Texas Governor Greg Abbott argues that America’s southern border is facing an unprecedented invasion facilitated by the Biden administration’s immigration policies.
Top Officials Agree With “Invasion” Claim
Abbott is not alone in his strong language regarding the crisis at the border. Ten former high-ranking FBI officials co-signed a letter to Congress warning of a “new and unfamiliar” type of warfare using streams of migrants to destabilize the country. The letter argues that among the migrants are potential terrorists and other security threats.
France’s Interior Minister has also drawn connections between unchecked migration and increased risk of terrorist attacks within a country’s borders. However, the political left in America rejects the terminology of “invasion” as racist when discussing complex global migration flows.
How Is Migration Being Weaponized?
Abbott’s invasion claims reflect larger global trends where mass migration has become a tool of political leverage. For example, Russia recently flooded Finland with migrants from the Middle East and Africa to retaliate for Finland joining NATO.
Similarly, the anti-American Nicaraguan regime is welcoming flights of Cuban and Haitian migrants expressly seeking entry to the US. The Associated Press reports that the Ortega government uses migration as an asymmetric weapon against its opponents. America must recognize these new battlefield tactics targeting its stability.
Texas Faces Thousands of Border Crossers
As a border state, Texas is on the frontlines of confronting mass unauthorized migration. Abbott has installed miles of razor wire fencing along the Rio Grande river to deter migrants from crossing.
However, Border Patrol agents acting on orders from President Biden have cut through and removed the fencing in places to facilitate migrant entry. Biden argues immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility. But a court noted the federal government is “obviously derelict” in its duties.
Bidens Administration Actively Assisting Migrants
In one shocking incident on October 26th, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) used forklifts to remove Texas’ razor wire fencing and create an opening for 300 migrants to walk through.
This occurred just two days after Abbott filed suit in federal court over Biden undermining Texas’ border security efforts. A district court initially ruled against Texas, but an appellate court enforced a restraining order against the CBP wire removal.
White House Still Fighting Texas in Supreme Court
The Biden administration quickly leapfrogged over the appellate court, petitioning the Supreme Court directly to allow CBP to resume cutting Texas’ border wire. The Supreme Court lifted the restraining order last week, enabling border agents to facilitate more migrant crossings. This move reveals the extraordinary lengths the White House is willing to go to to undermine Texas’ border security initiatives. Biden has turned Customs and Border Protection into a migrant welcoming committee, leaving states like Texas scrambling to fill yawning gaps in immigration enforcement.
Rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, Biden could direct resources to border security, alleviate the migrant crisis perpetuated by his reckless policies, and avoid confrontation with a governor trying to protect citizens. Instead, he plows ahead in court to ensure federal officials can continue escorting migrants into the very heart of Texas.
Is This Situation Truly an “Invasion”?
Critics argue Abbott is being alarmist in utilizing the legal terminology of an “invasion” to describe the border crisis. Under the Constitution’s Invasion Clause, invasion refers specifically to attacks by hostile foreign nations intending to overthrow state governments.
However, national security experts counter that concepts of warfare and geopolitical threats have evolved. Invasion no longer requires soldiers and missiles. Weapons today include streams of migrants seeking to exploit weaknesses like America’s broken immigration system. When hundreds of thousands of unauthorized foreign nationals pour across a sovereign border defended only by a single state’s efforts, concerns of infiltration and conquest become valid. Texas faces enormous financial, social, and security burdens from migrant flows. Given the federal refusal to enforce laws, terminology elevating threats to an existential level seems appropriate.
26 States Support Texas Efforts
The alarm Abbott raises regarding border vulnerabilities may be warranted. Attorneys general from 26 GOP-led states backed Abbott in a letter this week condemning the Biden administration’s. Several states have sent their law enforcement officers and National Guard troops to fortify security in Texas.
If the White House refuses to take responsibility for America’s territorial integrity, these states argue it must allow governors like Abbott to take security into their own hands. Iowa’s attorney general said if Biden won’t secure the border, he must “step aside.”
Outdated Definitions of Invasion
Are state leaders like Abbott crying wolf about invasions, or do changing times call for updated definitions? In 1996, a federal court defined invasion strictly as the overthrow of governments by hostile foreign parties.
Today’s global connectivity means that instability in one region easily flows into others. The weaponizing of mass migration to create chaos represents a 21st-century mode of warfare that requires new frameworks. America must adapt its understanding to properly analyze emerging threats.
Threats Likely to Increase
Regardless of exact terminology, Texas faces concrete dangers emphasized by officials at all levels of law enforcement. Even the FBI describes an unfolding “invasion of the homeland” that critically threatens citizens.
Unless the federal government overcomes inertia to tackle immigration loopholes, human smuggling rings, and root causes abroad, the weaponization of migration will likely increase in scale and sophistication long into the future. Texas may only be the first battleground.
Redefining National Security
Few events have challenged fundamental assumptions about border security as the current border crisis. But conceptions of defense must evolve to address new weapons like mass migrant flows. A failure to adapt will leave America perpetually a step behind modern hybrid warfare.
Rather than partisan bickering over optics, Texas and national leaders must build creative legal frameworks and cooperative governance models to guarantee safety against upcoming threats. Any successful strategy starts by clearly naming America and admitting the true scale of invasive forces assembling at its doorstep.
