Immigration was already destined to be a crucial issue in this year's US elections. The standoff between Texas and the federal government, however, highlights how serious the problem has become and highlights an especially glaring vulnerability for President Biden in November.
Here's a summary of the escalating standoff. Last week, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court's progressive minority in a five-to-four decision that allows to U.S. Border Patrol agents dismantling barbed wire along the river in Eagle Pass, Texas, which the state had built to prevent illegal border crossings.
The federal government alleged that the barbed wire prevented the Border Patrol from helping migrants in distress, including three who recently drowned. Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded that the Border Patrol has never been denied access and blamed the Biden administration for migrant deaths. Abbott said he will continue to defend the state's border despite the Court's ruling.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has two other border-related cases pending against Texas. In one, the federal government is suing Texas to remove a 1,000-foot floating barrier the state erected on the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass. In the other, he is suing Texas to challenge a state law, scheduled to take effect in March, that would give state judges the authority to issue deportation orders.
Although the words “border”, “immigrant” and “immigration” do not appear in the Constitution, “invasion” does. Abbott argues that Article 4, Section 4, which promises that the federal government will “protect each [Estado] against invasion”, justifies his decision to intervene where the administration failed. Abbott has already declared officially the flood of illegal migrants as an invasion, arguing that Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes “the sovereign interest of the States in protecting their borders,” justifies their actions.
For its part, the administration says the courts have long given the federal government the sole authority to establish and enforce immigration laws. In the case of Arizona v. United States (2012), for example, the Court considered “fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety and security of their nationals in the United States be able to confer and communicate on this matter (immigration) with a national sovereign, not with the 50 separate states.”
We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule in pending and future cases, or whether it will accept the Texas “invasion” argument, although the decisions by Coney Barrett and Roberts in support of the Biden administration on the barbed wire issue are not promising in this regard.
In any case, Governor Abbott is correct that the administration failed to enforce the laws of the United States and enabled the migration crisis through a series of executive actions and policy decisions, including, but not limited to, its policies of catch and release, rolling back the successful “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers, halting border wall construction, granting mass parole to migrant offenders, and undermining the authority of Border Patrol agents.
The administration says it is acting on behalf of the Border Patrol in the Texas standoff. However, the Patrol union sides with Abbott. “The current catastrophe at the border was caused solely by… you guessed it… Joe Biden,” the Patrol wrote in a post on X. “There is not one Border Patrol agent who finds it acceptable to cut this barbed wire. Unfortunately, because of the decision of the Supreme Court, this becomes a legal order.” Progressives, like most unions, but not this one, and the media, for the most part, ignored his statement.
Can the arrival of migrants be considered an invasion? Many of those crossing the border do not have malicious intentions, although that does not mean they should be allowed to violate our laws. Does their cumulative effort pose a threat that could be considered an invasion? A group of ten retired FBI officers with more than 250 years of combined experience in the bureau's intelligence, counterterrorism and criminal operations divisions believe the answer is yes. They recently wrote a Letter to congressional leaders describing the migration crisis as a “new and imminent danger” that “may be one of the most pernicious threats ever faced by the United States.”
In modern history, “the U.S. has never experienced a home invasion, and yet one is unfolding now,” the former FBI officials wrote. “Men of military age from around the world, many from countries or regions unfriendly to the United States, are landing on our soil by the thousands—not by splashing from the shore of a ship or parachuting from an airplane, but rather by foot through a border that was accurately announced around the world as largely unprotected and granted easy access.” Just like the words of the Border Patrol union, this warning from employees has been practically ignored by the media, which gives Biden a pass on the border crisis.
As Democrats and Republicans fight over funding for border security and the war between Abbott and Biden and governors and mayors of Democratic states continues, how the president chooses to mitigate border-related harm in his re-election hopes will be telling. He may be in cognitive decline, as his critics insist, but he is still a seasoned politician capable of reading the polls, which show that the public holds him responsible for the crisis. Many independents and a not-insignificant share of Democrats want a secure border—perhaps explaining why Biden said over the weekend that he will “close” the border if Congress sends him border security legislation that includes funding for Ukraine.
“(The legislation) will also give me, as president, the emergency authority to close the border until it can be brought under control,” he said in South Carolina. “If this bill were law today, I would close the border now and would fix it quickly.”
Trusting Biden to fix the border “quickly,” or even fix it at all, would be a bit like trusting a doctor who accidentally amputated his leg to sew it back on. But even with 55 percent of Americans viewing Biden unfavorably, according to Real Clear Politics numbershe knows he will probably face an opponent with approximately equal unfavorable scores.
The president can appease his base and try to shift the conversation back to issues he prefers — abortion or “saving democracy” — or he can make a final effort to mitigate the crisis at the border and risk alienating progressives already furious with him over the war in Gaza.
Biden's “close the border” comments suggest he is listening to the warnings of influential voices like Ruy Teixeira at Liberal Patriot, who argued that immigration could cost him the election. If nothing short of saving his skin finally serves to motivate President Biden to enforce the nation's laws at the border, millions of Americans will accept it.
Dave Seminara is a writer, former diplomat and author of 'Mad Travelers: A Tale of Wanderlust, Greed & the Quest to Reach the Ends of the Earth'[Viajantes loucos: uma história de desejo, ganância e a busca para alcançar os confins da Terra].
©2024 City Journal. Published with permission. Original in English: Biden's Border Catastrophe
#Texas #case #Biden39s #border #catastrophe #Article #People39s #Gazette
