Texas Border Control Update for January 2, 2023

Some updates on Texas’ attempt to secure the border that the Biden Administration has intentionally left unsecured.

First, Texas Governor Greg Abbott started building a shipping container wall along the border.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that on Tuesday shipping containers were added to the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, serving as a blockade, as the city declared a state of emergency earlier in December to deal with the surge of illegal immigrants crossing into the US.

Abbott tweeted on Wednesday, “Texas is adding shipping containers to the US-Mexico border in El Paso. This is in addition to the razor wire and National Guard. Together, the strategies are causing illegal immigration at that location to plummet.” 

As The Post Millennial reported on December 14, El Paso has seen an average of 2,460 illegal immigrants cross into the US daily. That figure surged in the preliminary lead up to the expiration of Title 42,, which gave officials the ability to expel illegal immigrants over health concerns. 

On December 19, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a stay on the lifting of Title 42, originally scheduled to expire on December 21, and the pause has stalled the surge of border crossers entering the US.

Shipping containers may provide a decent stop-gap solution in highly trafficked areas, but fall far short of a comprehensive border wall solution.

Second, numerous counties in Texas have declared that an invasion is taking place.

At least 40 counties in Texas reportedly passed or considered resolutions last year claiming illegal immigration is an “invasion” amid a debate over how aggressively Gov. Greg Abbott should confront the federal government over border security.

The Center Square indicated that the following counties are included on the list: Atascosa, Burnet, Chambers, Clay, Collin, Ector, Edwards, Ellis, Fannin, Goliad, Hamilton, Hardin, Hood, Hunt, Jack, Jasper, Johnson, Kinney, Lavaca, Leon, Liberty, Live Oak, Madison, McMullen, Montague, Navarro, Orange, Parker, Presidio, Shackelford, Somervell, Terrell, Throckmorton, Tyler, Van Zandt, Waller, Wharton, Wichita, Wilson, and Wise.

Of those, only Terrell and Presidio are actually on the border.

Many of the resolutions were written to back Abbott’s Operation Lone Star, secure grant funding from the State of Texas, and pressure the federal government to take more aggressive steps to deter illegal immigration. Part of the funding, which was included in an appropriations bill passed in September 2021, is to help counties pay for additional law enforcement to respond to the increased criminal activity that accompanies illegal immigration.

Those who support border security measures focused on deterrence often say “every county is a border county.” Counties have cited fatal drug overdoses and concerns about human trafficking as part of the basis for passing these documents, even if many of the jurisdictions in question are hundreds of miles away from the border.

Gov. Greg Abbott embraced the characterization of illegal immigration as an “invasion,” but his approach to the strategy has been complicated.

In November, Abbott tweeted that he had invoked the “invasion” clauses of the federal and state constitutions and outlined border security measures that he had taken. Many news outlets reported the development as breaking news, but Abbott had instituted most of the measures he listed months earlier.

The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to protect states against invasions. In addition, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution authorizes states to protect themselves against the same.

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay,” the provision reads.

Article IV, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution addresses how the governor is to respond if the state is invaded.

“He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions,” the section reads.

All of these may help stem the giant Democrat-encouraged flow of illegal aliens into the country, but not as much as the federal government living up to its constitutional obligations to defend the border.

Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Texas Border Control Update for January 2, 2023”

  1. Seawriter says:

    It’s not an invasion unless you treat the invaders as invaders. That means when the state catches illegal immigrants they should be treated as an invading army. They should be held as prisoners of war until the invasion is over or they accept parole and are released at the Mexican border. Of course, that parole means a promise not to invade Texas again. So, if they are caught a second time they are held as illegal combatants – and not released until the invasion ends.

    I’ll also bet there are still laws on the books from the 19th century as to how illegal combatants can be punished. I am not saying we need to execute anyone, but I suspect the threat of it will cause illegals to avoid Texas. Which is fine by me. If they stay out of this state, they can plague the rest of the country as much as they want.

  2. jabrwok says:

    Given the Federales refusal to fulfil their Constitutional obligations, at what point does dissolution of the compact become justified? I know the Civil War supposedly answered the secession question: once in, never out. But that was then, and the Feds weren’t actively encouraging invasion of a non-rebellious State or collection of States.

    It’s looking more and more like the Feds are engaged in the Constitutional definition of treason.

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    Does actively encouraging invasion not qualify as “levying (de facto) war”? I suppose the winners will have to make that determination.

  3. […] than words, and Cuban stores sell rationed rum in bottles intended for cooking oil BattleSwarm: Texas Border Control Update, also, Dear Restaurants: Shove Your Damn QR Codes Behind The Black: SpaceX starts 2023 with first […]

Leave a Reply