Declaration of ‘invasion’ of US-Mexico border considered a press stunt
A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To receive it in your inbox, subscribe here.
The taped-together immigration policy of the United States, which successive Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses have failed to fix comprehensively, is about to be torn in another direction.
- As CNN predicts Republicans will take control of the House in January, Democrats want to use the last gasp of their House majority to materialize a year-long effort to bring certainty to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
- Some Republicans, meanwhile, are using the language of war and aim to make the southern border situation a key part of their platform once their party seizes the megaphone of a House majority.
- A federal judge has struck down a Covid-era policy left over from the Trump administration that has been used to deport migrants millions of times in recent years.
- United States Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus was forced out of office last week by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
- The move will do little to assuage Republican criticism of Mayorkas. They have promised to target him and his agency with scrutiny and investigations when they take the House majority next term.
‘Invasion.’ Texas Governor Greg Abbott, fresh from a decisive midterm election victory last week and keen to be considered border security governor, said he would invoke a clause in the US Constitution and would declare an “invasion” on the southern border.
Although he has used the term “invasion” before, his tweet suggested that he would do more to weaponize his state’s response and intervene where he says the Biden administration has failed.
Former President Donald Trump also returned to this term – “invasion” – when announcing his latest candidacy for the White House.
“Our southern border has been obliterated,” he said falsely, “and our country is overrun by millions upon millions of strangers.”
Abbott argued that his statement would invoke a clause in the Constitution that gives states extraordinary power.
This text, from Article I, Section 10, reads as follows:
No state may, without the consent of Congress, impose a tonnage duty, keep troops or warships in time of peace, enter into an agreement or pact with another state or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger which will admit of no delay.
That Abbott and others equate a flow of unarmed migrants with an invading army is a case of major false equivalence. They also point to drugs crossing the border into Mexico and the drug cartels behind the illicit activity as a major problem.
There is no invading army. Rather than marauding troops, CNN’s many migrant profiles found families fleeing poverty, climate change, persecution and violence, and approaching the US border after a dangerous trek, often on foot, to across the Darien Gap linking South America and Central America.
The Biden administration, following in the footsteps of the Trump administration, has sought to deter migrants, particularly from Venezuela, which have increased exponentially in recent years.
The judge completes Title 42. A federal judge on Tuesday ended a Trump-era Covid-19 policy, which had been upheld by the Biden administration, to kick many cross-border commuters out of the country. In response to a request from the administration, the judge suspended judgment on Wednesday for five weeks to allow the administration to prepare.
DC Judge Emmet Sullivan called the policy “arbitrary and capricious” and said it was flawed from the start.
CNN’s Catherine Shoichet takes an in-depth look at the policy, which has been used to deport migrants nearly 2.5 million times under the two presidents over the past three years. This language is important – many of those expelled under the policy have been expelled more than once.
Report from the Texas border. CNN’s Rosa Flores is based in Texas and has reported from the region.
“We covered stories from the Mexican side of the border where thousands of migrants were waiting for Title 42 to be lifted,” she told me in an email. “Anxiety and anguish have built on the border for years now.
Uncertainty about US policy has only amplified the desperation of people trying to enter the United States, Flores told me.
“The net effect of US immigration policy has been very dangerous for migrants/asylum seekers,” she told me. “Thousands of them have been kidnapped, sexually assaulted or violently attacked, according to Human Rights First.”
” Publicity shot “. Even hard-line immigration activists, like former Trump Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli, who lobbied for that “invasion” declaration, called Abbott’s version a to invoke the invasion clause of inadequate since Abbott will apparently not seize federal authority to deport migrants from the country.
However, this matches that of Abbott efforts to transport migrants from Texas to cities like New York and Washington.
“To say you are invaded but not to stop the invaders from coming is an empty shell,” said Cuccinelli, along with Russ Vought, president of the activist group Citizens for Renewing America. They rejected Abbott’s decision because a “publicity stunt”.”
No obvious change. Flores pointed out that Abbott’s statement does not appear to have changed the position of the Texas military department or its rules of engagement at the border. Abbott’s budget director said the announcement did not reflect a change in overall tactics.
In February, CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez traveled to the border and spoke with members of the National Guard who were part of Abbott’s previous deployment of state forces to the border. She found some who said the mission was a waste of time and resources, since the power to enforce immigration policy and border security rests with the federal government.
This is not what the founders intended. More information on Abbott’s invasion clause would be “patently unconstitutional,” according to Joseph Nunn of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, who pointed out that Texas was not being invaded by an army.
“The Founders anticipated that such invasions would be launched by ‘ambitious or vindictive’ foreign powers and groups, not by unarmed migrants and asylum seekers,” Nunn said in a statement. Twitter feed.