Razor Dividing the Nation: The Texas Border Crisis
February 2024 | Isabelle Graham (Staff Writer)& Yong Qin Xu (Staff Writer)
“Come and take it!” [1] is a historic Texan battle slogan that remains a symbol of defiance in contemporary times. [2] Due to the recent border issues between Texas and the federal government, there have been flags with this slogan lining the US-Mexico border. In 2021, Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, ordered razor wire to be placed along the US-Mexico border, but recently, these orders have caused chaos and division in the United States. [3] The current Texas border crisis has become a battle between Texas and the federal government. However, states are beginning to choose whether to side with Texas or the federal government. Threats of secession have manifested from the border crisis. Nevertheless, Texas’ history of independence does not allow them to defy the supremacy of the federal government while it remains in the United States.
Serious efforts have been and are continuing to be made for Texas to become its own independent state. The region known as Texas today was first settled by Spanish missionaries in 1718, and became open to settlers from the United States following the Revolutionary War and the War of Mexican Independence. However, this influx of Americans into Texas led the territory to stray further from the interests of its then-Mexican government until it declared independence from Mexico in the year 1836, joining the United States. The reason Texas eventually became a US state, then, was that it lacked the military resources to defend itself against the Mexican government and protect its newfound independence. [4] Texas started its statehood by seceding from another nation and even today, its people seem ready to do it again. In June of 2021, the Texas Nationalist Movement successfully drafted and filed House Bill 1359, a piece of legislation meant to allow Texans to vote for independence from the greater United States, and though the bill was ultimately shot down and dismissed, [5] the movement still contains over 620,000 registered supporters out of the 30 million people currently living in Texas. [6] Therefore, when the federal government and the Texan government came into conflict in January 2024, Texas, drawing from history, would likely not back down.
The recent Texas border crisis began when Governor Abbott became concerned about the federal government’s lack of focus on the US-Mexico border. In March 2021, Governor Abbott started his mission, “Operation Lone Star,” declaring state troopers and the Texas National Guard to place razor wire along the border, hoping to secure the border from undocumented immigrants. [7] However, the border issue has become increasingly controversial due to the 2024 presidential election and historically high numbers of undocumented immigrants crossing the border in recent years. [8] Major issues with the razor wire began on January 12, 2024, when the Texas National Guard stopped border agents from gaining access to the US-Mexico border near Rio Grande. [9] The border agents claimed that they were responding to Mexican authorities in an urgent matter, but Texas claimed they were unaware of the urgency of the situation. The tensions between the federal government and Texas exploded at this point, causing a huge legal and political battle between the entities. Texas and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had two lower court proceedings in November and December of 2023, however, the government called for an appeal to the Supreme Court on January 22, 2024. In the December proceeding, the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals chose to support Texas, due to the fact that they sued the DHS on the basis of breaking state trespass laws. [10] However, the federal government argues that federal law overrules state legislation. The lack of clarity on who has jurisdiction over the border and property is why the case was appealed further to the Supreme Court.
At the Supreme Court, the case was ruled in favor of the DHS in a 5-4 decision. There were several reasons as to why the federal government was favored by the law. It was found that federal law “grants Border Patrol agents the authority, without a warrant, to access private land within 25 miles of the international border, 8 U.S.C. 1357 (a) (3).” [11] Therefore, invalidating Texas’ suit against state trespassing laws. In the process of upholding the law, the Court also uses the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution to support the defendant. It was determined “Under the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot be applied to restrain those federal agents from carrying out their federally authorized activities.” [12] The Constitution protects the authority of the federal government through this clause, so that states can have their own power, while belonging to the nation.
The Supreme Court used several precedents to back up their decision in favor of the DHS. The Court’s precedent included McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Johnson v. Maryland (1920), In re Neagle (1890), and Arizona v. California (1931). [13] In each of these cases, the Supreme Court decided that the federal law rules supreme over the state law. Specifically, in Arizona v. California (1931), the Court ruled that the state could not impose on a federal construction project, even though it was on Arizona property. Similarly, the federal government has the right to complete federal duties on Texas land.
This case remains controversial due to how close the decision was. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [14] The sovereign power of the states is part of why this case was a close decision. This case has caused issues because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly discuss immigration, so it is legally unclear as to whether the states along the border should receive power to govern immigration matters. Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DHS, the current political polarization of America might cause some immigration reforms in the near future.
Many Republican politicians across the nation have been siding with Governor Abbott’s decisions regarding the US-Mexico border. [15] The legal and political issues that have resulted from the Supreme Court proceeding, led to an introduction of a new bill. Mike Collins, a Representative from Georgia, announced that he would be introducing the “Restricting Administration Zealots from Obliging Raiders Act,” better known as the RAZOR Act, to show support for Texas. [16] This legislation would prevent the federal government from getting in the way of any state’s preventative measures along the border. [17] Since the states are the ones having to deal with the aftermath of increased immigration into the country, they believe that they should have some power in preventing undocumented immigration. The introduction of this new legislation is in support of Texas and border autonomy, which the 10th amendment allows states to be able to do.
Of course, the RAZOR Act is not where the outside support for Texas ends. On January 25, 2024, a letter was released by the Republican Governors Association condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to allow US border agents to remove the razor wire deployed during Operation Lone Star. The letter was signed by 25 other states including but not limited to the entire former Confederacy of the American Civil War, [18] voicing support for Texas and decrying the alleged tyranny of the Biden administration in its handling of the southern US border. The Texas immigration conflict has placed the United States in a similar position to the Antebellum period of American history, except instead of slavery causing factionalism among the states, it’s immigration. As evidenced by the Civil War, Texas and its supporters would have no legal right to assert their opposition. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was added specifically to prevent states from making law that infringed legal rights provided by the federal government while also banning insurrectionists from holding power in the U.S. government. [19]
A better way to analyze the contradiction between state and federal power would be to look at a similar issue — the legalization of marijuana in the United States. As marijuana legalization and the treatment of immigrants overlap, both issues resulted in conflicts between state and national legal rulings. As of February 2024, the usage of marijuana in food and drugs is still illegal in four states but legalized in others. [20] Yet, in terms of federal law, marijuana is illegal and still currently classified as a Schedule I drug with no officially recognized medicinal benefits and the possession, sale, and use of which would result in the highest possible penalties under the law. [21] The reason why this is possible is because local law enforcement agents are allowed to choose to enforce state laws rather than federal laws in the case of a conflict. [22] However, any federal organization and law enforcers would still have to act within the boundaries of federal laws even when they contradict with local state laws. [23] Banks are chartered by the federal government and thus required to obey federal laws as opposed to state ones. Therefore, they cannot interact with businesses that sell federally illegal substances, which means marijuana dispensaries cannot accept credit cards or have business bank accounts with major banks. [24] The federal government can make laws, but the enforcement of the legislation is still up to the states. If individuals and businesses are not explicitly restrained by the federal government via specific charters and licenses, then they will be allowed to operate under state laws even when they contradict with federal regulations. However, problems arise when state and federal law enforcement agents come into direct conflict with one another on the ground, such as when the US Department of Homeland Security went up against Operation Lone Star.
Despite Texas’ rebellious history and the uncanny similarities between its current behavior and the Antebellum era of U.S. history, almost every previous case on the matter of federal vs. state immigration law enforcement seems to lean on the side of federal actions taking precedence over state ones. The Department of Homeland Security can and will rightfully override Texas local law enforcement in their treatment of immigrants crossing the border, but much like the enforcement of anti-marijuana legislation, as soon as these federally-aligned forces leave Texas, there’s nothing stopping local agents from going back to the ways of Operation Lone Star. However, this battle between state and federal control over the border isn’t close to being over. Until there are immigration and international border policies implemented, the lack of clarity on who legally has the right to govern the border, will remain causing conflicts.
Sources
Burnett, John. 2016. “'Come And Take It': A Texan Symbol Of Defiance For Sale.” NPR.
Ibid.
Aldis, Meredith. 2024. “Texas border: Abbott standing ground despite SCOTUS decision siding with feds.” FOX 7 Austin.
History.com Editors. 2024. “Texas.” History.com.
McDaniel, Kirk. 2021. “Inside the movement for Texas independence.” Courthouse News Service.
“Texas Nationalist Movement.” 2024, The Texas Nationalist Movement.
“Supreme Court Lets Border Patrol Cut Razor Wire Texas Installed to Stop Migrants.” 2024. The Wall Street Journal.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
U.S. const. amend. X.
“25 states with Republican governors sign letter supporting Texas in border control fight: What to know.” 2024. USA Today.
“Collins Unveils RAZOR Act to Ban Federal Government from Removing Texas Border Barriers.” 2024. Mike Collins.
Ibid.
Crowley, Kinsey and Gore, Hogan. “25 states with Republican governors sign letter supporting Texas in border control fight: What to know.” 2024. USA Today.
US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, sec. 1 & 3
“Marijuana Legality by State.” 2024. DISA Global Solutions.
Kellogg, Amy. Anderson, Caitlin. Michiels, Meg. “A Cannabis Conflict of Law: Federal vs. State Law.” 2022. American Bar Association
Shein, Marcia. “How States Are Able to Legalize Marijuana.” 2014. Shein, Brandenburg, and Schrope Federal Criminal Law Center. https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2014/10/states-able-legalize-marijuana/
Ibid.
Crowley, Kinsey and Gore, Hogan. “25 states with Republican governors sign letter supporting Texas in border control fight: What to know.” 2024. USA Today.