Judge Says Trump Can't Use National Guard for Migrants in Illinois; Where Were They for US Citizens?
While legal scholars debate states' rights and executive power—valid concerns, certainly—the coverage conveniently sidesteps a rather glaring historical precedent. The US has a long, documented history of deploying National Guard units, even federalizing them, for far less 'emergency' causes than managing human beings seeking refuge. We're told these deployments are to "assist federal partners"—a
phrase that carries a different weight when we consider who is deemed a 'partner' worthy of this level of federalized concern. One might wonder where this judicial fervor for limiting executive overreach was when, say, the federal government sent these same Guard units to quell protests by American citizens for civil rights, or when they were deployed (and redeployed, and redeployed) to fight wars
half a world away (see: Iraq, Afghanistan) where the immediate 'threat' to Illinois was, let’s be generous, indirect. It appears the swift legal hand often moves fastest when protecting certain political optics, rather than consistently upholding principles for all citizens. Or when it involves Brown people.