A standoff at the border

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Thursday the 1st of February, 2024.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. First up: a political standoff at the Southern border continues.

Earlier this week, we reported on the response of Texas to an order from the Supreme Court to allow federal agents to remove barriers such as razor wire, at least for now. So far, Texas National Guard troops have continued to install new barriers in Eagle Pass, Texas, the epicenter of this dispute.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott explained his rationale on FOX News on Monday.

ABBOTT: Because Joe Biden is not enforcing the federal immigration laws, that gives Texas the right, under that Article I section 10 of the Constitution, to defend ourselves from imminent harm or from invasion.

BROWN: Twenty-five Republican governors support Abbott, and since he’s not backing down, where do we go from here?

Joining us now to talk about it is Joshua Treviño. He is Chief of Intelligence and Research at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Good morning, Joshua!

JOSHUA TREVIÑO: Good morning, Mary.

REICHARD: Let’s start with how the border is supposed to work. The Texas border is the same as the national border. What does the law require with regard to border security?

TREVIÑO: The law requires that those who wish to cross the border cross at legal ports of entry, there's a lot of nuance to it. But that's really the fundamental point to be made. And with several million people failing to do that, it's why our border is out of control.

REICHARD: Governor Abbott released a statement last week saying that the federal government has broken the compact it has with the states. Explain that compact. What is it?

TREVIÑO: Sure, the federal government actually undertakes a series of responsibilities under the Constitution toward the states. Chief among them, very explicitly set forth in the Constitution are to guarantee a republican, small "r" republican, form of government to each of the states, and also to defend them against invasion. And it's on the latter that the federal government is currently failing its duties under the Constitution.

REICHARD: How did we get to this point of a governor and the president in direct confrontation?

TREVIÑO: It took a long time for us to get to this point, Mary. It really took a decade plus of Washington DC mostly, and I stress the mostly part of it, failing to meet its responsibilities under the Constitution. And certainly in the past four years, we've seen that abdication of responsibility and metastasize, go to new levels, and get to the point where it was simply intolerable for Texas and Texans to endure what was going on any longer. So we're very supportive of what governor Governor Abbott is doing.

REICHARD: Joshua, does it concern you that Governor Abbott is ignoring an order from the Supreme Court of the United States?

TREVIÑO: Governor Abbott is not ignoring an order from the Supreme Court of the United States. And I'm glad you ask that, because it's important to clarify. All the Supreme Court has done so far is lift an injunction from the Fifth Circuit that prohibited the federal government from tearing down Texas border barriers. The federal government, according to the court, may now do that. But the governor of Texas has not been enjoined to stop constructing border barriers. So to his credit, he's gone right on doing it.

REICHARD: One term constantly mentioned is “invasion.” Governor Abbott has made a declaration of state invasion. I’ve heard others say no, an invasion means “armed military take over.” Josh, you’ve researched this. What did you find?

TREVIÑO: What we found at the Texas Public Policy Foundation is that invasion, as envisioned by the Founders, really requires two elements to it. One is entry and everyone knows that illegal migrants are entering the country, but the other is enmity, hostility to the country that they're entering. So to be clear, a migrant entering the United States for work, even if illegally, is not an invader. The people who are the invaders are the cartels, the human traffickers, and the state governments, foreign state governments that are actually behind the trafficking phenomenon. And they're the ones that transformed this from a migration crisis into an invasion crisis.

REICHARD: Reference the Founding Fathers, what they said about this.

TREVIÑO: Well, what the Founding Fathers had to say, and they drew upon a wide corpus of experience in law, and their points of reference were really threefold. One was Indian tribes, which is not really relevant at this point in history. The other was actual invasion by foreign armies. And the third, which we think is the most applicable to the current situation, was the matter of pirates. Pirates and privateers, some of whom operated under the color of a foreign state, as in fact the Mexican cartels and human traffickers do, others of which were more of freelance criminal operatives. And that's what the Founders saw as invaders. And that's what we believe is relevant now.

REICHARD: Joshua, what can you tell us regarding the cartels that traffic humans and drugs by the numbers?

TREVINO: Well, what I can tell you is this: is that no one really knows the numbers. And that's the problem. You know, when you look at the official figures, for example, you see in December 2023 the largest number ever, numbers in the hundreds of thousands, six figures' worth of individuals. What you're not seeing there is anywhere from three to four to five times that number that actually got into the United States unnoticed. Unencountered is the term that gets used. And that's really where the concern lies, that you have millions of individuals entering the United States, and it is millions, unknown, unaccounted for, and unanswerable to any kind of authority that, for example, you and I would be. And that's an existential problem that a nation cannot long endure.

REICHARD: How do you see this standoff playing out, and what can an average American do about it?

TREVIÑO: Great question. You know, I, it's, it's impossible to prognosticate. I do happen to think that because this is ultimately a political question - I don't mean a partisan one. Sentiment for this cuts across partisan identification as well, it should, but because it is a strictly political question, ultimately, the adjudication for this is going to be at the ballot box in some way, and I have faith that the American people writ large are going to make the right choice for themselves and the security of their own country.

REICHARD: Joshua Treviño is Chief of Intelligence and Research at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Thanks for your time today!

TREVIÑO: Thank you, Mary.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.