To AUKUS, or not to AUKUS?

"Economists think that the more interconnected countries are by trade and investment, the less likely warfare will occur between them. [See for instance the NOT PC posts 'Free Trade Is the Path to Peace & Prosperity' and 'The Horsemen of non-apocalypse']
    "On many occasions countries have consciously intensified those interconnections as an alternative to war.
    "Examples include the federation of the American states into the USA following a confederation after customs conflict between Maryland and Virginia; the European Coal and Steel Community (which evolved into the EU) tying up the French and Germany industries after three painful wars; ASEAN which was started after the Indonesian confrontation of Malaya ended; recently India has improved its physical and trade links with its neighbouring China and Pakistan.
    "Alas, economic relations between China and the US have deteriorated. That this occurred under both President Trump and President Biden suggests a structural tension arising from jostling over their places in the world. ...
     "One can explain the First World War and the follow-up Second World War as a consequence of Germany catching up in economic size to Britain and trying to find a comparable place in the world. (Neither noticed that the US was already bigger.) We may be grateful that moving from one global hegemon, Britain, to a second, the US, did not involve conflict between the two (although the two world wars accelerated the transfer from a weakened Britain). 
    "It is unlikely that China is going to be the next global hegemon. Rather, we are moving to a multipolar world where there is none. There is a plausible economic model which predicts that world economic output, and hence power, is moving to where the populations are – the situation before British industrialisation. It occurs because of the ease with which technology and capital can transfer between countries.
    "That does not mean that Chinese productivity will catch up to the American level – not in this century anyway. Factors like the resource base and social organisation mute the economics. ...
    "So behind today’s incipient economic warfare and military machinations we face a multipolar world whose shape is uncertain. ... The challenge for the world, then, is how to get from the current world order, in which the US acts the hegemon, to a multipolar world in which the US is but one of four or so big economies. Full multipolarity may be less than a quarter of a century away.
    "The US does not seem to see the issue this way. It is largely preoccupied with the short-term task of trying to maintain its current hegemony in a world whose order it sees as not too different from the immediate post-war one. ....
    "New Zealand may have little influence over the evolving world order. In so far as we have, we should be putting our effort in assisting it to move towards the reality of multipolarity. Ultimately New Zealand is having to balance its short-term interests against its long-term ones. I am not sure our friends always understand this."

~ Brian Easton from hist post 'Trading Towards A Multipolar World'

"This election is the perfect expression of the state of the union today."

"When I look at this election — which is terrible; I mean, you have two mentally deficient, 80-year-old men running for office, and a 70-year-old alternative who has never held office, riding on conspiracy theories and a family name — you know you’ve reached the end of the line. ... By 'end of the line,' I mean that the two major parties and many institutions are effectively dead or dying. That's not a bad thing."

~ Nick Gillespie on Twitter

 

What's happening down at the Texas border crossings, why does it have State and Federal Government at each other's throats, and what does it have to with the US Constitution? Alex Nowrasteh explains all in this guest post — the border is a mess, he admits, but it's not a warzone ... 

 

Explaining the Border Standoff Between Texas and the Federal Government

by Alex Nowrasteh

From the beginning of the Biden administration in January 2021 to December 2023, the US Border Patrol had over 6.3 million encounters with illegal immigrant border crossers. Almost 4 million of those encounters, or about 58 percent, were in border sectors partly or wholly in Texas. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that about 1.6-1.8 million illegal immigrant “gotaways” entered without being apprehended by Border Patrol.

Most of the massive surge in encounters over the last several years is explained by the strength of the US labour market and incredible demand for foreign labour at a time of historically low unemployment and near‐​record job openings. Many migrants come illegally because there are so few ways for lower‐​skilled immigrants to enter lawfully and US labour demand is so high.

Many of those coming illegally are allowed into the United States with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in front of an immigration judge or on parole. In fiscal year 2023, the Border Patrol released 908,788 migrants on parole or with an NTA, and transferred an additional 372,018 to other federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Health and Human Services, or to the US Marshals. (There were 583,051 removals, returns, voluntary returns, and other detentions.)

Border Patrol processes large numbers of illegal border crossers who are allowed into the United States, many of whom ask for asylum under US law until they get their day in immigration court (the Biden administration is trying to change this). The immigration court backlog is currently about 3.3 million, more than ten times more than in 2012. Those migrants are going to be waiting, working, and living in the United States for a long time before their hearing, and many won’t leave even if the court orders them to go.

The escalating number of illegal border crossers prompted Texas Governor Greg Abbott to commence Operation Lone Star, a state‐​level initiative to support border security in March 2021d. It deploys the Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), and other law enforcement personnel. 

Right from the get-go, there were disputes between the Federal Government's Border Patrol and the Texas agencies.

Most contentiously, by October 2023 the Texas National Guard had placed about 70,000 rolls of concertina wire on the border near Eagle Pass. The Federal Government's Border Patrol was upset about that because it reduced their ability to move along the border, especially to move from the riverbank into the Rio Grande, where many migrants were crossing and some were drowning. The Texas National Guard and Texas DPS occasionally cut the wire to assist migrants in danger or process them for removal or release, but the Federal Border Patrol and the Texas agencies disagreed about when to cut it, and Border Patrol sometimes did so without permission.

In September 2023, the Federal Border Patrol began to cut the concertina wire placed by the Texas National Guard in Eagle Pass, Texas. And from then to now, the Feds and state have battled each other in court. 

On October 24, the State of Texas sued in federal court to make the Federal Border Patrol stop cutting the wire. Three days later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to halt Border Patrol from removing concertina wire. The court granted a temporary restraining order on October 30 to halt Border Patrol from further removing concertina wire. The Federal district court ruled against Texas’s request for a temporary injunction pending trial on November 29th. Texas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the next day. The court granted an emergency stay on the district court’s order, and the court enjoined Border Patrol on December 19 from further destruction of the concertina wire except in cases of medical emergency. And on January 2nd, 2024, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed an Application to Vacate the Injunction Pending Appeal with the Supreme Court.

Until this point, all parties in the case were playing nicely. And then on January 10, the situation spun wildly out of control when the State of Texas seized Shelby Park, which is owned by the city of Eagle Pass and abuts the Rio Grande. The Texas National Guard then built fencing around the park and denied Border Patrol access to the park’s facilities, including the boat ramp.

A spokesperson for Governor Abbott justified the seizure by arguing that “Texas is holding the line at our southern border with miles of additional razor wire and anti‐​climb barriers to deter and repel the record‐​high levels of illegal immigration invited by President Biden’s reckless open border policies … the Biden administration allows unfettered access for Mexican cartels to smuggle people into our country.”

Solicitor General Prelogar filed a supplemental memorandum with the Supreme Court on January 12 arguing that the state’s seizure of the park and the construction of fencing prevented Border Patrol from accessing part of the river by denying them access to Shelby Park’s boat ramp, which was to become crucially important. The day before, January 11, Border Patrol stopped operating boats along that section of the river because Texas denied them access to the boat ramp in Shelby Park. On the night of January 12, a Mexican woman and two children drowned in the river by Shelby Park in the area where Border Patrol was patrolling before being denied access to the park.

Prelogar filed a second supplemental memorandum with the Supreme Court on January 15, noting that Mexican authorities informed Border Patrol of the drowning on the night it occurred but after the fact, and that the active Border Patrol supervisor went to the gate at Shelby Park to inform the Texas National Guard that there were migrants in distress in the river. The Texas National Guard denied Border Patrol access to the park. Texas disputed many of those facts a few days later, and some details remain unanswered.

On January 22, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that barred Border Patrol from removing wire, and granted them access to all areas of the border. The next day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked for Border Patrol to be allowed access to Shelby Park by January 26. On that day, Texas denied DHS’ request to “once again transform Shelby Park into ‘an unofficial and unlawful port of entry.’” Texas will be arguing its case in front of the Firth Circuit on February 7. Expect another appeal regardless of the ruling.

In response to the Supreme Court allowing Border Patrol to access the border, Governor Greg Abbott made an incredible statement that is worth reading in its entirety. The most important section is this:

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the US Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
    The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self‐​defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.

Twenty‐​five Republican governors issued a joint statement supporting Governor Abbott and his claim that Texas is being invaded by “illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists.” Abbott’s statement has many other supporters.

Invassion? There is a world of difference between a soldier crossing a border at the head of an army and an illegal immigrant crossing a border because he wants a job.

Blind to the difference, Abbott is claiming nonetheless that Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution gives Texas the power to declare that illegal immigrants are invading and that Texas can wage a war against them. That clause states: 

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” [emphasis added]

Illegal immigration and the chaos that accompanies it are big problems. But the only thing that illegal immigrants coming here to work and the German Army entering Paris in 1940 have in common is that in both cases people are moving.

Ilya Somin and Aaron Reichlin‐​Melnik have explained in detail why “actually invaded” means “actually invaded by a foreign military” — and this according to the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and to every court since then. However, I’d just like to highlight a quote from the case of Padavan v. New York where several state senators sued the federal government for compensation for state costs incurred by illegal immigration. They claimed, among other things, that New York was being invaded under the definition of Article I, § 10, Clause 3—just like Abbott's claim now. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, using this robust logic:

Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiffs’ Invasion Clause claim is justiciable, the claim still must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the State’s government. See The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) (stating that the reason for the Invasion Clause is to protect the states from “foreign hostility” and from “ambitious or vindictive enterprises” on the part of other states or foreign nations). Clearly, New York State is not being subjected to the sort of hostility contemplated by the Framers.

You would that that the statement by the Father of the Constitution on one page of The Federalist Papers should carry more weight with Originalists than all the press releases by all the governors in the United States. After all, Madison was president when Washington DC was burned in 1814 when the British invaded during the War of 1812—so unlike Gov Abbott he knew from personal experience what “actually invaded” means.

None of this is to deny that illegal immigration is a serious problem. Bad legal arguments and linguistic confusion do not obscure the disaster of a chaotic border. In my first Cato blog post in 2012, I argued that, so long as the United States is a desirable destination. the only way to reliably and permanently reduce illegal immigration is by expanding legal immigration. That still stands.

President Biden could reduce illegal immigration by expanding the successful parole programme that allows some American‐​sponsored Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians to fly into the United States legally. Governor Greg Abbott should help the Biden administration by dropping Texas’s other lawsuit against parole and refraining from further inhibitingtrade for no good reason. Other than crashing the economy, expanding legal immigration is the only reliable way to massively reduce illegal immigration without committing crimes against humanity.

Not every serious problem is an invasion that requires the government to shoot people. I hope that Governor Abbott and President Biden tone down the rhetoric and de‐​escalate this situation. In President Biden’s case, it means relying on the courts without federalizing the Texas National Guard. In Governor Abbott’s case, it means reading Federalist No. 43 by James Madison.

Some of the noisier anti-immigration posters on Twitter and elsewhere could do with reading it too.

* * * * 

Alex Nowrasteh is an American analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank located in Washington D.C. Nowrasteh is an advocate of freer migration to the United States. He previously worked as the immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another libertarian think tank. Nowrasteh is a self-described "radical" advocate for open borders to and from the United States. He has published a number of peer-reviewed studies on immigration and co-authored with Benjamin Powell the book Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions.

Follow him on Twitter, or at his Substack.

PS: Here's Ronald Reagan speaking against 2024 Republicans ...

#Gridlock! #Winning!

"Joe Biden's main job will be to sit in the Oval Office and act like a responsible 

adult. If he manages to accomplish this even half the time, it will be an improvement.

"For NeverTrump, this is not the end—but it’s a great beginning. "I was a small-government Never Trumper. I regarded Donald Trump as unfit for office and wanted him out, but I didn’t want to sign on for the full Democratic party agenda. 

    "Which means that I’m part of a small sliver of [America] who got precisely what we wanted from this election: a victory for Joe Biden, but a narrow one that didn’t extend down the ballot and will almost certainly leave him without a Democratic Senate majority to work with. 

    "Finally, 2020 paid out for someone." 

          ~ Robert Tracinski, from his post '#NeverTrump #Winning'

[Hat tip Louise LaMontagne]

.

[