Is Texas experiencing an invasion? Does the "invasion clause" of the Constitution (Article IV, section 4) mean any "invasion" or does it only apply to a military/paramilitary invasion?
It seems that Texas Governor Abbott did one thing right. I'm going to assume he searched the US Constitution, looking for some legal way to stop "immigration" or to close "the border", and since that's not in there, he found a different path. His only hope was to claim an invasion was occurring.
Is it true? Is this honest or is it a typical political lie?
Honestly, I can see both sides.
Dictionary.com defines "invasion" as:
- an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army. (emphasis mine)
- the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
If the people coming here were shooting or machete-ing their way into Texas the first definition would fit. "Entry, plus enmity". Since they aren't, you'd have to be able to read their minds to see their motivations; there are no overt signs they are entering as enemies. Ignoring any counterfeit "laws" regulating "immigration" doesn't meet the criteria.
You could argue some unknown number of them are entering to form or join "sleeper cells". If so, the proper way to deal with that is to encourage the entire American population to stay armed and ready to defend life, liberty, and property from any enemies, foreign or domestic, at all times, everywhere they happen to be. In other words, ditch every single anti-gun rule on the books and all anti-defense legislation. Anything else is equivalent to mass murder, even in the best of times. It is a crime against humanity in the event of an invasion.
If definition #1 fit the situation, the best thing government could do would be to get out of the way. Let the militia handle it by repelling or shooting any combatants encountered. The most legitimate thing the National Guard could do in that case is to hand their weapons over to the militia. (For all the dumb statists out there it needs to be pointed out that the National Guard is NOT the militia, but came along much later.) Maybe they could pass out water bottles and provide medical care, too. All other branches of government military need to stay out of the way unless they are willing to do the same. The government's military isn't a help.
It would be easier to apply definition #2 to the current situation. The case could be made, even if I think you'd have to be collectivist to make it. I could be persuaded by this definition, at least in some individual cases. Cases requiring an individual response and solution.
My 1949 edition of Funk & Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary includes a third definition of “invasion”:
“3 Encroachment, as by an act of intrusion or trespass…”
"Encroachment"? "...to advance beyond proper, established, or usual limits; make gradual inroads". Who gets to define "proper"? "Established" by whom and by what rights? "Usual limits"? It opens a lot more questions. But I can see how it might fit the circumstances... if looked at in a certain way.
If anyone— migrants, border control, Texas cops, federal troops, or whoever— is trespassing on private property they are subject to consequences. If they die, oh well.
Unfortunately for borderists, the US government does not own all the land inside the “borders” it claims. Crossing government "borders" to enter “public” (government) land (or entering a government building on January 6th) is not trespassing in any real sense. There is no legitimate rightful owner to violate.
Crossing a private property line is another matter.
If, as I’ve heard, the razor-wire fences in question are on private property with the consent (or at the request) of the landowners, then the feds need to back off. If they refuse, I don’t care what happens to them. “S, S, & S”, as ranchers say. And good riddance.
No matter how you want to define "invasion", an authoritarian response is never the right way to go. More government power and control is never going to improve the situation. Let the people handle any problem, if there's a problem.
No "invasion clause" reference was needed. By including the phrase "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" in Article I, Section 9, the Constitution's framers pretty clearly indicated they thought the states possessed a "legitimate" power to regulate immigration (that same section clearly and unambiguously denies such a federal power).
ReplyDelete"Constitutional" and "moral," of course, are two very different things.
Yeah, the Constitution is sketchy since it "authorizes" a lot of unethical things-- the worst of which is the establishing of a State/political government.
DeleteI wonder why he didn't use that Article. Maybe because Texas wasn't one of the states "now" existing when the Constitution was written, even though it exists now in 2024. Maybe he didn't want to pay a "tax or duty" to the feds on each migrant entering the state against his wishes (seems the feds would want to know exactly how many are entering in that case, to get the money). Or maybe, "invasion" seemed to better justify a military response. Who can read the minds of politicians?
I suppose, though, Texas would only have to pay the feds $10 per migrant if they were "admitting" them, not if they were entering without permission. I wonder if the feds have ever tried to collect on that.
Delete