From Reuters,
Illinois sues to stop National Guard deployment as Trump escalates clash with states.
Here we go again. Chicago appears to be in open revolt against the Federal government.
The state of Illinois and the city of Chicago sued President Donald Trump on Monday, seeking to block the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Chicago, as hundreds of National Guard troops from Texas headed to the nation’s third-largest city.
Trump then escalated the widening clash with Democratic-led states and cities over the domestic use of military forces, threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act as a means to circumvent court restrictions on deploying troops where they are unwanted by local officials.
The proximate cause of this second civil war is federal enforcement of America’s immigration laws. Reuters reports,
U.S. District Judge April Perry allowed the federal government to continue the deployment in Chicago while it responds to Illinois’ suit. She set a deadline of midnight Wednesday for the U.S. to reply.
Shortly after that ruling, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office he might invoke the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent.
“Recent” would be a reference to the late unpleasantness? As it happens, Reuters doesn’t get around to the casus belli until paragraph 17.
Trump should take comfort that he has the people on.his side. Byron York of the Washington Examiner posts about a recent Harris poll (p.23),
‘Deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes’ gets 78% support. ‘Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally’ gets 56% support. On this issue, the minority is making all the noise.
York touches on this theme in a new piece which opens,
CHICAGO’S ‘ICE-FREE ZONE.’ One of the main themes of the second Trump administration has been the explosive collision between the president’s determination to enforce federal immigration law and many Democratic leaders’ determination not to enforce federal immigration law.
But, but, “states rights.”
