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 g1 hours 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
Susanne R
Susanne R3 days ago

Paul B. - (Continued...)
She suggests the Times overplayed Clinton's emails, which "were not Watergate." Abramson praises the Times's doggedness in covering Trump, and notes the president's efforts to "inflame and polarize" with his "fake news" rants. But she also suggests some Times headlines and stories "contained raw opinion."

So, should I believe the author of the book or Fox Infortainment?

https://www.politico.com/media/newsletters/morning-media/2019/01/03/behind-the-times-romney-arrives-001697

Jill Abramson fired back at trump after using the fox news report in one of his inane tweets, in which he said, "Former @NYTimes editor Jill Abramson rips paper's ‘unmistakably anti-Trump’ bias. Ms. Abramson is 100% correct. Horrible and totally dishonest reporting on almost everything they write. Hence the term Fake News, Enemy of the People, and Opposition Party!"

She tweeted back at him: "Anyone who reads my book, Merchants of Truth, will find I revere @nytimes and praise its tough coverage of you."

So who do you believe, Paul? Fox, or the author herself? I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth. It's sad that people are so easily misled.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jill-abramson-donald-trump-new-york-times-bias_us_5c310666e4b0bcb4c25c4513

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R3 days ago

Paul B. - When you referenced the article from Fox "News" about how a former employee (former editor Jill Abramson) of the NY Times is now claiming that the Times has a trump-bias, you should have checked a few more sources --credible sources, that is.

According to an article in Politico, "FORMER NEW YORK TIMES EDITOR JILL ABRAMSON SAYS Fox News host Howard Kurtz took her forthcoming book, Merchants of Truth, "totally out of context" in his Wednesday report headlined, "Former NY Times editor rips Trump coverage as biased." Kurtz, who obtained a copy of the book in advance, reported Abramson having written that the Times's news pages under her successor, Dean Baquet, were "unmistakably anti-Trump."

“His article is an attempt to Foxify my book, which is full of praise for The Times and The Washington Post and their coverage of Trump," Abramson told me in an email. Abramson, who was fired from the paper in 2014, chronicles in the book how the Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, and Vice struggle in the digital era 'to keep honest news alive.' "

"The former top editor also looks critically at the Times’s 2016 coverage of Hillary Clinton, citing some "bad judgment calls," like the paper's handling of the Steve Bannon-linked Clinton Cash. She suggests the Times overplayed Clinton's emails, which "were not Watergate." Abramson praises the Times's doggedness in covering Trump, and notes the presiden

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R3 days ago

Paul B. - (Continued...)

But what about the children? Do you ever think about them? Are they any different from our own children? There are NO children of a lesser God. And if you believe there are, I feel sorry for you. You and I will be arguing forever, but in the end, the truth will come out. Will you be able to handle it?

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R3 days ago

Paul B. - That's what you get for watching Fox Infotainment: misinformed. Please tell me this: why is trump declaring a "state of emergency" to get his border wall funding? Where, exactly, is there an emergency at the border? Chris Hayes of MSNBC had reporters investigating the entire length of our southern border, and NO ONE agreed. He and other reporters spoke with Governors, mayors, and residents of bordering states --and no one was concerned about migrants. They WERE concerned about the expanses of desert and rugged terrain where ports of entry were unavailable. It was reported that the bodies of over 4,000 people, most of whom were women and children, have been found in those areas, dead from exposure to heat and lack of water because they couldn't gain entry to our country. They interviewed a resident of Mexican descent who scours the border areas for bodies, buries them, and provides a simple wooden marker to provide them with a bit of dignity. So far, he's done this for over 900 people. Evidently, you believe your hero when he says that the people from Central America who are seeking citizenship are murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and members of vicious gangs --as trump describes them-- and not terrified people with children who are trying to escape murderers, rapists, drug dealers and gangs from poorly-governed and poorly policed countries. But what about the children? Do you ever think about them? Are they any differ

SEND
Paul B
Paul B4 days 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 B4 days 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
Susanne R
Susanne R5 days ago

Paul B. - For the life of me, I can't understand what inspires you to defend Trump the way you do, but I'm beginning to think that you won't be convinced of his corruption even after he's been proven guilty in whatever court of law will end up trying him.

It's been fact-checked and proven that the leader of the free world has lied 8,000 to 9,000 times since he took office. Has he issued any retractions? Not to my knowledge. I looked up the number of retractions made by the NY Times, and I'm providing a link so you can see them for yourself, and I didn't see anything that involved their reporting on trump. They cover much more than politics, and from what I could see, the retractions were relatively minor in nature and didn't involve trump. You can delve deeper if you'd like, but I'm not seeing anything that would validate your accusations. The retractions I saw were typical of any newspaper. Be sure to scroll through the section towards the bottom of the webpage.

https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections

SEND
Paul B
Paul B5 days 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 R6 days 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