newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has significantly raised the stakes in his standoff with the Biden administration over illegal immigration from Mexico. He ordered the National Guard to install barbed wire along the Rio Grande River to prevent federal Border Patrol agents from approaching the border. As the Supreme Court made clear, his actions were in direct contradiction to exclusive federal control over the border, and the use of federal and National Guard troops not seen since the darkest days of desegregation in the South. It threatens conflict between the two countries.
No matter how deep the disagreements over border policy may be, Texas should ask the Supreme Court to overturn precedents that preempt states’ role in immigration enforcement, rather than leading to a breakdown in federal-state relations. It is. Congress also plays an important role by clarifying its position on whether border disasters constitute sufficient constitutional “invasion” or “imminent danger” to justify national self-defense measures. can be fulfilled. But unless Governor Abbott and his supporters in the state and Congress adopt this less confrontational but less immediately gratifying approach, he will lose in court and lose control of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. There is a good chance that it will be stolen.
Texas officials certainly have the best intentions. The Biden administration has allowed chaos at the southern border, where an estimated 3 million or more illegal immigrants entered the United States last year. This record surge has imposed significant costs on communities in Texas, Arizona, and California, created human and drug trafficking routes, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of migrants at the border.
Abbott declares Texas has ‘right to defend itself’ against immigrant ‘invasion’ amid feud with Biden administration
President Biden is largely responsible for this failure. For nearly 150 years, our constitutional system has recognized that protecting the nation’s territory is within the responsibility of the federal government. In the Chinese Exclusion Case (1889), the Supreme Court recognized the inherent authority of the federal government to exercise sovereign powers such as managing foreign relations, protecting national security, and controlling national borders. In a series of immigration laws, Congress directs the executive branch to detain aliens who enter the country illegally, hold hearings for aliens who claim political asylum, and deport aliens who enter the country without a valid visa. Ta.
But under pressure from far-left Democrats, the Biden administration adopted policies that would allow an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants across the border. The White House has reinstated the DACA and DAPA programs, which allow foreign nationals brought to the United States illegally as children (and their parents) to remain in the country. The country has adopted a policy of immediately releasing illegal immigrants who claim political asylum while they await trials that can be years away. Ended the Mexican Remain Agreement, which kept migrants in Mexico while awaiting resolution of their asylum cases.
Texas governor is doing ‘exactly the right thing’ amid constitutional battle over border enforcement: legal expert
After years of unenforced immigration laws, Governor Abbott responded by activating the Texas military. He initially sent troops from the National Guard to Texas to prevent immigrants from entering the country, detain and deport illegal aliens, and continue construction of the border wall.
He ordered the installation of barbed wire along the Rio Grande and floating fencing in the water to stem the flow of migrants into Texas. The barbed wire was also effective in preventing federal border agents from reaching the border. It removed barriers to allow foreign nationals to pass through for “processing,” but not deportation, which, in Governor Abbott’s view, only increased the flow of illegal immigrants into Texas.
Texas then upped the ante by suing Washington, D.C., to prevent the Border Patrol from removing barbed wire from the Rio Grande. Although he lost in federal court on the grounds that the federal government is immune from such lawsuits, he won a preliminary injunction in a federal appeals court in Texas that ordered the Department of Homeland Security to stop interfering with the barrier.
Rather than rely on judicial process to overturn Supreme Court precedent that eliminated the state’s role in border control and immigration, Governor Abbott proposed the kind of federal and state governments not seen since the South’s shameful resistance to Brown v. Immigration. Threatening to cause conflict. . Board of education.
But the Supreme Court last week lifted the injunction, allowing the U.S. to continue removing the barbed wire while the appeal progresses, perhaps eventually to the Supreme Court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would have allowed Texas to proceed; This is a strong signal that it is possible.
Texas’ Paxton promises ‘fight is not over’ after Biden administration’s SCOTUS ruling on razor wire cutting
But rather than rely on judicial process to overturn Supreme Court precedent that eliminated the states’ role in border control and immigration, Mr. Abbott is calling for a combination of federal and state governments of a kind not seen since the South’s shameful resistance to Brown v. Johnson. Threatening to cause conflict. Board of education.
Texas could argue that, as with most other issues, such as crime, federalism allows the state to act even in the absence of national policy. However, the Supreme Court blocked this possibility in United States v. Arizona (2012). In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled that the federal government has exclusive immigration authority and pre-empted Arizona’s efforts to strengthen enforcement of federal immigration laws. invalidated an Arizona law allowing
To avoid Arizona, Texas makes the startling and unprecedented claim that a huge influx of aliens to its borders amounts to an invasion. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees nations that the United States will “protect them from invasion.” In a statement on January 24, 2024, Governor Abbott accused Biden of breaking the “United States of America Agreement.”
Mr. Abbott declared that the state’s right to self-defense was “invoked” by failing to enforce immigration laws. Article I, Section 10 states that without the consent of Congress, states “may not engage in war, unless they are actually invaded, or in imminent danger of no delay.” declares. Abbott said the flow of migrants across the border constitutes an “invasion” and that Texas’ “constitutional authority to defend and protect itself…is the supreme law of the land, and any federal law to the contrary… We will give priority to this,” he said. He appears to have ordered soldiers in Texas to refuse to cooperate with federal agents.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Governor Abbott may think that the unrestricted movement of millions of people across a border filled with drug cartels looks like an invasion. However, he provides no evidence of the founding period.
It seems clear that the Founders would have defined invasion as a hostile military incursion into U.S. territory. Invasion requires an enemy, ideally a sovereign nation, but could also include Indian tribes or pirates.
A peaceful mass movement, even of 3 million people per year, cannot by itself constitute an invasion that justifies the use of military force. Because Article I, Section 10 deals with situations where a foreign state attacks a state before the federal government has had time to come to its rescue, this provision requires invasion or “imminent danger that cannot be delayed.” There is.
The border crisis is not imminent. Immigration in Latin America has been a persistent problem for decades. Danger is not the imminent occurrence of an external event. It stems from Congress and the president’s inability to agree on an answer.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Congress could help avoid a conflict that both Texas and the Biden administration appear to be hoping for. Congress, divided between a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, is unlikely to grant consent under Article I, Section 10, which would authorize the use of military forces in Texas. But the House could make its own factual findings that failures at the border rise to the level of “imminent danger” that would justify the state’s use of self-defense. Such a series of findings could strengthen not only Texas’ case in court, but also its political case against the public. For example, Rep. Jody Arrington (R-Texas) introduced his H.Res 50 to do just that. Without such Congressional support, Texas is likely to fail.
None of this negates the human tragedy at the border. However, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Constitution prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s monopoly over our nation’s territorial sovereignty.States organize political opposition to Washington, D.C., sue in court and seek to reverse Arizona v. U.S.. But Texas must use appropriate political and legal remedies, not the military, to change national policy. Otherwise, it poses a greater threat to the constitutional order than the problem it seeks to solve.
Click here to read more articles by John Yoo
