Replies

As I understand it the state governors would still be able to override the placing of guards on the border if they need them (in the event of a natural disaster, for example). I don't know what keeps liberal bastions like California from simply refusing to place guards on the border by creating one excuse after another - hell, I wouldn't put it past their kook court would rule it unconstitutional.

So....they're going to borrow guards from other states, maybe the Midwest, to fill in the gaps? It could end up being a super-colossal sh*t storm. This isn't so much an issue of state's rights in my opinion. Those are our national borders and they have to be protected as such. I mean, suppose Santa Anna III suddenly felt froggy - would we expect Nevada and New Mexico to hold them off?

They shouldn't send this out with such a huge loophole.

It is weird - when we did not have any troop options, we had Arizona's sheriff deputizing thousands to patrol the borders themselves, we had minutemen volunteering.

Now that we have Bush putting Guard there - we will see all kind of backing off of allowing the guard, misusing the guard or claiming it is the wrong way to go.

But, you are right - especially in California. If they don't want the Guard, then provide their own people to man the borders.