I’m … pretty sure no one asked her to, but progressive virtue-signaling is a 24/7 job.

There’s been no outreach by the President or federal officials, and I have no intention of allowing Oregon’s guard troops to be used to distract from his troubles in Washington.

— Governor Kate Brown (@OregonGovBrown) April 4, 2018

Coincidentally, she’s running this fall for her first full four-year term as governor in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to that job (or voted for a Republican for president) since the 1980s. Being against whatever Trump wants is good politics in Oregon, never mind that his Democratic predecessor ordered a similar National Guard build-up at the border in 2010.

This *would* be a problem for Trump under the Posse Comitatus Act if other governors followed suit, as the National Guard is exempt from that statute only if they’re acting under state authority. But border-state governors are all aboard:

Statement on @POTUS plan to deploy National Guard to border. Texas will continue to implement robust border security efforts to ensure the safety & security of our citizens. pic.twitter.com/FI9KH8JuOY

— Gov. Greg Abbott (@GovAbbott) April 4, 2018

Arizona welcomes the deployment of National Guard to the border. Washington has ignored this issue for too long and help is needed. For Arizona, it’s all about public safety.

— Doug Ducey (@dougducey) April 4, 2018

Susana Martinez is also offering her “full support” to the effort. The only major player who’s not enthusiastic about it is … the Pentagon? Parts of the Pentagon, at least:

At the Pentagon, several officials privately expressed concern about being seen as picking a fight with an ally at a time when the military has plenty of adversaries — the Islamic State, North Korea, Russia, Syria — to contend with. Massing American troops at another country’s border, several current and former Defense Department officials said, would send a message of hostility and raise the chances of provoking an all-out conflict…

In 1997, Esequiel Hernandez Jr., an 18-year-old American student, was killed by a group of United States Marines on a drug surveillance mission in Redford, Tex., while he was herding goats. Mr. Hernandez was the first American civilian to be killed by active-duty military troops since the Kent State massacre in 1970, and the episode led the Clinton administration to suspend troop patrols near the border.

That kind of encounter, or worse, could erupt if Mr. Trump sends a large number of National Guard troops to join the high number of other personnel already guarding the border, Defense Department officials said.

Trump probably will want a large number of troops down there — strength! — but the fears of a deadly misunderstanding between the Guard and Mexican troops seem overblown. If anything, having the Mexican military at the border too will make it that much harder for illegals to cross. It’s a master stroke, just as long as, ah, no soldiers on either side get killed, causing a total collapse in relations with one of our main trading partners.

The Central American caravan is still on its way north, by the way, or at least part is. Some 200 or so members are expected at the border in the coming days. Brandon Darby of Breitbart made an important point a few days ago, though: There’s no evidence (yet) that they’re going to try to cross the border *illegally*. The plan seems to be to arrive at a port of entry, surrender to U.S. officials, and request asylum due to fears of gang warfare back home. As someone pointed out to Darby on Twitter, in theory the entire population of Venezuela could show up at that same port and make an even stronger asylum case. The Democratic answer is obvious: Let ’em in! What’s the Republican answer?

.@guypbenson: Bush and Obama also sent troops to border, but critics will frame anything President Trump does as abnormal which detracts from the policy debate pic.twitter.com/2OTQrIgRVL

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) April 5, 2018