Judge Rules Against Texas Government’s Border Actions

Photo by Claire Anderson on Unsplash

(ConservativeFreePress.com) – On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that concerns about a potential “invasion” do not give Texas the right to overstep federal jurisdiction on border management.

Judge David Ezra from the Western District of Texas decided that Texas has to remove the floating barriers it had placed in the Rio Grande, regardless of the state’s concerns about an “invasion.”

This ruling is a setback for Texas state officials, including Governor Greg Abbott, who have tried to take on roles typically reserved for the federal government in terms of border control. In reaction to the decision, Abbott reiterated his commitment to Operation Lone Star, the state’s policy for deterring migrants.

Abbott stated, “Our efforts to secure the border will not waver. We’ll employ every strategy, including deploying the Texas National Guard and setting up strategic barriers. We remain committed to defending Texas against the implications of open border policies. We’re ready to escalate this to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

Over the past few years, Abbott has directed state entities to counter what he describes as an “invasion” at the border. Texas conservatives believe that the Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 10, permits such state actions if an invasion seems imminent.

Operation Lone Star has seen Texas deploy troops to the border, apprehend migrants for trespassing, and prevent border crossings. Denise Gilman from the University of Texas Law School remarked that Texas’s involvement in immigration enforcement is likely unlawful. She specifically mentioned the controversial floating barriers as part of these problematic measures.

Critics suggest that Texas’s stance intertwines migration with drug cartel activities, implying both are synonymous with the Mexican state.

Judge Ezra emphasized that determining whether Texas is experiencing an “invasion” is a matter for federal entities, meaning it’s a decision for the president and Congress.

Domingo García, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), labeled Operation Lone Star as a failure from political, humanitarian, and moral perspectives.

Law expert Robert Barsky stated that while the judge’s ruling was precise, it raises broader issues, especially concerning the treatment of migrants.

Barsky highlighted the obligations the U.S. has under international treaties concerning refugees. He expressed concerns about measures that deter asylum seekers, potentially violating these obligations.

Gilman mentioned that Judge Ezra’s decision is in line with a 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States, which determined that immigration enforcement is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Supporters of Abbott reference a dissenting opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia in the same case, asserting states can exclude unauthorized individuals.

Carine Martinez from the Texas Public Policy Foundation argued that measures like the buoys are crucial for protecting both Texas and migrants from potential threats. She emphasized the hazards of river crossings and the potential dangers they pose to migrants.

However, human rights advocates argue that such measures may increase the risk of fatalities. Lydia Guzman from LULAC stated that border crossings, while illegal, shouldn’t result in death.

Activists also expressed concerns over the intense rhetoric around invasions, with some pointing to tragic events like the 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting as consequences of such narratives. Guzman emphasized the need for responsible leadership in these challenging times.

Copyright 2023, ConservativeFreePress.com