The administration of then-President Donald Trump began a new phase in its immigration repression policy by authorizing the direct action of military troops on the southern border of the United States. According to a publication by Politico, for the first time, hundreds of soldiers will start to carry out active surveillance in the region, no longer acting only in logistical support functions to assume a role closer to the front line. The operation includes the use of Stryker armored infantry vehicles, as well as the use of night vision equipment for monitoring open areas, as revealed by defense officials involved in the planning.

These troops, belonging to the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, will be deployed especially to Texas and Arizona. Although U.S. law prohibits military personnel from detaining civilians or performing typical law enforcement duties, soldiers will be authorized to conduct foot patrols and transport Border Patrol agents to points where their presence is necessary. According to Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, this logistics will allow law enforcement officials to be present or in nearby locations during operations, enabling rapid responses to any incidents.

The Army also reported that the military deployed to the border will be armed and will be able to act in self-defense if they are attacked. The use of advanced technology and the ostensible presence of troops are part of a larger effort to create a buffer zone along the border. This protected zone, which is still under evaluation, would be established on federal lands located in the state of New Mexico, under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The objective would be to increase surveillance over the smuggling of migrants and prevent their entry into US territory.

However, the buffer zone proposal raises legal questions. The idea is that by turning these strips of land into military protection areas, the government can justify detaining migrants on the grounds that they are trespassing on military property. This maneuver would avoid the need to trigger the Insurrection Act of 1807, an extreme measure that would allow the armed forces to detain civilians, but which has a strong political and legal load.

Legal experts are skeptical about the legality of the proposal. Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on the military's internal use, argues that this initiative represents a distortion of the doctrine of “military purpose”. According to him, this is an attempt to circumvent the legal restrictions imposed by Congress to allow the armed forces to act in public security functions, which can be challenged in court.

The troop movements and plans to expand their role on the border reveal the Trump administration's willingness to make the most of military resources to bolster its immigration policy, even in the face of criticism and possible legal deadlocks. The debate on the limits of the use of the armed forces in the national territory, especially on issues as sensitive as immigration, remains open and is expected to continue to generate controversy.