Is funding a National Guard deployment with private donations legal?

[daftandbarmy]

Might be a good idea we can borrow to keep the militia going in Canada


Is funding a National Guard deployment with private donations legal?

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said on Tuesday that up to 50 South Dakota National Guardsmen would deploy to Texas “to help secure the border between the United States and Mexico.”

“The deployment will be paid for by a private donation,” the statement read.

The idea of mobilizing the National Guard on a private donation immediately spread like wildfire on social media. Overwhelmingly, the question everyone seemed to be asking was: Is this legal?

Ian Fury, Noem’s spokesman, said the donation in question was made by Willis and Reba Johnson’s Foundation, run by Willis Johnson who Axios reported is a “Tennessee billionaire and high-dollar Republican donor.” Fury said the donation was “made directly to the state of South Dakota,” and the “soldiers will be on a state active duty mission.”


A private donor is funding a National Guard deployment. Nobody's sure if it's legal or not

 

[FJAG]

Wow. This is so fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

Just another example of how a certain segment of the political spectrum down there thinks it can do whatever it wants.

My guess is that this won't be an involuntary call up but that they'll find sufficient volunteers to go. If Texas and Johnson truly wanted more folks on the front line this millionaire could have easily funded Texas to deputize extra security personnel under state law to do it.

This is political grandstanding at a revolutionary level (and I use the term deliberately). I presume legal challenges are being furiously drafted in South Dakota's courts. Maybe Noem will send the state's MLRS battalion. Here's her wiki page.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just another example of how a certain segment of the political spectrum down there thinks it can do whatever it wants.

Like when Zuckerberg 'donated' millions of dollars to count votes and hundreds of drop boxes, in select locations, for the last election?

What if Johnson donated to the state and it went to general accounts. Then the state paid the NG from the general coffers or transferred it to the proper authority for payment? It would seem to me that a donation to the state would result in the state, now having ownership, using it for whatever they wanted. No?

 

[brihard]

Like when Zuckerberg 'donated' millions of dollars to count votes and hundreds of drop boxes, in select locations, for the last election?

What if Johnson donated to the state and it went to general accounts. Then the state paid the NG from the general coffers or transferred it to the proper authority for payment? It would seem to me that a donation to the state would result in the state, now having ownership, using it for whatever they wanted. No?

I don’t believe the claim is being made that it’s illegal. Screwed up as the US is, it’s entirely possible that a rich individual can pay a state to cover the costs of a state NG deployment to another state for a border security gig which should properly be a federal thing. So little surprises me in the circus to the south anymore.

I believe it’s more a matter of how very wrong it is to essentially have a privately sponsored military deployment for essentially law enforcement purposes in the course of a partisan stunt. Like come on, there’s no mental gymnastics or ‘what about’ that can make this not thoroughly screwed up.

 

[mariomike]

Like when Zuckerberg 'donated' millions of dollars to count votes and hundreds of drop boxes, in select locations, for the last election?

US Presidential Election 2020 has been LOCKED since 14 Nov., 2020.​

You were the last one to post in it.​

So, why bring it up again?

( Sorry about the bold. Something my computer does. )

 

[Fishbone Jones]

US Presidential Election 2020 has been LOCKED since 14 Nov., 2020.​

You were the last one to post in it.​

So, why bring it up again?

( Sorry about the bold. Something my computer does. )

I'm not bringing it up for discussion. I brought it up as an example of wealthy people paying personal money to do the job of government in a biased manner. I picked Zuk in case someone, tries to paint it as a purely republican problem.

I was unaware we were getting ahead of the C-10, C-36 initiative where someone decides for you whether what you wrote was relevant, topical or true.
So what you are saying, in effect, is that YOU have decided that any tie back to the 2020 election is out of bounds and you will actively try correct anyone attempting to do so. Have I got that right? Have you got an algorithm for that? Is this part f your mod duties now? Just wondering.

 

[mariomike]

So what you are saying, in effect, is that YOU have decided that any tie back to the 2020 election is out of bounds

No.

US Presidential Election 2020 was locked by another moderator.​

After you got in the last word.​

Don't take out your rage about it on me. Have a nice day.

 

[FJAG]

Like when Zuckerberg 'donated' millions of dollars to count votes and hundreds of drop boxes, in select locations, for the last election?

What if Johnson donated to the state and it went to general accounts. Then the state paid the NG from the general coffers or transferred it to the proper authority for payment? It would seem to me that a donation to the state would result in the state, now having ownership, using it for whatever they wanted. No?

That's just a superficial shell game.

What we've got here is a political stunt using the country's military to further a political, and private at that, objective.

Like I said if true security was the issue they could have hired private citizens and deputized them in Texas.

Surely everyone can see this for what it is.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No.

US Presidential Election 2020 was locked by another moderator.​

Don't take out your rage about it on me. Have a nice day.

What rage? Im not angry. I'm months passed all that. Now I'm an Ordained Dude.


I don't care who locked it. It was you, mariomike, that tried to put me on the spot and stop my discussion, with your ridiculous premise. It was you that tried to subvert my post with your obvious sideways slash. You. Nobody else. HAGO.

 

[brihard]

What rage? Im not angry. I'm months passed all that. Now I'm an Ordained Dude.



I don't care who locked it. It was you, mariomike, that tried to put me on the spot and stop my discussion, with your ridiculous premise. It was you that tried to subvert my post with your obvious sideways slash. You. Nobody else. HAGO.

So, with that settled, what’s your opinion on the appropriateness of a rich individual in the states privately funding a national guard deployment to another state to do border security work?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What we've got here is a political stunt using the country's military to further a political, and private at that, objective.

Like I said if true security was the issue they could have hired private citizens and deputized them in Texas.

Surely everyone can see this for what it is.

What we've got here is a political stunt using the country's military election to further a political, and private at that, objective.

FTFY

I'm sorry FJAG, really, I just don't see a lot of difference. There are many states sending military and LEO argumentation to the border to help. States that take the security of their country seriously and are willing to counter the open border policy of the biden administration or whoever is pulling his strings.

It's all good though. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Loachman]

So, with that settled, what’s your opinion on the appropriateness of a rich individual in the states privately funding a national guard deployment to another state to do border security work?

A number of US states are contributing resources to assist in security operations at the southern US border due to serious problems exacerbated by the current US administration.

Somebody has more money than me and cares about his country.

He decides to donate some of it to one of those state governments.

That state government decides to use it to fund a deployment of its National Guard to assist with border security.

A US state is hit hard by a hurricane. A number of US states decide to contribute resources to assist.

Somebody has more money than me and cares about his fellow citizens.

He decides to donate some of it to one of those state governments.

That state government decides to use it to fund a deployment of its National Guard to assist with relief operations.

No, I have no problem with either scenario

Perhaps a state decided to switch funds from its daycare budget to border security operations or disaster relief. Perhaps a rich guy, who cares about that state's pre-school children, could donate to cover the daycare funding gap. What's the difference?

 

[brihard]

A number of US states are contributing resources to assist in security operations at the southern US border due to serious problems exacerbated by the current US administration.

Somebody has more money than me and cares about his country.

He decides to donate some of it to one of those state governments.

That state government decides to use it to fund a deployment of its National Guard to assist with border security.

A US state is hit hard by a hurricane. A number of US states decide to contribute resources to assist.

Somebody has more money than me and cares about his fellow citizens.

He decides to donate some of it to one of those state governments.

That state government decides to use it to fund a deployment of its National Guard to assist with relief operations.

No, I have no problem with either scenario

Perhaps a state decided to switch funds from its daycare budget to border security operations or disaster relief. Perhaps a rich guy, who cares about that state's pre-school children, could donate to cover the daycare funding gap. What's the difference?

That’a disingenuous at best. It’s not “here state, have money.” And then the state happens to decide to spend it on a given thing. This is a privately funded military deployment. The money as given expressly to pay for sending military to the border. As has been well covered elsewhere, there are far more effective ways that money could be used to bolster border security rather than funding an out-of-state Guard deployment.

This is a dangerous and crass politicization of the military.

 

[Loachman]

The states own their National Guard components. They can enter into agreements with other states. When was the last time that a government turned down offers of financial assistance from private citizens?

Nobody seems to have found any illegality with this offer.

I see no "politicization", as it was a private offer and not an offer from a political entity.

This civic-minded person happens to donate to the Republican party. So what? He puts his money where he feels it will do the most good.

I applaud his initiative, and those living in border areas suffering property damage and theft and threat of violence caused by uncontrolled illegal border-crossers likely do as well.

 

[quadrapiper]

I'm sorry FJAG, really, I just don't see a lot of difference. There are many states sending military and LEO argumentation to the border to help. States that take the security of their country seriously and are willing to counter the open border policy of the biden administration or whoever is pulling his strings.

It's all good though. Thanks for the discussion.

To the best of my understanding, borders (defence of, who gets across) are solidly federal. The states, as such, don't get a vote in that: the state "voice" in federal matters is the Senate. Time to nationalize, and keep at home, the Guard of any state whose government decides to interfere in things entirely beyond their jurisdiction and scope, and to take whatever measures might have the same effect on law enforcement. For that matter, abolish ICE. Whatever actual utility the agency theoretically has, its personnel seem to have decided they get a voice in immigration policy.

Immigration policy in the US shouldn't be driven by the fears of people who don't want to see Mexicans around: that those people are given a voice prevents any sort of sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment.

 

[FJAG]

What we've got here is a political stunt using the country's military election to further a political, and private at that, objective.

FTFY

I'm sorry FJAG, really, I just don't see a lot of difference. There are many states sending military and LEO argumentation to the border to help. States that take the security of their country seriously and are willing to counter the open border policy of the biden administration or whoever is pulling his strings.

It's all good though. Thanks for the discussion.

There is no "open border" policy, whether Biden's or anyone else's. There's just an acceptance of the fact that you can't close the border down with minefields and machine gun towers a la East Germany. Rational people can disagree as to whether enough is being done and, if more needs to be done, how much should that be but you can't just shoot folks down at the border and apprehension brings its own problems with the administration of detainees.

The US Border Patrol has some 19,000-20,000 agents of which 17,000 police the southern border. There are millions of legal border crossings every month from Mexico into the US. 50 national guardsman from South Dakota will make no difference at all. A thousand additional ones from other states will make no difference.

This is an economic migration and a much smaller one then it has been in the past. It needs a better solution than some misguided millionaire paying for maybe two additional patrols on a 2,000 mile Texas border. This is crass politics and more importantly it sets a dangerous precedent when a political faction starts making use of military resources.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There is no "open border" policy, whether Biden's or anyone else's. There's just an acceptance of the fact that you can't close the border down with minefields and machine gun towers a la East Germany. Rational people can disagree as to whether enough is being done and, if more needs to be done, how much should that be but you can't just shoot folks down at the border and apprehension brings its own problems with the administration of detainees.

The US Border Patrol has some 19,000-20,000 agents of which 17,000 police the southern border. There are millions of legal border crossings every month from Mexico into the US. 50 national guardsman from South Dakota will make no difference at all. A thousand additional ones from other states will make no difference.

This is an economic migration and a much smaller one then it has been in the past. It needs a better solution than some misguided millionaire paying for maybe two additional patrols on a 2,000 mile Texas border. This is crass politics and more importantly it sets a dangerous precedent when a political faction starts making use of military resources.

Minefields and machine guns? Crass politics of millionaires using the military? Like Cheney and Blackwater, I presume? Watching the governor's press conference the other day where he said most of the augumentees would be used on known smuggling corridors and to help protect his citizens from the damage and destruction of equipment and property and the threats to the personal safety of the citizens from wandering immigrants. Not to mention the criminals and terrorists they've caught, sometimes more than once. Open Borders is not a policy or program. It's a globalist initiative and idea to destroy countries and reduce them to third world post national states. It is possible to have open borders without saying it. You just ignore it and let it grow by itself.
More than 12 million immigrants would enter the United States through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954. U.S. immigration peaks, in 1907 with 1.3 million people entering the country through Ellis Island alone.

The difference being, all these people applied, jumped through the hoops and followed the law. Unlike the present situation.

 

[Infanteer]

Private citizens using money to fund a military deployment. Who would do that?

Donald Smith, 1st Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hamilton Gault - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Loachman]

To the best of my understanding, borders (defence of, who gets across) are solidly federal. The states, as such, don't get a vote in that: the state "voice" in federal matters is the Senate. Time to nationalize, and keep at home, the Guard of any state whose government decides to interfere in things entirely beyond their jurisdiction and scope, and to take whatever measures might have the same effect on law enforcement. For that matter, abolish ICE. Whatever actual utility the agency theoretically has, its personnel seem to have decided they get a voice in immigration policy.

Immigration policy in the US shouldn't be driven by the fears of people who don't want to see Mexicans around: that those people are given a voice prevents any sort of sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment.

Private citizens funded and built a small section of wall in one high-traffic area a year or two ago, although there is some controversy about the quality of the foundation.

Regardless, states have jurisdiction within their borders and most certainly get a vote in that, especially when the federal government fails in its duty to adequately protect national borders.

I believe that the federal government is limited in its ability to nationalize the National Guard and can only do so under certain circumstances.

ICE can certainly speak up about the circumstances that they face. Illegal entry into the US is just as illegal as it is into Canada.

It is not fear fear of "Mexicans". It is the uncontrolled flooding of thousands of people from many countries into the US. Who pays for their support once in? How do they support themselves? Criminal gangs and drug cartels are moving operatives and large quantities of drugs such as fentanyl across, and human trafficking is taking place. A small number of people on terrorist watch lists have been apprehended.

Legal Mexican immigrants are very concerned about this. They followed the rules and paid the fees and filled the forms and waited for their applications to be adjudicated, in many cases facing increased waiting periods because illegal entrants clogged up the system. They also do not like being presumed to have entered illegally.

The "sane, efficient, straightforward pipeline to legal residency and employment" is being bypassed and overwhelmed, and gangs and cartels are profiting from it.

 

[Loachman]

Private citizens using money to fund a military deployment. Who would do that?

Donald Smith, 1st Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hamilton Gault - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. There is a lengthy history of that.

British armies were historically raised by wealthy landowners in times of need, which is why, today, it is the "British Army" and not the "Royal Army".