New Mexico Governor Orders National Guard Away From Border

While the United States suffered through an excruciatingly long State of the Union address on Tuesday, an interesting piece of news quietly dropped: New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grishman ordered most of the National Guard recalled from the border in her state.

It was a sharp rebuke to the president, who has been heatedly insisting that the U.S.-Mexico border is a hotbed of crime that can only be controlled with a wall — or metal barrier. Trump has wasted considerable resources on security theater at the border, and the governor’s move signaled that she was disinterested in being used as a pawn in the ongoing conversation about border security.

Some of the slightly over 100 troops posted at the border will be left in place for humanitarian work, with the governor noting that groups of migrant families in very poor health are in need of medical attention. Troops being used as law enforcement, however, will be sent home — and not just to New Mexico.

Members from units in multiple states wound up at the border, being used effectively as border police, which does not align with the mission of the National Guard and is not a mission they were trained to perform.

The governor referred to the situation as a “charade of border fearmongering” in remarks explaining her decision. To make sure the president got the news, Lujan Grishman also put up a snarky Twitter video, knowing that the platform is Trump’s preferred medium.

This isn’t the first time a governor has rejected the Trump administration’s call for military forces at the border; multiple states, including Republican-led ones, declined to station such troops when asked to do so by the administration. In New Mexico, the stakes are especially clear, as the state houses immigration detention facilities where two children have died in the “care” of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in recent months.

It’s also not just New Mexico that is rejecting Trump’s claims about what is happening at the border, pushing back on his narrative of a “disaster” and noting that the only crisis is a humanitarian one. In Texas, mayors and law enforcement have both stated that they don’t see value in the proposed wall.

Turning the border into a war zone will not improve safety and security, and it can be lethal for people trying to cross; those desperate enough to cross illegally won’t be deterred; they’ll just look for a more remote — and, consequently, dangerous — area.

Of course, most illegal immigration doesn’t take the form of undocumented people crossing the border. The far bigger contributor is people overstaying their visas. Two-thirds of cases involve this scenario, and it’s actually on the rise. Cracking down on the border harms the most vulnerable, including people fleeing physical and sexual violence in nations disrupted by U.S. foreign policy.

This decision is another sign that some states are more willing to flex their muscles and defend their right to make policy decisions that are effective and appropriate for their residents. As the Trump administration pushes for policies that verge on unconstitutional — in addition to being unconscionable — one might argue that states have a duty to stand up to him in the name of defending civil and human rights.

Photo credit: MivPiv/Getty Images

65 comments

heather g
heather g2 months ago

People in authority are finally seeing sense. Change is painfully slow, but these types of decisions are important in opening the eyes of those still under a spell.

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

There are many more articles that address this same bias issue with the Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and most of the Liberally controlled media. BTW., did you see where the Senate Intelligence committe, including all leading Dems on the committee have admitted they could find NO EVIDENCE of any Trump Russia collusion and preparing their viewers of a "nothing burger" report from Mueller. That sentiment is spreading. the next question is why and how did this all start. The way the media has hounded this issue for two years is a major example of FAKE news. Spewing garbage without any evidence, as they tried so hard to "make-up" stuff because they were all trying to one up their Trump trashing. That is another reason I call them all Fake NEws. That was SOOOO big and was the beginning of all his Trump hatred. Do you realize the problems all that fake reporting has caused this country. Now McCabe is talking about how it was all a set-up at his direction... at least partially. There is so much more coming out I am afraid your media sources are failing to report... as always, just as I mentioned prior.

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

For more examples of fake news... check out this article concerning the investigation of Covington high school kids in DC. It IS shameful the way they were treated by the media. Just another example of the media you seem to swear by.

BTW Susanne, Trump has NOT lied 8-9,000 times I don't care how many times you say it. Those fact checkers are many times as biased as the media they are working for, as they are all from the same liberal bunch.
I have read that already, but most of the times the NYTimes fails to correct many of their inaccuracies in reporting. They are extremely misleading to their readers. Maybe I should say that their reporting is heavily biased, not so much that they lie but fail to give readers the FULL story, taking selected bits that are negative to Trump while ingoring all the things that are favorable to him. From a journalistic standpoint, I would call that fake news as it only presents a one-sided view of a particular issue.

Try this article.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/john-v-walsh/ny-times-relentlessly-biased-trump/

This one is from a former chief editor at the Times.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/03/howard-kurtz-jill-abramson-rips-anti-trump-bias-new-york-times

There are many more articles that address this same bias issue with the Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and most of the Liberally controlled media.

BTW., did you see where the Senate Intelligence

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

Susanne,
I have never read anything from the National Inquirer, and as you pointed out, there is a good reason for that.
As for the NYT, true journalism requires that you actually do valid research PRIOR to publishing reports. While the NYT times may state their intent, over the past several years, they have strayed far from their core values of "honesty and Integrity". If that was their mission, then they should do more on the front-end before publishing fake and otherwise distorted news to the world in the first place. In their fervor to trash Trump at any opportunity, they have allowed this NEW mission to override their original intent. Just look at what they have reported on page 1 in bold type (sarc) when too often they have to retract days or months later on page 26 that few if anyone ever reads or sees.
Yes Integrity and honesty are managed on the front end not "after the facts are known." How about getting facts right FIRST. That is what people, like you, are entitled to, but most only remember what they first read which creates the biased perception many readers have of what is actually going on.
The once heralded NYT is nothing what it once was. And I am speaking almost entirely of their political coverage, not of the paper as a whole which I don't doubt they do a much better job in other areas of coverage.

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - I'll save you the trouble.

THE NEWS LEADER IN INVESTIGATIVE CELEBRITY JOURNALISM

Editorial Mission Statement:
Enquiring Minds Want To Know!

The National ENQUIRER has a proud 92-year history. Insatiable headlines, scandals and unforgettable stories have made this title a household name! We report the unvarnished stories about celebrities: their antics, celebrations, loves, mishaps.

Plus, the ENQUIRER covers high profile national and international scandals like no other - with exclusive breaking news. If it's a gritty true crime story, or political scandal, no matter what is reported, National ENQUIRER readers are first to know!

https://www.americanmediainc.com/brands/national-enquirer

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R2 months ago

Paul B. - Only a source that is intent upon providing its readers with truthful information will issue a "retraction." They do it for the sake of providing their readers with credible information and for their own integrity and credibility. And you see that as a negative?

Publications that don't issue retractions don't care whether or they're right or wrong. They're simply trying to keep their base by telling them what they want to hear. The NY Times has a mission and defined values:

Mission: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world. This mission is rooted in our belief that great journalism has the power to make each reader's life richer and more fulfilling, and all of society stronger and more just."

Independence: Over a hundred years ago, The Times pledged "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved." That commitment remains true today: We follow the truth, wherever it leads."

Integrity: "The trust of our readers is essential. We renew that trust every day through the actions and judgment of all our employees - in our journalism, in our workplace and in public."

Now, please provide me with the mission statement and defined values of trump's personal mouthpiece: David Pecker's National Enquirer.

SEND
Dr. Jan H
Dr. Jan Hill2 months ago

thanks

SEND
Janet B
Janet B2 months ago

Thanks

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

Susanne,
Here is the latest Gallop poll published just 5 days ago.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/246563/million-border.aspx

SEND
Paul B
Paul B2 months ago

Calling The HYT and USA Today as legitimate sources while both have many more retractions that any source I have used is quite interesting. I would suggest you take your own advice and seek alternative sources.
When you talk about "reliable", while the NYT may get some stuff factually correct, as far as their political coverage, it is atrocious, filled with lies and factless opinion.

SEND