Will the Clash Between the Biden Administration and the Texas Government Over Immigration Policies at Eagle Pass Spark a Civil War?

A civil war-type of clash between the federal and Texan governments has kicked off in Eagle Pass, Texas over the ongoing immigration issue. According to Governor Greg Abbot, there is an invasion of illegal immigrants and a flood of drugs at the southern border, and as a result of the Biden administration’s lack of action in enforcement, the state must act on its own and conduct Operation Lone Star to hinder the largest surge of migrants in over twenty years. In addition to the state arresting immigrants illegally crossing the Rio Grande and shipping some to liberal cities in the northern part of the United States (overwhelming mayors’ resources there), the current point of contention lies more in the erection of concertina (razor) wire across parts of the Mexican-American border, which has led to the Texas Military Department’s prohibition of federal agents from access to Shelby Park. It appears from this confrontation that the Biden administration is attempting to intimidate Texas into backing down and not enforcing policies that would in theory protect citizens from harm (whether illegal immigrants pose as much of a threat as some would suggest and physical barriers are really as effective as claimed are other matters altogether).

Despite what some will try to tell you, the Constitution does not actually mention immigration or assign specific tasks to the federal government to enforce it, and the only reference of anything remotely close is Article I Section 8 Clause 4, which gives Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It says absolutely nothing about the inability of the states to create their own polices on preventing entry and securing their borders. The only other word on the topic comes from Article I Section 9 Clause 1, which states the following about slavery: “[t]he Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” Many interpret this as giving Congress the ability to regulate immigration after 1808, but that is a dishonest representation of what the document and historical context actually say (not that anyone, and particularly people on the left side of the political spectrum, care about what our founding fathers intended or the constitutional foundation of our country).

Up until about 1875, there were no restrictions on immigration, with the exception of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed the government to detain and deport immigrants who were considered dangerous to the country (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson famously railed against these acts as unconstitutional and an usurpation of power by the federal government in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions). Anyone could come into the country at any time, and the founders acknowledged that any enforcement on this matter would be left to the states to determine, as the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights stated. Then, Congress decided to start restricting the immigration of convicts and prostitutes in 1875 and people with little wealth, mental health conditions, and of Chinese origin in 1882. By 1893, it had been established, through the Supreme Court ruling Fong Yue Ting v. United States, that migration policies were the right of sovereign nations, and therefore, the federal government had the sole authority on policies regarding immigration. From that point onward, the states lost the ability to interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of entry into the country (yes, five justices essentially stripped the states of this Tenth Amendment power).

In the current standoff, three illegal immigrants (a woman and two children) drowned in the Rio Grande, and it is argued that because Texas barricaded Shelby Park with razor wire and did not allow Border Patrol agents access to the river, those migrants died unnecessarily. For weeks, the Department of Homeland Security (of which Border Patrol falls under) was prevented from access to this common point of entry, and Texas took sovereignty of its own land and restricted the power of the federal government. However, the New Orleans-based United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case, which stated that the federal government had no right to destroy Texas’ property and cut the wire, was overturned by the Supreme Court (in a case called Department of Homeland Security v. Texas, of which the reasoning behind the conclusion has not yet been released), and now, Texas has two choices: obey the Supreme Court ruling and allow the federal government to resume its role as sole enforcer of border policies or defy the federal government and bring the standoff to the next level.

If Texas does hold its ground, it could mean anything from the federal government cutting off federal aid to Texas to a federal blockade to physical clashes between federal and state militaries. If the latter were to occur, this civil war-type of scenario has the potential to spread across the country into a loyalist versus rebel clash. Currently, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming have agreed to come to the aid of Texas and enforce border polices in defiance of the federal government. Florida, in particular, is planning to send 800 soldiers, 200 law enforcement officers, 101 state troopers, 20 wildlife officers, and a few planes, drones, vehicles, and boats to assist Texas in securing the border; and Idaho wants two of its state police units to patrol Eagle Pass for drug trafficking.

As Border Patrol attempts to intimidate the Texas National Guard into standing down and has given the state a January 26 deadline for “full access” to the border, House Representative Joaquin Castro (Democrat from Texas) wants the Biden administration to federalize the Texas National Guard by either diverting them to some federal mission elsewhere or by invoking the Insurrection Act, which the administration could use on its own whim to force the guard to stand down. Although President Joe Biden is seemingly waiting on the judicial process and a few other court cases on Texas’ enforcement policies (including one involving the placement of floating barriers in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass), if Texas decides to keep this faceoff going, he may be prompted by his advisors to take a more forceful approach.

Governor Abbot has already said that he plans to continue arresting illegal immigrants on trespassing charges and assuming the enforcement role that the federal government has failed to take. Texas has declared, along with fifty-one of its counties (Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough made it clear that the state needs to practice civil disobedience and resist federal pressures), that this is a foreign invasion (qualifying for action under Article IV Section 7 of the Texas Constitution), and since the Biden administration is not protecting Texas under Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution (the federal government is obligated to protect states from invasion), the state is acting on its own under authority granted by Article I Section 10 Clause 3 (states are not allowed to wage war unless invaded or under looming threat). We will see if federal intimidation will ultimately cause Texas to back down.

Additionally, Texans may actually have the ability to vote for secession from the United States in March, as the Texas Nationalist Movement has gained traction in recent months. Texit may now flourish as a movement because of the federal government’s decision on the Eagle Pass immigration issue, and if people are convinced that the federal government is bullying Texas, they may just conclude that the time has come for independence.

Similarly, New Hampshire is considering leaving the United States; and its 2021 proposal for secession to be added to the state constitution, which only had the support of thirteen legislators at that time, now has seen near-unanimous support (in the state’s House of Representatives). Many people in New Hampshire are sick of the federal government’s financial irresponsibility, inflation, undeclared wars, the bureaucratic system destroying the concept of checks and balances, and the violations of individual rights.    

Will this conflict lead to a civil war in the United States between Democratic and Republican states? With the Democratic Party’s political persecution of Donald Trump, an increase in censorship and potential false flag cyber attacks ahead of the 2024 presidential election, and the awakening by some in this country that the federal government has become a way-too-powerful tyrannical government (not to mention an upcoming film about a fictional civil war that may be conditioning people to the reality of what is to come); we must open our minds to the prospect of internal war in the United States and states fighting other states militarily. Although civil war is a worst-case scenario, we must not pretend that it is an impossibility. Any attempt by any state to secede from the Union, which is every state’s right to do, will likely be met with physical violence and a military invasion, as was the case during the original American Civil War. American politics is being manipulated, and we are becoming more and more divided by forces that we cannot even see. Perhaps the elitists’ plans are to destroy the American Empire from within in order to bring about a new order on the global stage, or perhaps the United States government has simply become too powerful and cannot quell the spirit of American patriots who would like to see their country become a limited-government beacon of hope instead of an international and domestic bully.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.