Greg Abbott Fights Biden, Enforces The Border. He’s Right, And It’s Not Illegal.

 On Wednesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a letter announcing that Texas was going to begin enforcing the state border. They have been doing this for some time. Yet the federal government has objected to the fencing being placed across the Rio Grande barriers.

So Abbott issued a historic letter in the face of a constitutional crisis that has been created entirely by Joe Biden and his bad activities at the border.

Not enforcing our country's border, intentionally leaving the border open is evil, which is what Biden has done.

I have been to the border. It's really wide open, and it facilitates drug cartels to bring millions of people into the United States and move tons of fentanyl across the southern border, which causes over 100,000 American deaths per year. reason.

This is Biden abdicating his constitutional duties and abdicating the presidency of the United States. It's bad for the President of the United States to do that. This would be the equivalent if the mayor of a major city simply announced that they were no longer going to police crime. The fundamental duty of the federal government is to protect the people and borders of the United States.

The United States government has a federally mandated duty to do so. This is a federal issue - not a state issue. Biden has not only failed symbolically, he has also done the opposite of good. They have made all this possible through a terrible border policy. It is wrong. This should be against the law. The federal government ultimately has one job: to protect you, to protect your rights.

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

Laws preventing illegal immigration to the United States have been in place for decades. It is up to the President of the United States to enforce those laws. Again, it's worth noting that leaving the border open is not only encouraging Mexican drug cartels to move millions of people across the southern border, it is also encouraging them to move tons of fentanyl across the southern border. Which is effectively killing 100,000 people. American one year.

Biden has turned the Border Patrol into a ferry service for illegal immigration. Members of the Border Patrol will openly say what they are now. Their job was to detect people crossing the border illegally so they could be detained and then deported. Now, their job is to act as a facilitation service for illegal entry into the country.

The first part of Greg Abbott's letter reads:

The federal government has broken the agreement between the United States and the states. The executive branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting the states, which includes the immigration laws currently on the books. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. As a result, it has broken records of illegal immigration.

Despite being given notice in a series of letters – one of which I hand-delivered to him – President Biden has ignored Texas' demand that he follow his constitutional duties.

President Biden has violated his oath to faithfully execute the immigration laws enacted by Congress. Instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry, President Biden has sent his lawyers to federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border.

President Biden has directed his agencies to ignore federal laws that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The effect of this is to allow mass parole of those illegally in the United States.

By wasting taxpayer dollars to destroy Texas' border security infrastructure, President Biden has funneled illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points at this state's southern border—bridges where no one drowns—and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande. Have tempted.

This is true. The drug cartels really don't want illegal immigrants to be processed at these stations. Rather, they want to flood certain border points to draw Border Patrol into areas where they have a duty to care for illegal immigrants entering the country and claiming asylum.

If you take all the people scattered across the border, very few Border Patrol agents trying to keep track of miles of border, and then you suddenly centralize the agents at one point where illegal immigrants are fleeing, The rest are left, the border is completely open. And that's where you find drug smugglers being transferred by drug cartels.

Abbott continues:

This illegal refusal of states to protect us has caused unprecedented harm to people across the United States.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution predicted that states should not be left at the mercy of a chauvinistic president who would do nothing to stop external threats such as the cartels that smuggle millions of illegal immigrants across the border. Does.

That's why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government "shall defend each [State] against invasion," and Article I, § 10, section 3, which "in defense Recognizes the sovereign interest of states" within their borders. ,

The Biden administration's failure to meet the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, section 3, which reserves to this state the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion of Texas' constitutional right to defend and protect under Article I, § 10, Section 3. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal law to the contrary.

Abbott has done nothing so far to violate the law. Nothing. He has not violated federal law.

People are accusing him of doing this because he had Texas state troopers install razor wire in state parks; Those people don't know what they are talking about. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government has the ability to withdraw razor wire, but they did not say anything about whether the state of Texas is allowed to impose razor wire. The Supreme Court did not rule that it was illegal for the state of Texas, for example, to erect barriers in the Rio Grande. They simply ruled that the federal government is allowed to remove those barriers.

Anyone who says Texas is doing something illegal is wrong.

The deeper issue here is this: whether the state of Texas can unilaterally enforce immigration laws, even if the federal government does not want it to.

In 2010, the state of Arizona passed a law called SB 1070. There were four provisions in the law.

The first provision was that it made it a state-level crime to be unlawfully present in the United States. You will be prosecuted by the federal government and deported. This would be a crime under state law.

Second, state law makes it a crime to work or seek work when you were not authorized to do so. For example, it is a federal crime for people to use a false Social Security number to work illegally in the United States. On its basis a comparative state law offense was created.

Third, it required state and local officials to verify the citizenship or alien status of any person lawfully arrested or detained, an anti-sanctuary city policy. If you were a policeman and you pulled someone over, you would have to check whether they were there legally or not.

And fourth, the law authorized warrantless arrest of aliens deemed removable from the United States. So you can just arrest people and then potentially you turn them over to the federal government.

The question on the table was whether federal preemption prevented those laws from taking effect. When a state law conflicts with federal law, the state law prevails. The federal statute – federal preemption – is actually a little broad because it says that a federal statute takes over a certain portion of the law. If it supersedes that part of the law, state laws cannot conflict with it.

So in the Arizona case the court found that items one, two and four were violations of the Constitution. Justice Scalia dissented, saying, "Today's opinion, granting virtually all of the Ninth Circuit's injunctions against enforcing four challenged provisions of Arizona's law, deprives the states of consideration of a defining feature of sovereignty: The power to exclude from the territory of the sovereign persons who have no right to reside there.... The power of naturalization was not given to Congress to abrogate the power of the States to exclude persons whom they do not want Were, but were given to justify it.

He was referring to the original reason for giving immigration law to the federal government: everyone was very afraid of what happened in the EU at the beginning of the Republic – where one country has open immigration policies, another says they don't. All these immigrants are coming to their country, but the European Union says they have to accept them.

So the federal government took control of it to create uniform immigration laws around the United States, where there would be freedom of travel and freedom of residence. But to keep that deal intact, the federal government would have to actually police the border.

This is especially true when it is written in the books that there should be police on the border. It would be one thing if the federal government had passed laws saying that we basically have open immigration at this point, because those federal laws would likely have been part of the Constitution that was signed by the states. But it's another thing for the federal government to make laws for policing the border and removing illegal immigrants, but the executive branch says, "No, we're not going to do that because now you've voided the deal."

Scalia said that in that case, in dissent, the reason for federalizing the entire issue was to prevent open immigration in one state from affecting all states.

That's essentially what Greg Abbott is arguing in this letter. and he is right