UNBIASED - Special Report: The Southern Border Dispute (Texas vs. Biden Admin)

Episode Date: January 27, 2024

In this special report, I'm covering everything you need to know about the current border dispute between the Biden Administration and Texas.(0:00) Intro(0:56) Operation Lone Star(1:57) Relevant Legal Battles(5:10) Recent Supreme Court Decision(6:35) Post-Decision Remarks By Gov. Abbott(10:38) Support Letter Signed By 25 Republican Governors(12:37) Article IV, Section IV (Guarantee Clause)(13:30) Article I, Section X, Clause III (Compact's Clause)(13:51) Texas' Constitutional Argument(14:27) Supreme Court Precedent Re: Immigration (Arizona vs. US)(16:39) Textual Analysis of 'Invasion'(19:26) Democratic Lawmakers' Responses(20:40) ConclusionIf you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Watch this episode on YouTube.Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. I'm your host, Jordan, and I hope you enjoy the show. What is going on between Texas, the federal government, and all of the other Republican governors around our country? I've heard your requests and I've granted your wishes. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of nonpartisan news. This episode is a special report about the current dispute at the southern border. This discussion will include a background of the situation, the procedural history of the relevant cases involved here, the recent actions

of both Texas and the Biden administration, and then we involved here, the recent actions of both Texas and the Biden administration, and then we'll dive into the Constitution and the provisions that are at issue here. So without further ado, let's take it from the top. Amid the record number of border crossings happening at the southern border, most notably in the area of Texas called Eagle Pass, the state of Texas announced Operation Lone Star. Operation Lone Star was an attempt by Texas to curb these illegal entries into the state, and the operation consisted of a couple of different measures. First, in the Rio Grande River, the state placed these big orange buoys. The buoys were tied together. They spanned over a thousand

feet. Very heavy, very large, made it difficult for people to make their way across the river and cross over into Texas. Another thing Texas did was enact a law that allows troopers to arrest migrants on trespassing charges. So before, people could only be arrested for trespassing on private property when that property owner decided to press charges, but now it is the trooper's discretion. The third thing that Texas did was install razor wire fencing on their side of the Rio Grande River. This, of course, just added another layer of difficulty for the migrants and another layer of protection for Texas. And the Biden administration sued over pretty much every

component of Operation Lone Star, and all of these are different lawsuits. So back in September, Texas was ordered by a federal judge to move the buoys that were placed in the middle of the Rio Grande and instead place them on the river's bank. The judge's reasoning was that the placement of these buoys violated what's called the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. And what the RHA does is it prohibits, in part at least, it prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. It also says that the construction of a structure in or over any navigable water of the United States is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the chief of engineers and authorized by the secretary of army. In other words, you have to secure a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers

in order to place a structure on or in a navigable waterway in the United States. The judge also noted in the ruling that Texas failed to provide any credible evidence that the buoy barrier has significantly curtailed illegal immigration. So Texas immediately appeals this ruling, and the following day, the federal appeals court, without any specified reason, allowed Texas to keep those buoys in place while this case was up on appeal. The appeals court eventually hears the case, and in December, in a split decision, the panel agreed with the lower court and ordered Texas to move those buoys to the riverbank. Texas, of course, immediately files a motion for rehearing, and then also a motion to stay the ruling pending the rehearing. So basically what that would do is it would keep the ruling on hold

until the case was reheard. And that was actually granted about a week and a half ago. So at this point, that ruling is on hold. The rehearing is scheduled for May of this year. And at that point, the full appellate panel will hear the Bowie case and issue a decision. From there, it could make its way to the Supreme Court and we could see something happen similar to what is currently happening in the Razor Wire case, which brings me, of course, to the Razor Wire case. While all of that was happening with the Bowie case, everything we just talked about, the Biden administration also sued Texas over the Razor Wire. The administration argued that the wire prevents Border Patrol from doing their job, which in

part involves patrolling the border and also coming to the aid of any migrants that might be in need of help. And on top of this, what the Biden administration argued is that the supremacy clause states that federal law supersedes state law when the two are in conflict with one another. And given the fact that the federal government is responsible for immigration laws, the federal laws surrounding immigration trump any efforts by Texas to curb the flow of migrants into the country. Ultimately, in that case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issues an injunction, which prevented the Biden administration from cutting down the wire

while the case was playing out on appeal. The Biden administration, of course, appeals that to the Supreme Court, who just recently on Monday in a five to four decision ruled that the Biden administration can cut the wire while the case goes through the appeals process. Now note that this ruling came in an order, which is a little bit different than an opinion in the way that the justices don't have to give a reason for their ruling. They don't have to explain anything. However, we do know that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor sided with the administration. Those were the five that agreed with the administration. Justices

Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito all dissented and said they would have taken Texas's side. I also want to note, as it pertains to this order, that it's very limited. So the order didn't say anything about Texas's conduct being improper. It didn't prohibit Texas from taking any further action, from putting up any additional razor wire. It didn't say Texas was ultimately going to lose the case. It just said that the Biden administration can remove the razor wire. So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will still hear this case regarding the razor wire, and then it could potentially go up to the Supreme Court, and that's when the Supreme Court would hear this case on the merits if they decide to do so. But for now, while the case is playing out, the Biden administration has authority to cut the wire. And now we find ourselves here. So following the ruling,

Governor Abbott wrote on X, quote, this is not over. Texas's razor wire is an effective deterrent to the illegal crossings Biden encourages. I will continue to defend Texas's razor wire is an effective deterrent to the illegal crossings Biden encourages. I will continue to defend Texas's constitutional authority to secure the border and prevent the Biden administration from destroying our property, end quote. Abbott also shared photos of the Texas National Guard at the river border in Eagle Pass, writing, quote, the Texas National Guard continues to hold the line in Eagle Pass. Texas will not back down from our efforts to secure the border in Biden's absence, end quote. Abbott also retweeted a post with a corresponding video that said that more razor wire is being installed in Eagle Pass by Texas's National Guard soldiers. Abbott is also refusing to allow Border Patrol access to a park in Eagle Pass,

which sits on the bank of the Rio Grande. So then on January 24th, the day after the Supreme Court's ruling, Abbott released a statement, which he titled, My Statement on Texas's Constitutional Right to Self-Defense. And this is what it says. Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration. Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters, one of which I delivered to him by hand, President Biden has ignored Texas's demand that he perform his constitutional duties. President Biden has violated his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws enacted by Congress instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry, President Biden has sent his lawyers

into federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border. President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The effect is to illegally allow their en masse parole into the United States. By wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas's border security infrastructure, President Biden has enticed illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points along this state's southern border, bridges where nobody drowns, and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande. Under President Biden's lawless border policies, more than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border in just three

years. That is more than the population of 33 different states in this country. The illegal refusal to protect the states has inflicted unprecedented harm on the people all across the United States. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the United States Constitution foresaw that states should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the framers included both Article 4, Section 4, which promises that the federal governments, quote, shall protect each state against invasion, end quote, and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges, quote, the state's sovereign interest in protecting

their borders, end quote. The failure of the Biden administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article 4, Section 4 has triggered Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this state the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas's constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law United States released a joint statement. The statement says, President Biden and his administration have left Americans and our country completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the southern

border. Instead of upholding the rule of law and securing the border, the Biden administration has attacked and sued Texas for stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country. We stand in solidarity with our fellow governor, Greg Abbott, and the state of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border. We do it in part because the Biden administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally. The authors of the United States Constitution made it clear that in times like this, states have a right of self-defense. Under Article 4,

Section 4, and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. Because the Biden administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation. End quote. And that letter was signed by the governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. So those letters obviously beg the question, what are these constitutional provisions that the governors are citing to?

Article 4, Section 4, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. Let's discuss, starting with Article 4, Section 4. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution is also known as the guarantee clause and what it says is quote the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect them against invasion and on application of the legislature or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence, end quote. In other words, the federal government has the power and the obligation to protect the states from an invasion, that word is important, by a foreign country or from significant violent uprisings within each state. It authorizes the legislature or the executive, if the legislature can't get it together, to request federal help

against violence. And we'll get into these a little bit more when we talk about the arguments on each side. But Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, the other clause that's cited too, it's otherwise known as the Compacts Clause. And what it says is, quote, no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state unless actually invaded. Again, invaded is a very important word. So what Texas is arguing here is that between these two clauses, the guarantee clause and the compacts clause, if the federal government doesn't protect the states by failing to enforce

federal immigration law, as it's obligated to do, then the states have a right to protect themselves and defend themselves. And that's the fight. Who has the responsibility to protect and govern the country's borders? The federal government says it's their job, not Texas's job. Texas says it's their job because they have to protect themselves when the federal government won't enforce these immigration laws that we have in our country. Now, you might be wondering whether the Supreme Court has ever weighed in on this issue. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Arizona versus the United States. And in that case, the federal government, which at the time,

it was the Obama administration, challenged an immigration law out of Arizona. And that law, in part, created a state law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States. It also created a state law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized to do so. It also required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained, and it authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the country. The Supreme Court in that case ultimately ruled in favor of the government. It was a 5-3 decision, and the court held that certain provisions conflicted with federal laws. And when federal laws and state laws conflict, federal law supersedes. Now, the court did uphold one of the many provisions,

but wrote in its opinion, quote, the federal government's broad undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests in part on its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which is laid out in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, and rests on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, end quote. So the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the federal government has the power when it comes to immigration law. Now, importantly, that ruling doesn't mean that, you know, Texas is definitely going to lose its case, but it's just to illustrate that that's the most similar precedent out of the Supreme Court. As legal experts have suggested, if Texas's governor, if Governor Abbott can show that the federal

government has completely failed in its constitutional responsibility to regulate immigration, then perhaps that's Texas's only real chance at achieving a different result than in the Arizona case. For the most part, though, legal experts tend to think that the law is on the federal government's side. Now, I do want to mention that the text of the Constitution is very important here, because the text of the Constitution allows states to protect themselves from invasion. So the words invaded and invasion are really important. Invasion historically, and as Texas has acknowledged, requires both entry and enmity, meaning not only do people have to enter, but they also have to take part in some sort of hostile or violent behavior. So when it comes to the people that are enter, but they also have to take part in some sort of hostile or violent

behavior. So when it comes to the people that are just, you know, crossing over into Texas and just being normal people, going about their daily lives, trying to find a job, not killing anyone, they're not smuggling in drugs, those people aren't the issue here. Texas doesn't necessarily have a right to self-defense against those people. Texas's self-defense argument specifically applies to those illegal immigrants that are coming in. They're drug smugglers, they're part of cartels, and these other people that might be coming in the country to commit a crime. That is what Texas argues, you know, they're being invaded by. And even then, you know, are those people considered invaders as originally defined by the drafters? Who really knows? The Supreme Court hasn't really gotten involved in the issue of

invasion, but you can imagine that after all of these years, what the drafters meant by invaders then versus now could be vastly different. So that's something to think about too. But of course, you know, Texas is arguing that this is an invasion and therefore under the text of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, it has the right to protect itself from an invasion. However, there is a flip side. There's always a flip side, right? So a legal scholar, he was interviewed by CNN. His name is Steve Ledeck. He is a law professor at the University of Texas. He said that he has two big issues with Texas's interpretation of invasion. He said that the first one is obvious. He said, quote, the first is the obvious one, which is whatever you think of immigration,

whatever you think of the influx of unauthorized immigrants along the Texas border, that's obviously not an invasion as the founders intended it. And he continues on, but even if there were ambiguity on that, the reason why this clause exists is because at the time the constitution was written, the federal government was tiny, the federal military was tiny, Congress was out of session for most of the year. And so the idea was that if there was an invasion from British troops from Canada, Spanish troops from Florida, French troops from Louisiana, states could react without having to wait for the federal government. He said it's not an open invitation

for states to take it upon themselves to do what the federal government either isn't doing to their satisfaction or is doing differently, end quote. And of course, Democrat lawmakers are opposing Abbott's actions and suggesting the Biden administration needs to establish sole federal control of the Texas National Guard. Representative Joaquin Castro, he's a Democratic representative of Texas. He wrote on X, quote, Governor Abbott is using the Texas National Guard to obstruct and create chaos at the border. If Abbott is defying the Supreme Court ruling, the president needs to establish sole federal control of the Texas National Guard now, end quote. Representative

Greg Kasser, he's another Democrat from Texas. He agreed with Castro and wrote in part, quote, we can create an immigration system that is safe, orderly, and humane. It's Democrats' job to push back on razor wire, inhumane cages, and broken policies of the past. As of now, the administration hasn't made any moves against the Texas National Guard. In fact, on Thursday, John Kirby, the national security advisor, sort of sidestepped some questions about these calls from Democratic lawmakers to, you know, federalize the Texas National Guard. His response was, quote, I don't have any decisions to speak to for the president.

I don't have anything on that, end quote. So all of this to say, only time will tell what happens, but this is essentially a showdown between the state government and the federal government. And it all boils down to the text of the constitution. And the question comes down to can state governments under the constitution claim that they are being invaded and therefore create their own immigration laws? That is the question that will ultimately have to be answered. There's also other questions as to, you know, whether Congress has to enact any sort of legislation because some of those constitutional provisions do call for congressional action. So there's just, it really is this battle

between the federal government and the state government as to who has the power in this situation. And the state government is saying that the federal government is not enforcing federal law and therefore they need to protect themselves. Whereas the Biden administration is saying, no, no, no, you do not have the authority to do this. We have rule over immigration matters, not you. So it all comes down to who has the power and both are fighting for the power. Thank you for tuning in to this special report. If you loved what you heard, please go ahead and leave me a review on whatever podcast platform you listen on. If you're a YouTube watcher, just go ahead and hit that thumbs up button. And while you're at it, hit

the subscribe button. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Tuesday.