The Feds vs. Texas

If you don't watch Fox News, you may not have noticed the thousands of people illegally entering the country daily through our southern border.  Fox has been showing it ever since Biden took office, and reversed Trump's border protection policies with one Executive Order after the next.  With so many coming through into Texas, the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, decided the rest of the country should share in the misery; and he started having busloads of illegal immigrants sent up north, to sanctuary cities.  Eventually, when the Democratic mayors of these cities started complaining about the problem, the Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex ((D-MSMC) had to report on it also.     

Then, Governor Abbott took things a step further.  He decided that if the Biden Administration would not enforce existing immigration law, and stop what amounts to an invasion of our country, that he would try to do so.  The Governor said he had a duty and responsibility to protect the people of Texas.  Therefore, he ordered that razor wire fencing be put up along a section of the Rio Grande River.  It was an attempt to stop the overwhelming flood of people entering the country, and the state, illegally.  But President Biden would have none of it.

Reasonable people might ask why the President has encouraged millions of people to enter the country illegally.  After all, he did not have to undo all of President Trump's border protection policies immediately upon assuming office.  Reasonable might ask why much of the Democrat Party has been going along with this open border policy.  Clearly, Biden does not care about the sovereignty of the United States.  Clearly, Biden does not care about protecting the American people - neither in terms of their personal safety nor their economic well-being, given the added tax burden placed on the public by so many people's social needs.

So why does Biden want to undo/remake America?  The only thing that I can think of is that he and the Democrats expect all these people here will vote, and they will vote for Democrats.  Because Democrats are buying their votes with numerous handouts.  In California, people here illegally essentially have the same rights as legal residents.  They can get a driver's license, food stamps, Medi-Cal (known as Medicaid in other states), emergency shelter and transitional housing, and even get a job (although the employer may get in trouble).  

Back to the border dispute between Biden and Texas.  Biden sued Texas.  The 5th Circuit said the border patrol did not have the right to take down the razor wire put up by Texas, intended to block people from entering the country, and Texas, illegally.  But, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed.  The five Justices voting in favor of Biden and the federal government included the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.  Voting with them was Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.  Opposed were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.  

At the trial level, the District Court Judge, after looking at all the photos of so many entering illegally, questioned why the border patrol needed to cut the razor wire fencing put up by Texas.  Although siding with the federal government, the judge opined that cutting the fencing appeared to be "for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland."

I do not pretend to be an expert in immigration law.  Article 1, Section 8 does give Congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  The main law on the topic seems to be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, although that law has been amended various times.  (I certainly welcome comments by any immigration law experts.)  

Article 2, Section 3 says that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  There is now widespread agreement that Biden is not doing that with regards to the immigration laws.  And Article 4, Section 4 has this interesting provision:  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."  I think we can reasonably call the illegal entry by 7 to 10 million people an "invasion."  And Biden clearly has no interest in protecting the states from that invasion.  

Article 1, Section 10 has this provision:  "No state shall, without the consent of Congress...engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."  Following Governor Abbott's decision to continue protecting the Texas border, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, had an Op-Ed in the 1/30/24 Los Angeles Times, with this title:  "Texas' frightening lawless defiance of a Supreme Court order."  Yes, the US Constitution says the US Constitution and federal law are supreme over state law.  

But Governor Abbott claims there is an invasion of his state.  The pictures from the border do not lie.  Then Chemerinsky misses the mark, by citing cases that are not apropos.  Yes, President Eisenhower had to send in federal troops to assure the protection of black students in Little Rock, Arkansas.  But there, you had a state governor acting in violation of federal law.  Governor Abbott is trying to enforce federal law, by not allowing people to enter the country wherever and whenever they wish to do so.    Perhaps that is why the Republican Governors Association, as well as former President Trump, all support Governor Abbott.  

I find it interesting that the Democrats had no problem with ignoring federal laws when they set up sanctuary cities and states.  Or when they said they need not comply with requests to hold criminal illegal immigrants until they they could be picked up by ICE in order to be deported.  I've said it a number of times before - if the federal government won't enforce the law, then no one should be surprised if others choose to do so.  I, for one, stand with the Governor who cares about US sovereignty, and who cares about protecting the people of his state.  I do not stand with a lawless president.