Conflicts deepen over states’ rights at Texas border
Channel: So now what
Date: 2024-02-09

Conflicts deepen over states’ rights at Texas border


Republican Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is bringing immigration to the frontlines with a standoff between federal and state governments. 

In a moment of contention between two levels of government, the Biden administration’s federal troops were blocked from disassembling 30 miles of concertina wire securing the border city of Eagle Park, which has become a hotspot for illegal immigrant crossings. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration could continue sending federal troops to dismantle the immigration barriers. 

Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas sued the Biden Administration in Oct. 2023 for cutting wire sections placed intentionally to inhibit immigration access to the Texas Eagle Park landing. The Biden administration justified their troops’ infringement on state proceedings by citing federal supremacy.

 “In court papers, the Biden administration said the wire impedes Border Patrol agents from reaching migrants as they cross the river and that, in any case, federal immigration law trumps Texas’ efforts to stem the flow of migrants into the country.” 

The Supreme Court ruling does not stop Abbott from implementing barriers to migration, but it does permit the federal government to remove the barricades. 

“With regard to the court, all that the justices did on Monday was to vacate a lower-court injunction, which had itself prohibited federal officials from cutting or otherwise removing razor wire that Texas officials have placed along or near the US-Mexico border,”. 

Abbott is not technically resisting the Supreme Court order because he is not mandated to reform his immigration strategies. However, another issue arises with Abbott disregarding the authoritative power granted to the federal government through the supremacy clause. Abbott is intentionally disregarding federal actions and hindering federal workers. The Texas government defended its actions by citing Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the constitution which justifies Abbott’s extreme response. Besides, the lack of action by Federal authorities may also qualify the Governor to take action for the protection of his people. 

The clause suggests states are limited in their response to conflict unless specifically subjected to attack. Specifically, Clause 3 says “no state shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops … unless invaded”. Millions of illegal aliens have flooded Texas, which by most definitions, is an “invasion”.

Abbott is invoking Clause 3 by claiming that immigrants are invading the state of Texas, and in this way, his informal methods of barricading are exonerated. Abbott asserts that immigrants are non-state actors working to dismantle or invade the state’s system. 

Abbott is treating the immigrants as agents of destruction through his use of concertina wire. Abbott has barricaded the Texas border crossing with 30 miles of concertina wire, which is typically used to reinforce prisons and obstruct enemy troops during war.

Some Democrats have been calling for the Biden Administration to federalize the Texas National Guard. The president has this unique power, under an act known as Title 10, to take over any state’s national guard to suppress disorder and rebellion. However, recent rulings have called into question whether the President can actually take over troops called into action by the Governor.

This action has seldom been invoked but has proved necessary at various points in history. When Brown v. Board of Education mandated the desegregation of public schools, former President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to ensure the upholding of the integration. 

This seemingly binary conflict between the federal and state governments has been exacerbated because of the election year. 

Congress is attempting to pass a massive spending bill, with Democrats pushing for Ukrainian support while Republicans remain unassailable on immigration. One main point of contention is additional spending on the wars in Ukraine and Israel. We would have to borrow this money from China to give to Israel and Ukraine. 


However, once news of Biden’s Border Bill reached Donald Trump, he was quick to berate the bill and urge his Republican congressional allies to sink it.  The Bill had numerous “pork Belly” items and additional war funding for Ukraine and Israel.

As Trump emerges as a strong frontrunner for the Republican nominee for President, he is once again becoming a formidable force within congressional and national political spheres. 

“Republican senators and the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board seem to think that Mr. Trump believes an immigration deal would help President Biden win the election,” said David J. Bier, the associate director for immigration studies at the Cato Institute.

Illegal immigration is one of the most potent election year issues and is far from resolved.