Rebel Yell

The politics of ‘invasion’ in Texas.

By
277
Texas National Guard soldiers wait nearby the boat ramp where law enforcement enter the Rio Grande at Shelby Park on January 26, 2024, in Eagle Pass, Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered the Texas National Guard to defy a Supreme Court ruling allowing federal Border Patrol agents complete access into the area which has seen high numbers of illegal crossings. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

In modern politics, you’re forever one litmus test away from becoming a mortal enemy to your own side—or at least to the most drooling activist fringe of your own side.

John Fetterman discovered that recently when his heresies about Israel and border security led members of his progressive base, apparently, to wish another stroke upon him. Many Republicans have learned it the hard way, starting with the guy who served Donald Trump loyally as vice president for years and then nearly ended up lynched when he failed an especially big litmus test on January 6.

This week it was Amy Coney Barrett’s turn. Even helping overturn Roe v. Wade wasn’t enough to earn her a pass on the latest ideological litmus test, it appears.

On Monday, Barrett provided the deciding vote in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that lifted a lower court’s injunction. That court had temporarily barred federal Border Patrol agents from cutting through concertina wire that the state of Texas had erected along a particular stretch of land near the southern border. The wire is there to deter illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking, the state argued; the wire is impeding agents from reaching migrants to process them and assist the injured, the feds replied.

SCOTUS didn’t explain its reasoning in lifting the injunction, probably because the effect of its order is so limited. It didn’t bar Texas from installing concertina wire or other physical obstacles along other parts of the border. In fact, it didn’t bar Texas from installing more wire on this part of the border. All it did was allow the Border Patrol to cut through the wire as necessary to carry out its duties while the underlying litigation on the merits plays out, knowing that an appellate court is set to hear arguments early next month. The Supreme Court might very well side with Texas in the end.

But in activist circles, where every setback is an unimaginable catastrophe, the ruling amounts to nothing less than Barrett rubber-stamping a Joe Biden-approved “invasion” of the United States.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
277
By
Comments (277)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Are you kidding me? The left’s position is that federal immigration law takes precedence over states doing whatever they want? Have you heard of sanctuary cities? Mayors making essentially John C. Calhoun-style arguments for why they should get to nullify federal law?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    RightWithReason

    Late coming around to this one, but I couldn't keep from tossing in something about Tucker Carlson's intro to the brain-dead interview he conducted with the (aptly-named) Catturd. He calls Joe Biden "evil ... actually evil." Why? Because he's "dishonest, vicious," and "cruel to his fellow Americans."

    Does this constitute actual *evil?* If it does, then Tuck Finn might want to be careful about throwing that word around so casually. After all ... does it not perfectly describe another certain presidential candidate that he and Feline Feces seem to be pretty adamant about supporting...?

    Collapse
  3. Lee Rone

    I said nothing about ignoring laws. My point was that the number of illegal immigrants is huge but the total number of immigrants is not necessarily that large relative to historical population growth rates.

    We need the immigrants in order for businesses to grow, so that Americans can get their salary increases, promotions, and new job offers.

    The solution is to increase the number of legal immigrants. In doing so, the job openings will not incentivize illegal immigration at the same level, because job openings will be filled - by legal immigrants.

    With a reduced demand for illegal immigration (because open jobs will be filled by the increased number of legal immigrants), the border patrol will be able to take control of immigration and manage it properly.

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      Its a new Chicago every year. That's huge no matter what the metrics

      Collapse
      1. Lee Rone

        In recent decades the U.S. population had increased roughly 12% per decade. Currently the U.S. has about 333 million people, so a 12% increase at this point would be roughly 40 million in the next decade, or about 4 million more people per year.

        If the current number 200,000 illegals per month figure holds up (yes, a historically high figure), that comes to roughly 2.5 million per year. Legal immigrants apparently enter at about 1.5 million per year, so combined illegals and legals would account for the entire usual annual population increase in the U.S (which is 4 million per year based on the current U.S. population).

        Of course some of the population increase should be through US resident births outnumbering deaths; however, in recent years the numbers of US resident births and deaths have been roughly the same, with many states actually having more deaths than births.

        Since the number of US residents is barely growing, then if immigrants (illegal and legal) combined are increasing the U.S. population by 4 million per year, then the total US population increase is virtually identical to what it should be based on historical data.

        In other words the illegals are helping the U.S. reach its historic population increase of some 12% per decade, since U.S. residents are having so few children. The honest truth is that at this point illegals are the reason that U.S. employers are able to grow, and when U.S. employers grow, U.S. residents of all races get salary increases, promotions, and hot new job offers.

        My solution is simply to increase the legal immigrants from 1.5 million to 4 million per year, and decrease the illegals down effectively to zero. With the proper number of legal immigrants coming into the country and filling the open jobs so that U.S. employers can grow, there will be no incentive for illegals to enter the country (because there will be no remaining jobs for them, by and large). And Voila, our border problem will be solved...

        Collapse
  4. Dougrhon

    I agree with everything you say. But how about a word for the fact that the Biden administration is literallly IGNORING immigration law and forcing border states to do the same. I think this is somewhat unprecedented. Have we ever had a president openly refusing to enforce federal law in a manner that affects the lives of millions of people in the several states? At least since the days of the civil war? If Trump weren't the standard bearer for the GOP this issue would likely CRUSH Biden. I still can't wrap my mind around it. I don't buy all the conspiracy theories that says Biden is a secret communist who wants to destroy the country. I don't get why this is happening.

    Collapse
  5. Wdbadger

    The Constitution states that no state may "engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

    The issue presented is thus, not whether the State of Texas is being "invaded," but whether inserting concertina is "engag[ing] in war."

    Whatever one may think of the invasion analogy, it seems quite clear that Texas is not prosecuting a war by any conceivable definition of that term.

    The issue in dispute is whether the federal government can enter municipally-owned property for the purpose of removing the razor wire that Texas has installed. The Justice Department says that it can. The state says that it cannot. A confrontation would not be in either party's best interests.

    My (avowedly worthless) advice is for everyone to calm down. The case, as Nick points out, is still in litigation. The Supreme Court will sort out the legal issues after reading briefs and hearing arguments from both sides. Until then, the feds have more pressing issues to address than some concertina on a fence in Texas. Chill out and move on.

    Collapse
  6. Christina Pesavento

    “The darker the party gets under Trump, the harder it is to parse whether Republicans Who Should Know Better are egging on the worst impulses of their constituents for political advantage or because they’ve come to share them.”

    I’d submit that even if the former is the case, the latter is their inevitable destination.

    Collapse
  7. Dave1campbell

    If the Supreme Court had taken five minutes to explain their decision, might this spark have not erupted into flame?

    Collapse
    1. Dougrhon

      The USSC doesn't usually explain rulings like this.

      Collapse
  8. Rossknode

    Doesn't it seem like all these Republican influencers and what not are much like the Iranian leaders, they are more than happy to have others do their dirty work and pay the consequences (and die)?

    Collapse
  9. Lee Rone

    Since 1950, the U.S. population has increased by roughly 12% each decade. Currently the population is increasing at less than half the historical rate. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in many states is just over 2%, leaving America's employers desperate for workers and therefore unable to expand their businesses.

    Given these data, it seems to me that we need far more immigrants than the number we are getting presently, in order for the economy to grow.

    Those job openings across the nation are the magnet that is going to bring in workers regardless of the inaction of the federal government. If the government refuses to let in enough workers legally, job openings across the nation will incentivize them to come in illegally.

    We should count our blessings that the immigrants are coming into the country. Without them, in most states economic growth would be zero.

    Collapse
    1. Chek6Man

      Really? This article was about Texas ignoring federal law, and you argue that the federal government should ignore its own laws cause we need population growth? Oh, I forgot the flood of people coming across the border can just step up and get employed upon arrival without documents and an SSN. The administration must be giving incentives to small businesses to hire undocumented aliens to shore up the unemployment numbers.

      Collapse
      1. BPhillips

        You are reading a lot into his comment. I read it that maybe we'd be smart to reform our immigration laws and make it possible to actually immigrate legally & fill some needed positions here.

        Collapse
      2. Rossknode

        Where did he say anything about the federal government? He was merely pointing out economic facts and the consequences of not changing federal policies to accommodate the lower national birth rate and growing economy. If we don't "birth" new workers they've got to come from somewhere or those jobs won't be filled. Then we will economically stagnate or decline.

        Collapse
  10. Esther G

    Such a complicated issue to solve. There is no perfect solution for sure. No matter what is done, there will be human suffering of some form. I’m getting depressed thinking about this. Time to listen to some musical hits of the 80’s and 90’s to lift my mood.

    Collapse
Load More