On Jan. 19, Texas Governor Greg Abbott vowed to continue to defend his state’s border in spite of a 5-4 Supreme Court mandate granting the US Border Patrol authority to remove the razor wire Texas installed along the US-Mexico border.
After the judicial ruling, the Department of Homeland Security called on Texas officials to stop blocking federal Border Patrol agents from entering Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, an area that the agency had been using to hold and inspect migrants to comply with federal law. According to the department, Texas’ decision violates Border Patrol’s legal obligation to apprehend and process migrants attempting to cross the nation’s border, leaving federal authority unable to access the region. Historically, Abbott’s decision to interfere with federal authority marks the first time such an action has been taken since the desegregation cases that saw state governments resist the authority of the federal government in the 1950s and 1960s.
Social Studies teacher Pankaj Sharma references the unconstitutionality of a state government choosing to defy the authority of a Supreme Court ruling, which the state of Texas has embraced for the sake of enforcing more stringent border security measures.
“Based on what I know, it doesn’t seem like on constitutional grounds, the state can defy a Supreme Court ruling,” Sharma said. “However, I wonder if Abbott is betting on political grounds, it will benefit him in what he’s advocating for by bringing more attention to the situation. The Constitution specifically says that immigration policy is determined by the federal government. I think Texas and its governor is expressing frustration that the federal government isn’t doing more [in terms of immigration policy]. But ultimately it seems like a federal response will be required.”
…The Constitution specifically says that immigration policy is determined by the federal government. I think Texas and its governor is expressing frustration that the federal government isn’t doing more [in terms of immigration policy]. But ultimately it seems like a federal response will be required.”
— Social Studies teacher Pankaj Sharma
On Jan. 31, the Texas Department of Public Safety announced that Texas troopers had begun the process of arresting migrants at Shelby Park, which has alarmed federal authorities and local officials. When questioning the court’s action, the Republican governor criticized its lack of clarity, which seeks to remove the razor wire and allegedly violate Texas’ ability to protect the state from the threat of “invasion”. As a result, the Texas National Guard now patrols Shelby Park, having built a barrier that combines tall “anti-climb” fencing and razor wire to keep migrants from coming through and federal Border Patrol agents from gaining access.
As per current immigration policy, when a National Guard soldier encounters a migrant, the soldier has the right to detain the migrant until a state trooper can make an arrest for trespassing. Afterwards, the migrant is taken to prison to await a hearing before a magistrate judge and once the case is adjudicated, the migrant is turned over to federal officials, who then determine whether or not to deport them.
Sharma acknowledges the political battle that has emerged as a result of surging immigration numbers, which has seen countless politicians weaponize immigration to gain more voters who will support their ideologies.
“It seems logical that there would be one immigration policy decided by the federal government,” Sharma said. “But the politics for immigration right now are so polarized and tense that I think the governor of Texas sees a political opportunity here to score points in favor of his beliefs and criticize the Biden administration.”
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has not gotten involved in the situation, choosing not to sue the state of Texas despite winning the Supreme Court ruling allowing it to take down the razor wire the state positioned in Shelby Park, leading to increased migrant drowning deaths. According to three Biden administration officials, the federal government seeks to avoid a potential confrontation between Border Patrol and Texas National Guard, yet are willing to resort to legal action if necessary. That being said, as Texas looks to expand its control of the border, the state’s National Guard is contemplating seizing control of areas outside of Eagle Pass that have experienced significant increases in migrants since the state took over Shelby Park.
For now, as the administration simultaneously attempts to pass a border bill and defend Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in an impeachment fight, confronting the Republican-led state would add another obstacle to the administration’s goal to appear tougher when it comes to policies concerning border security.
