Volunteers help seedlings take root as New Mexico attempts to recover from historic wildfire - By Susan Montoya Bryan Associated Press
A small team of volunteers spent a few hours scrambling across fire-ravaged mountainsides, planting hundreds of seedlings as part of a monumental recovery effort that has been ongoing following the largest wildfire in New Mexico's recorded history.
The Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon blaze was spawned in 2022 by a pair of botched prescribed burns that federal forest managers intended to lessen the threat of catastrophic fire in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Instead, large swaths of northern New Mexico were reduced to ash and rural communities were upended.
It rained overnight, making for perfect conditions for the volunteers in the mountains near the community of Mora. It was just enough to soften the ground for the group's shovels on Saturday.
"The planting was so easy that we got done a little early and ran out of trees to plant that day. So it was a good day," said David Hernandez, a stewardship ecologist with The Nature Conservancy, which is partnering with the Hermit's Peak Watershed Alliance on the project.
Nearly 400 ponderosa pine seedlings were placed in spots identified by the U.S. Forest Service as high priorities, given the severity of the burn. Those locations are mostly areas where not a single live tree was left standing.
It's here where land managers, researchers and volunteers hope the seedlings will form islands of trees that can help regenerate more trees by producing their own seeds over time.
The Nature Conservancy used donations to purchase a total of 5,000 seedlings. New Mexico Highlands University is contributing another 3,500 seedlings.
The trees will be monitored to gauge success.
Researchers at New Mexico State University's Forestry Research Center in Mora are experimenting with drought-hardening some seedlings to prepare them for the warmer and drier conditions they could face when they put down roots in burn scars. That means the plants are watered less frequently to make them more drought tolerant.
Owen Burney, the center's director, said his team has yet to scale up the number of drought-conditioned seedlings, but more will be ready to plant in the spring.
The Hermit's Peak Watershed Alliance team was on its way up the mountain again Monday to do more work. They will continue daily through early October, with a couple more weekend planting sessions for interested volunteers.
The goal is to get the seedlings in the ground before the first freeze.
There have been days when 20 volunteers have been able to plant around 1,000 trees, said Joseph Casedy, who works with alliance.
"It's strength in numbers," he said, acknowledging that repeatedly bending down to drop the trees into their holes before compacting the surrounding soil can be fatiguing work.
Burney, Hernandez and others say there's a need to bolster the infrastructure required to develop seed banks, grow seedlings and do post-fire planting as wildfires have decimated large swaths of the U.S.
This year alone, more than 11,460 square miles have been charred, outpacing the 10-year average. The National Interagency Fire Center also notes that there have been delays in reporting actual acreage burned given the "very high tempo and scale" of fire activity across the nation over recent months.
In northern New Mexico, reseeding started soon after the flames were dying down in 2022 as crews began working on mitigating erosion and flood damage within a burn scar that spanned more than 534 square miles across three counties. In the first phase, federal agencies were able to seed about 36 square miles and spread mulch over thousands of acres more.
In the last two years, tens of thousands of more acres have been seeded and mulched, and sediment catchments, earthen diversions and other flood control structures have been built at countless sites. Still, runoff from heavy storms the last two summers have resulted in damage.
There are certainly patches of ground that aren't taking seed because they were burned so severely, and Casedy said it will take more time and funding to address problems in those areas. But he said other spots are bouncing back, providing some hope.
"Ground cover is looking a lot better this year," he said. "At the place I'm standing right now, there's 10-foot-tall aspens coming in."
Most Hispanic Americans support abortion access: AP-NORC poll - By Giovanna Dell'Orto, Amelia Thomson-Deveaux, Luis Andres Henao And David Crary, Associated Press
For decades, some political analysts have sought to depict Hispanic Americans as "socially conservative" — and indeed many of them are.
But a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that a solid majority of this diverse population — whether they're Catholic, Protestant or religiously unaffiliated — believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases.
It's a finding of interest as debate over abortion access is in the spotlight ahead of the U.S. election on Nov. 5.
The Democrat's presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, strongly supports abortion rights. Her Republican rival, former President Donald Trump, boasts about appointments he made to the Supreme Court that led to repeal of the nationwide right to abortion.
Overall, the new AP-NORC poll, conducted Sept. 12-16, found that Hispanic Protestants and Catholics — despite their theological differences — are remarkably similar in their demographic makeup and views on major issues, including abortion and immigration.
POST-ROE V. WADE VIEWS ON ABORTION
According to the poll, about 4 in 10 U.S. Hispanics identify as Catholic, about one-third as Protestant or "other Christian," and about one-quarter as religiously unaffiliated. About half of the Protestants identified as evangelical or born-again, as did about 10% of the Catholics.
Around 6 in 10 Hispanic Protestants and about two-thirds of Hispanic Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. A similar share think Congress should pass a law guaranteeing access to legal abortions nationwide.
That's similar to other major religious groups in the U.S. except for white evangelical Protestants; only about one-quarter of them say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Overall, a majority of U.S. Catholics from multiple demographics support abortion-rights, even though the Catholic hierarchy describes opposition to abortion as its preeminent priority.
Ali Valenzuela, an American University professor of government who studies Latino politics, said many Hispanics used to be anti-abortion, primarily because of their religiosity.
He attributed the shift in viewpoints to "the changed political reality" after the Supreme Court's 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, which put abortion access at risk in many states.
About 4 in 10 Hispanic Protestant and Catholic registered voters said abortion policy is among the most important issues for their vote in November. They were more likely to say the economy, health care, crime and immigration are among the most important issues.
TRUMP VS. HARRIS
Regarding the presidential race, Hispanics were largely divided in their assessments of Harris and Trump. Harris was viewed somewhat or very favorably by about 4 in 10 Hispanic Protestants and about half of Hispanic Catholics, and Trump was viewed favorable by about 4 in 10 Hispanic Protestants and Catholics.
Lorraine Martinez, a 68-year-old Californian, said she was raised Catholic. While she's not a regular churchgoer now, her upbringing in the faith informs her values to "take care of your neighbor, be kind and not cruel."
She said her 35 years as a schoolteacher inform her priorities this election season: immigration and education.
"To see (migrant) kids come in and they're flourishing, and the acceptance of the other children for them is phenomenal," said Martinez, who remembers Vietnamese refugees in her school starting in the 1980s and different groups of immigrants since.
Martinez, who plans to vote for Harris, added she strongly opposes mass deportations and family separations.
She also supports legal access to abortion, viewing reproductive health issues, including IVF treatments, as something women should decide without governmental interference.
Pam Butcher, 54, from Waverly, West Virginia — whose mother's family came to the U.S. from Mexico — is a Trump supporter who says abortion should be illegal in most cases.
"It's very important to me; I'm pro-life," Butcher said. "I mean, if a mother's life is in danger, then it has to be done in order to save her, and if that's her choice, possibly rape and incest … but to me, it's murder."
Trump, she said, "didn't outlaw abortion, but instead gave the states back their rights" on a highly contentious issue.
Butcher attends a Protestant church and says her faith is important in her daily life as well as her decision to vote for Trump.
"The country was founded on religious principles," she said. "I don't think that religion should be forced on anyone. But I also don't believe that it should be forced out of everything either."
Gabriela Maldonaldo, 20, a Catholic from Chicago, also said she's voting for Trump.
She said she opposes abortion, while adding that sometimes it's a medical necessity. She believes Republicans will be better able to handle other issues that are important to her, including the economy, crime and immigration.
To Californian Haylee Rader, 21, the top issue this election season is inflation. "It's hard even to afford a gallon of milk, and gas is really high," said the community college student, adding that her mother, who's Latina, has to drive half an hour to work.
On immigration, Rader believes that "just crossing over is wrong," and that the government needs a better system to legally process those who come seeking safety in the United States.
In the poll, about half of Hispanic Protestant and Catholic registered voters said immigration is one of the most important issues for their vote; only about 1 in 10 in each group said it's not important.
Roughly 6 in 10 Hispanic Protestants and Catholics said religious groups should provide assistance to immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. That's in line with the views of Americans overall.
Neither Trump nor Harris has an edge among Latino Catholics on their handling of immigration. Latino Protestants are slightly more likely to say they trust Trump to handle the issue.
OTHER POLL FINDINGS:
--Hispanic Protestants and Catholics have similar patterns of church attendance. About 2 in 10 say they attend church once a week or several times a week, about 4 in 10 attend at least once a month, and about 2 in 10 never attend.
--About 7 in 10 Hispanic Catholics say they speak a language other than English at home, compared to about half of Hispanic Protestants.
--About 6 in 10 Hispanic Catholics have a somewhat or very favorable view of Pope Francis, compared to about 3 in 10 Hispanic Protestants. Overall, 4 in 10 Americans view Francis favorably.
The diverse political views of Hispanic Americans is reflected on several fronts in the ongoing election campaign. For example, there are Hispanic American candidates in two of the most closely contested U.S. Senate races.
U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, a Democrat running in Arizona, is the son of immigrants from Colombia and Mexico. Bernie Moreno, a Republican running in Ohio, emigrated with his family from Colombia when he was a child.
And there are sharp contrasts related to abortion.
Samuel Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, published an op-ed on Fox News this month saying the Democrats' full-throated support for abortion access might alienate some Hispanic Americans who are open to restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy.
"The Democratic Party has now shifted dramatically to an 'abortion on demand' policy, which includes late-term abortions," wrote Rodriguez, a pastor in California. "This extreme position deeply unsettles many Latinos, particularly those of faith."
In New Mexico, meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced that construction is getting underway on a state-funded abortion clinic that will serve local residents and people traveling from neighboring states such as Texas and Oklahoma with sweeping bans on abortion.
"This clinic will stand as a testament to our state's commitment to reproductive freedom," Lujan Grisham said.
___
The poll of 2,028 adults was conducted Sept. 12-16, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points
The boyfriend of a Navajo woman is set to be sentenced in her killing - By Anita Snow Associated Press
The boyfriend of a Navajo woman whose killing became representative of an international movement that seeks to end an epidemic of missing and slain Indigenous women was due in court Monday afternoon to be sentenced for first-degree murder.
Tre C. James was convicted last fall in federal court in Phoenix in the fatal shooting of Jamie Yazzie. The jury at the time also found James guilty of several acts of domestic violence committed against three former dating partners.
Yazzie was 32 and the mother of three sons when she went missing in the summer of 2019 from her community of Pinon on the Navajo Nation. Despite a high-profile search, her remains were not found until November 2021 on the neighboring Hopi reservation in northeastern Arizona.
Many of Yazzie's friends and family members, including her mother, father, grandmother and other relatives, attended all seven days of James' trial.
Yazzie's case gained attention through the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women grassroots movement that draws attention to widespread violence against Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada.
The U.S. Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs characterizes the violence against Indigenous women as a crisis.
Women from Native American and Alaska Native communities have long suffered from high rates of assault, abduction and murder. A 2016 study by the National Institute of Justice found that more than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women — 84% — have experienced violence in their lifetimes, including 56% who have been victimized by sexual violence.
Judge to decide whether police use-of-force expert can testify in 2023 Oñate shooting trial - Austin Fisher, Source New Mexico
A man accused of attempted murder wants help from a former police officer to convince a jury he was acting in self-defense when he shot someone at a protest of a statue in northern New Mexico.
State prosecutors handling the case argue the testimony would confuse the jury, and an independent expert told Source New Mexico it’s uncommon for someone whose expertise is in police use of force to be testifying as an expert in a case about civilian use of force.
Ryan Martinez, 24, has been held in the Tierra Amarilla jail for nearly a year awaiting trial, which begins Oct. 7.
Last September, he was recorded on video carrying a concealed 9 mm handgun, repeatedly trying to rush into an area outside the county commission chambers in Española where around 50 people were peacefully celebrating county officials’ decision to postpone resurrecting a statue of genocidal Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate.
Martinez shot Jacob Johns, a Hopi, Akimel O’odham activist from Washington, once in the chest. Martinez then allegedly turned the gun on Malaya Peixinho. The gun jammed, and he fled the scene.
The final round of litigation before the trial begins is scheduled for a Sept. 26 hearing before First Judicial District Court Judge Jason Lidyard.
Martinez’s lawyers are also asking the judge to prohibit Johns and Peixinho from testifying about their injuries from the shooting. Another issue Lidyard is expected to resolve is whether to allow former Albuquerque Police Department officer Damon Fay to testify.
Martinez’s attorneys in May notified the court they intend to call Fay as an expert witness.
They said he’s an expert in “use of force, including self-defense,” and they want him to testify about that along with “handling of firearms.”
State prosecutors in August asked the court to either limit Fay’s testimony or entirely exclude him from the trial, because the case doesn’t involve police use of force, the defendant is not a police officer, and the legal standards between how officers and non-officers use force are different.
First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies wrote in a court briefing that Fay’s testimony would “undoubtedly confuse the jury by testifying to a police officer’s use of force when the Defendant is a private civilian.”
“A strict line falls between the use of force by law enforcement officers and private civilians: civilians are not authorized to use force,” Santa Fe’s top prosecutor wrote. “The standards of evaluation between the two are very separate and distinct.”
In response, Martinez’s attorneys Nicole Moss and Marshall Ray wrote Fay is certified to train both police and private citizens in the use of force in self-defense.
He’s qualified “by knowledge, skill, and training” to help the jury understand the “appropriate response to use of force by any human on another human,” they wrote.
‘The rules are different’
Seth Stoughton is a former police officer turned law professor who regularly testifies as an expert witness in cases about police use of force. He is the faculty director at the Excellence in Policing & Public Safety Program at the University of South Carolina.
In an interview on Sept. 19, Stoughton said he refuses to take on civilian self-defense cases and security guard cases, “because the rules are different.”
“Of course the prosecutor is going to say, ‘It doesn’t matter what the police principles are here, or what a police officer would do, this is not a police use-of-force case,’ and I think that’s probably right,” he said.
Experts can testify about relevant aspects of civilian self-defense cases, he said. A psychologist, for example, could talk about why someone experienced a particular type of fear. Other experts could talk about the effects of fear on the human body, perception and cognitive processing, he said.
“There really isn’t — and there really should not be — a civilian use of force expert field,” Stoughton said.
The rules governing self-defense basically come down to how a reasonable person on the street would perceive and react to the situation, he said, and not what a trained police professional would do.
By contrast, police use of force is evaluated according to written guidance and training, Stoughton said.
The Rio Grande SUN reported that two days before the shooting when Martinez learned Rio Arriba County officials had postponed the statue ceremony, he wrote an email to County Manager Jeremy Maestas, “Has the ceremony really been cancelled (sic) tomorrow morning??My statue won’t return?”
The statue did not belong to Martinez. Stoughton said it’s worth noting there’s no self-defense claim for property. You can’t use deadly force to defend your own property, let alone a publicly owned monument that isn’t yours, he said.
Part of what frustrates Stoughton about violence around monuments is that while he recognizes and applauds the fundamental right to protest and counter-protest, he said physically fighting over what’s ultimately a political decision one disagrees with “is fundamentally anti-democratic and un-American.”
“You are showing, when you do that, a massive disregard and disrespect for democratic processes,” he said. “If you wanted that monument, vote for the people who support the monument. That’s how we handle issues of public dispute in a democracy.”
Alec Baldwin urges judge to stand by dismissal of involuntary manslaughter case in 'Rust' shooting - By Morgan Lee, Associated Press
Alec Baldwin urged a New Mexico judge on Friday to stand by her decision to skuttle his trial and dismiss an involuntary manslaughter charge against the actor in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of a Western movie.
State District Court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case against Baldwin halfway through a trial in July based on the withholding of evidence by police and prosecutors from the defense in the 2021 shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film "Rust."
The charge against Baldwin was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be revived once any appeals of the decision are exhausted.
Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey recently asked the judge to reconsider, arguing that there were insufficient facts and that Baldwin's due process rights had not been violated.
Baldwin, the lead actor and co-producer on "Rust," was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during a rehearsal when it went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza. Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer — but not the trigger — and the revolver fired.
The case-ending evidence was ammunition that was brought into the sheriff's office in March by a man who said it could be related to Hutchins' killing. Prosecutors said they deemed the ammunition unrelated and unimportant, while Baldwin's lawyers alleged that they "buried" it and filed a successful motion to dismiss the case.
In her decision to dismiss the Baldwin case, Marlowe Sommer described "egregious discovery violations constituting misconduct" by law enforcement and prosecutors, as well as false testimony about physical evidence by a witness during the trial.
Defense counsel says that prosecutors tried to establish a link between the live ammo on set and Gutierrez-Reed, to drive home the argument that Baldwin should have recognized the armorer's blundering youth and inexperience.
"Baldwin was intitled to pursue the truth at trial, especially after he requested to see 'all rounds, casings and deconstructed rounds' in the state's possession," the new court filing by defense attorneys states. "Yet the state deliberately withheld the evidence that Baldwin had requested."
"Rust" movie armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is serving an 18-month sentence on a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. She was accused of flouting standard safety protocols and missing multiple opportunities to detect forbidden live ammunition on set.
Assistant director and safety coordinator David Halls pleaded no contest to the negligent use of a deadly weapon and was sentenced to six months of unsupervised probation. A no contest plea isn't an admission of guilt but is treated as such for sentencing purposes.
Judge to hear update on Rio Grande SCOTUS case in October - Danielle Prokop, Source New Mexico
The new special master for the Rio Grande water fight between Texas and New Mexico is asking for an update from all the parties in a scheduled Oct. 23 hearing in Denver.
The U.S. Supreme Court appointed a new judge to supervise the case in July, following the high court’s June ruling that dismissed a potential deal to end a decade of litigation between New Mexico and Texas.
Special masters act as a trial judge in cases. They decide issues and write reports to inform the U.S. Supreme Court’s ultimate opinions in a case.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith, appointed by the Bush administration, ordered the parties on Sept. 9 to present the history of the case and suggest the next steps in the resolution.
Whether the case goes to trial or back to the negotiation table remains to be seen.
The case is officially called Original No. 141 Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado. Colorado is tangential to the lawsuit. The dispute is primarily between Texas and New Mexico.
In a 2013 complaint, Texas alleged that years of pumping in New Mexico below Elephant Butte Reservoir took Rio Grande owed to Texas.
That would violate the 85-year-old document — a compact from 1939 — that governs how Rio Grande water is split between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. The Rio Grande Compact also covers treaty obligations to Mexico, and agreements to provide water to regional irrigation districts.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the federal government to join the case. Justices unanimously accepted the federal government’s arguments that New Mexico groundwater pumping threatened the treaty and irrigation water deliveries.
After one half of a trial and nearly a year of negotiations, the states — Colorado, Texas and New Mexico — put forward an eleventh-hour deal to end the lawsuit, which included adding a river gage at the Texas-New Mexico border. Attorneys for the federal government and the regional irrigation districts objected to the deal, arguing it added unfair requirements and was void without their agreement.
A previous special master recommended the U.S. Supreme Court accept the states’ deal over the federal government’s objections.
But in June, the high court narrowly sided with the federal government rejecting the deal, ruling in a 5-4 opinion that the case should continue.
Survey shows candidates are for legislative reform, unsure about ranked choice voting - By Nicole Maxwell, New Mexico Political Report
A survey by four nonprofit organizations showed that candidates for state and federal office support pro-democracy and government reform, according to those groups.
Common Cause New Mexico, Fair Districts New Mexico, New Mexico First and New Mexico Open Elections emailed out surveys after the June primary to 170 candidates, of those 37 responded, a 21 percent response rate.
“While this is not a scientific survey, the response rate is comparable to other candidate surveys and helpful in ascertaining the level of support for our issues and where candidates need additional information,” Common Cause New Mexico Policy Director Mason Graham said in a press release.
The survey asked respondents about their support or opposition of things like modernizing the legislature, opening primaries and ranked choice voting.
“Overall we observed broad support across all of the proposed policy reforms with only a few exceptions with less than majority support,” the survey states.
Some of the findings included:
● 66.7 percent support and 23.1 percent somewhat support amending the constitution to extend the legislative sessions to 60 days in both odd and even-numbered years
● 76.3 percent support and 13.2 percent somewhat support legislation that required increased disclosure of lobbying activities
● 71.8 percent support and 15.4 percent somewhat support opening primaries to voters who decline to state and minor parties without having them change their voter registration
● 61.5 percent support and 25.8 percent somewhat support amending the constitution to allow an independent redistricting commission for the 2030-2031 election
● 74.4 percent support and 10.3 percent somewhat support amending the constitution to remove the prohibition on legislative compensation
● 69.2 percent support and 10.4 percent somewhat support legislation requiring increased financial disclosures from elected officials
● 28.2 percent support and 28.2 percent somewhat support the use of ranked-choice voting in state-level general and/or primary elections
The survey also showed that 20.5 percent of respondents were unsure about ranked choice voting with 18 percent opposed to the proposal.
Ranked choice voting is when voters rank each candidate instead of voting for just one.
The survey was sent to members of all parties including independent and minor parties with 23 candidates for New Mexico State House of Representatives, 12 candidates for State Senate and two candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives responded.
The survey respondents were those who had won their primary elections and received the nomination as their party’s nominee for the general election. The candidates were sent a digital fillable form in June. Responses were then received through August, the report states.
“We are heartened by the huge support (over 75 percent) for two 60-day legislative sessions, additional lobbyist disclosure laws, open primaries, an independent redistricting commission, and the removal of a constitutional provision preventing legislative salaries,” New Mexico Open Primaries Deputy Director Perry Radford said in a press release.
More information about the survey will be presented during the Democracy Open House Event at 5 p.m. on Sept. 26 at Juno Brewery, 1502 First Street NW in Albuquerque. Visit nmopenelections.org/democracy_open_house for more information about the event.
Trump's goal of mass deportations fell short. But he has new plans for a second term - By Elliot Spagat, Associated Press
Donald Trump has long pledged to deport millions of people, but he's bringing more specifics to his current bid for the White House: invoking wartime powers, relying on like-minded governors and using the military.
Trump's record as president shows a vast gulf between his ambitions and the legal, fiscal and political realities of mass deportations of people in the United States illegally — 11 million in January 2022, by the Homeland Security Department's latest estimate. Former President Barack Obama carried out 432,000 deportations in 2013, the highest annual total since records were kept.
Deportations under Trump never topped 350,000. But he and his chief immigration policy architect, Stephen Miller, have offered clues in interviews and rallies of taking a different approach if they are returned to power in November. They could benefit from lessons learned during their of four years in office and, potentially, from more Trump-appointed judges.
"What Trump seems to be contemplating is potentially lawful," said Joseph Nunn, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law. "There might not be a lot of legal barriers. It is going to be logistically extraordinarily complicated and difficult. The military is not going to like doing it and they are going to drag their feet as much as they can, but it is possible, so it should be taken seriously."
The Trump campaign, asked how his pledge would be carried out, said Trump would begin the largest deportation program in U.S. history, without elaborating in detail. Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman, said Trump "would marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers."
How would Trump overcome inevitable legal challenges?
Trump has said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that allows the president to deport any noncitizen from a country that the U.S. is at war with.
Texas Gov, Greg Abbott has advanced a theory that illegal immigration amounts to an invasion to justify state enforcement measures, so far without success, but legal scholars say judges may be reluctant to second-guess what a president considers a foreign aggression.
The sweeping Alien Enemies Act authority may sidestep a law that bans the military from civilian law enforcement.
Trump has said he would focus on deploying the National Guard, whose troops can be activated on orders of a governor. Miller says troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate.
"The Alabama National Guard is going to arrest illegal aliens in Alabama and the Virginia National Guard in Virginia. And if you're going to go into an unfriendly state like Maryland, well, there would just be Virginia doing the arrest in Maryland, right, very close, very nearby," Miller said last year on "The Charlie Kirk Show."
The military has been peripherally involved at the border since President George W. Bush's administration with activities that are not deemed to be law enforcement, such as surveillance, vehicle maintenance and installing concertina wire.
Nunn, of New York University's Brennan Center, said Trump may look to 2020, when he ordered the National Guard to disperse peaceful Black Lives Matter protests near the White House, despite the mayor's opposition. Trump did so without invoking the 18th-century war powers law, but the District of Columbia's federal status gives the president outsized authority to act.
Trump may also contend with rights afforded under immigration law and court rulings that took shape after 1798, including a right to seek asylum that became law in 1980. Under a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, people in the country illegally can't be detained indefinitely if there is no reasonable chance their countries will take them back. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and others are either slow to accept their citizens or refuse.
How would Trump pay for this?
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is funded by Congress for 41,500 detention beds this year, raising questions about where Trump would house people before they board deportation flights and how long they could hold them if countries refuse to take them back. Miller floated the idea of "large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas."
ICE officers are painstakingly deliberate, researching backgrounds of their targets and prioritizing people with criminal convictions. They try to capture suspects outside their homes because they generally work without court warrants and people don't have to let them inside.
A single arrest may require hours of surveillance and research, a job that one ICE official likened to watching paint dry.
"On practical level, it will be nearly impossible for (Trump) to do the things he's talking about, even if could bring in the military," said John Sandweg, a senior Homeland Security Department official in the Obama administration.
Obama's deportation numbers were made possible by local police who turned people over to ICE, but many state and local governments have since introduced limits on cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Obama's presidency also predated a surge of asylum-seekers at the border, which drained limited resources of the Trump and Biden administrations.
How would a mass deportation drive fare politically?
While many support Trump's plans, mass deportation could tear apart families, exacerbate labor shortages and uproot people with deep ties to their communities. Pew Research Center estimates 70% of households with at least one person in the United States illegally also have someone in the country legally.
Military leaders are likely to resist because it would undercut other priorities and damage morale, Nunn said.
"The military is going see this and say this is not the kind of duty that soldiers signed up for," he said. "This is getting the military involved in domestic politics in a way the military doesn't like to do."
Adam Goodman, associate professor of history and Latin American studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who has written about deportations, said a threat of a mass expulsion can have a serious impact even if it isn't carried out. He thinks it is highly unlikely that Trump can do what he promises but it can strike fear in immigrant communities.
In June 2019, Trump announced ICE would "begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens" the following week. A month later, the agency said it targeted about 2,100 people, resulting in 35 arrests, indicating the president's plans fell far short but only after they generated widespread concern in immigrant communities.
Trump himself acknowledged the political perils during an interview Sunday with journalist Sharyl Attkisson. "You put one wrong person onto a bus or onto an airplane and your radical left lunatics will try and make it sound like it's the worst thing that's ever happened," Trump said, before repeating his pledge: "But we're getting the criminals out. And we're going to do that fast."