This article covers upcoming deployment.
I haven’t come across overall Indiana sentiment on this yet
There are many things I’m unhappy about in this matter:
- Deployment of Indiana guard for something the federal government should be doing.
- Putting Indiana citizen soldiers in a very difficult position: having to deal with immigration policies in actual practice, political shenanigans, dealing with humanitarian issues when the primary mission isn’t saving lives. We are good at war and helping save lives, anything else is asking for trouble.
- Combining immigration policy with border protection. I don’t like that they aren’t separate. I feel like it’s all political games, but someone convince me that we can’t control borders without barring all immigration.
- Crazy talk about federalizing a state’s national guard.
- Crazy talk about States and federal government clashing to the point of escalation. I don’t think cool heads and reason win the day anymore. I feel like the populous seems willing to support more extreme measures these days
- Separation of service members from their families
On one positive side, this will give 50 service members and their families a first hand view of a major topic instead of hearing it from the news.
I’ve been saying it for a while now:
The longer Biden takes to invoke title 10 and activate Texas NG under federal command, the more other states are going to send people, and the less likely they do t all listen when Biden inevitably does it
Ignoring this only makes it worse
The whole time, Republicans have been saying, “hE hAsn’T dOnE AnYThInG!!!1!1!1!”
Well, Joe, now’s your chance to show them.
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake
It isn’t a mistake. Their base loves it.
What do you think would happen if the Federal government tried to activate the entire state’s national guard?
How do you see that playing out?
Sounds dangerous and scary.
Bruh, title 10 is common…
Of course, for combat deployments, and operational support.
The context of the article, and some people’s comments was using title 10 to assert military control over a state, and in the home state of the force, which would be a whole other thing.
Doesn’t that make sense?
It’s not just that, it happens often. It’s not unusual for 10% or more guard time to be title 10.
Invoke title 10, have them secure the border from whoever else is opposing CBP, then send them all home.
If Texas activates them again, repeat.
I think what’s going on here is you don’t know about this stuff, but you don’t. Just spend a couple minutes googling it
Dude, I was talking about your comment:
Your comment implies putting significant or all of the Texas guard under title 10, to keep Texas from using them for border security? To keep Texas in line?
Do you? I question your reasoning for mentioning title 10, and for using the example of federally activating a state’s national guard as a deterrent for other state’s supporting Texas, if that’s what you meant?
The only reason he wouldn’t have done that by now is a private understanding that the national guard would refuse his orders.
the state governments paying the guards to jack off at the border will eventually cost them elections. It makes more sense to wait for a real emergency and nationalize the guards then rather than protect republicans from their own false narrative