Fed-Up Texas Seizes Control of Border-Adjacent Park, Alleging Feds 'Perpetuate Illegal Immigrant Crossings'
The sovereign people of Texas have had enough of the federal government and its refusal to secure the southern border.
In a series of social media posts on Thursday evening, Fox News’ Bill Melugin reported that the Texas National Guard had taken control of Shelby Park in the border town of Eagle Pass, Texas, and was prohibiting federal officials from accessing the park.
“The current posture is to prepare for future illegal immigrant surges and to restrict access to organizations that perpetuate illegal immigrant crossings in the park and greater Eagle Pass area,” the Texas Military Department said in a statement, according to Melugin.
Those “organizations” that “perpetuate illegal immigrant crossings” include the Biden administration’s Border Patrol.
“This is the area where Border Patrol has been cutting TX razor wire,” Melugin wrote. “Razor wire and fences are now deployed to block the area off from the public and federal government.”
In other words, the federal government has undermined border security and deliberately facilitated illegal immigration.
Thus, Texas has no choice but to act in its own defense.
Melugin’s post on X included a 29-second video that showed Texas National Guard soldiers and vehicles blocking off the park.
NEW: The Texas Military Department confirms the TX National Guard has seized control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass (city property where mass illegal crossings are), and is restricting Border Patrol from accessing the area, saying the Feds “perpetuate illegal crossings”. This is… pic.twitter.com/29UqFmWDsx
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 12, 2024
In a follow-up post, Melugin reported that the Border Patrol union endorsed the move by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
“Governor Abbott is not harming Border Patrol operations, he is enhancing them. His seizing control of Shelby Park allows our agents to deploy to troubled spots that experience high numbers of gotaways. Governor Abbott’s actions should be seen as a force multiplier,” the union said in a statement.
NEW: The Border Patrol union confirms to me that agents are being blocked by Texas soldiers, and the union is praising Abbott for seizing control. @BPUnion statement:
“Governor Abbott is not harming Border Patrol operations, he is enhancing them. His seizing control of Shelby…
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 12, 2024
This move almost certainly will force a showdown between Texas and the Biden administration. And no doubt this showdown will involve a court challenge.
“They are denying entry to Border Patrol agents to conduct our duties,” one U.S. official said, according to CBS News. The unnamed official added that he or she did not know “what authority” Texas might “have over the federal government.”
Well, Mr. or Ms. unnamed federal official, allow me to explain the source of Texas’ authority.
To begin, we must not pretend that this question involves complications that only “legal experts” could unravel.
As John Adams wrote in 1765, government amounts to a “plain, simple, intelligible thing founded in nature and reason and quite comprehensible by common sense.”
This means, among other things, that every citizen may examine the U.S. Constitution and understand its meaning.
For instance, the Bill of Rights features the 10th Amendment, which reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So what powers did the sovereign people grant the federal government?
On immigration, the Constitution empowers Congress to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” In other words, Congress decides how immigrants become U.S. citizens.
That is all. The Constitution includes no other clauses that pertain to immigration.
Thus, every power the federal government exercises over immigration policy stems from judicial construction.
But do judges — even U.S. Supreme Court justices — have the power to determine the Constitution’s meaning?
Judges, of course, may issue binding rulings that settle particular cases. They do not, however, have exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution.
If judges did have that power, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1819, then the Constitution would amount to a “felo de se” — a felon against itself, or an act of suicide.
Nineteen years earlier, James Madison had argued something similar.
In his Report of 1800, Madison wrote that “dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the constitution.”
Hence, courts cannot have the final word on the Constitution’s meaning.
“On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it,” Madison added.
Thus, in “cases of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous nature,” the states have an obligation to act.
In short, Texas faces a clear case of deliberate, palpable and dangerous subversion by the federal government. It must act, therefore, to secure its border.
Furthermore, Texas has authority, acknowledged by the 10th Amendment, to take the action it deems necessary.
Likewise, the state need not wait for approval from the judiciary. And if a federal judge orders Texas to desist, Texas may ignore said judge.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the words of two great Founders lead to no other conclusions.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
