an Army veteran on his way to an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs when he crossed a yellow tape boundary and was asked to stop."
This story has a happy ending in that the man felt he was "treated fairly" and released. I think he's lucky he dealt with a Marine, as if it were ICE or CBP, he might find himself framed for being a gang member of some sort so that they could check of one more person for Stephen Miller's 3,000 deportations per day quota.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marines-carry-out-first-known-detention-civilian-los-angeles-video-shows-2025-06-13/