Conservatives back Gov. Abbott’s 'right to self defense' while Democrats urge Biden to federalize the Texas National Guard

MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images; Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Political polarization over the U.S. border has exploded in the aftermath of this week’s Supreme Court ruling on razor wire, pitting the U.S. government and its liberal-leaning allies against the rights of deep red border states.

Conservatives are backing Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s assertion that his state has a right to self defense, with some citing an “invasion” of undocumented immigrants and even warning of a looming “civil war” — rhetoric that the left says is “xenophobic” and life-threatening.

Texas GOP Rep. Morgan Luttrell told The Messenger that the Biden administration is undermining efforts to fortify the border. “Our national security is at stake,” he said in a statement. “We have no idea who is coming into this country or what their intentions are."

Louisiana GOP Rep. Clay Higgins went further in his reaction to the Supreme Court decision: “My thoughts are that the feds are staging a civil war, and Texas should stand their ground.”

Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, also suggested a Texas rebellion, telling The Messenger, "It’s simple, if the federal government is derelict in its duty to uphold our sovereign borders, then it is left to the state of Texas to defend and protect its citizens."

At the same time, some Lone Star State Democrats are encouraging President Joe Biden to federalize the Texas National Guard after Abbott continued deploying razor wire at the border, even after the Supreme Court ruled that border patrol agents could remove it.

“Greg Abbott has continued to use political stunts and inflammatory language to advance his own agenda, violating the Constitution and endangering both U.S. citizens and asylum seekers,” Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat said in a statement.

GOP Congressman Claims Biden Waging ‘Civil War’ After Supreme Court Border Ruling
Majority Believe Supreme Court Makes Decisions Based on Politics, Approve of Affirmative Action Ruling: Poll
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Politically Motivated Arrests
The Supreme Court rules Title 42 border policy will stay in place — for now
The Supreme Court, Again Embroiled in Presidential Politics, Needs More Than a Simple Majority This Time
The Supreme Court nomination hearings focused more on politics than Ketanji Brown Jackson

Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, proposed – and Casar agreed — that Biden needs to establish “sole federal control” of the Texas National Guard if Abbott is defying the Supreme Court ruling.

Republicans have put the border front and center in their attacks on the Biden administration, calling on the president to enforce laws they say would prevent a record number of migrant encounters. The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling ratchets up the war between the federal government and states over which government entity controls the border.

The Supreme Court undid a ruling that blocked the administration’s ability to cut down the razor wire that Texas installed at the border along the Rio Grande. The Fifth Circuit Court will ultimately decide the larger precedent on whether a state can block the federal government from enforcing federal law.

Abbott announced on Wednesday that his state's Guard would continue using razor wire “to repel illegal immigration” and posted a statement on X about Texas’ “constitutional right to self-defense.”

“The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the states,” Abbott wrote, arguing that the Biden administration’s failure in its constitutional duty to protect the state “against invasion” triggers the state’s constitutional right of self-defense.

The Biden administration has previously addressed the underlying issues that Abbott laid out in his Wednesday letter. In its request to the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction against allowing U.S agents to cut the wire, the administration has argued that the supremacy clause cannot be applied to restrain “federal agents from carrying out their federally authorized activities.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, told The Messenger “there can be no question that (Abbott) is defying centuries of precedent established in the Court’s federal preemption and supremacy cases.”

There have been a record number of migrants encountered at the border, with a new record of apprehensions in a single month set in December.

Biden is also facing backlash politically for his handling of the border. A majority of voters – 68% – do not approve of Biden’s handling of the border, according to a CBS News poll released earlier this month. Just 32% said they approved of his handling.

Luttrell and other Texas Republicans also sent a letter, as first reported by Fox News, to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking him to drop the administration’s lawsuit. The GOP letter also defended the Texas state government’s right to enforce federal immigration law if the Homeland Security Department will not.

Ken Cuccinelli, a Department of Homeland Security official during the Trump administration, said on Wednesday that the U.S. Constitution allows states to protect themselves “when they’re actually invaded” and Texas should further embrace its self-defense rights, using war powers at a “very low level of force.” Other than the 12 land ports of entry, Texas should block people from entering the state anywhere else, he said Wednesday on The Charlie Kirk Show on the Salem Radio Network.

“And if they do, Texas — without asking permission of Congress or the federal government — should take them back into Mexico,” he said. “Texas owns boats. Take them back across. Drop them off.”

But Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, said immigration law is in the purview of the federal government, not the Lone Star State. And the message from the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history is that Abbott “overreached.”

“Instead of trampling on our country’s federalism to score political points, Governor Abbott and other rogue governors should join those of us in Congress that are working toward an agreement to secure our border in a humane and orderly way,” he said in a statement to The Messenger.

Gonzalez has dinged leaders in both parties for leaving migrants “hanging on a shoestring” while lawmakers grapple with immigration policy.

The high court's ruling comes as U.S. senators are working on a bipartisan border deal to hash out potential agreements on wide-ranging immigration issues like asylum claims, expulsion authority and temporary “parole” grants. The politically charged measure is unlikely to come up this week.

But even if it does garner the 60 votes needed to move through the narrowly divided chamber, House Republicans have vowed the bill would be dead on arrival in their chamber.

“The chances of this bill passing the House are 0.000% percent,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, predicted Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

Crockett told The Messenger, “Governor Abott’s politicization of immigration, and Republicans’ complete failure to work with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform or a supplemental border security deal, is intensifying and inflaming this issue to the detriment of our border communities who need real help, not a political circus.”

The Messenger’s Lindsey McPherson and Stephen Neukam contributed to this report.

Home

Supreme Court Border Ruling Fuels Political War: Federal Takeover v. States ‘Stand Their Ground’