The Spire

Ashwin Prabaharan ’26

Chief Opinions Editor 

This past weekend, I was given the opportunity to take part in the Benedict Joseph Fenwick Debate Society’s first practice debate of the semester. Arguing in the affirmative, my teammate Harry Courts and I took on the prompt, Resolved: “Governor Abbott made the right decision by deploying the Texas National Guard to the Southern Border and blocking federal access.” It was a wonderful and spirited argument that pitted the eccentricities of the border crisis and the state-national government issues against each other. Though I argued in favor of Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s decision to suspend federal access and build razor wire defenses on the Southern border with Mexico, I find it prudent to what extent the state has the constitutional right to do so at the expense of the federal government’s power and abilities. 

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, stipulated in Article Six, Clause 2, set in stone the Constitution’s (and federal laws made pursuant to it) supremacy over all other statutes. The “other” statutes, being state law, are superseded by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President as long as it fits within the parameters of the Constitution. Congress has been delegated the power to manage control of the border, and possesses the right to give the President unilateral authority to shut it down if deemed necessary. Only Congress can, not any other entity, including state governments. 

The border crisis is nothing to scoff at, and its political, economic, and social ramifications are only beginning to show. In 2023 alone, Border Patrol and state law enforcement recorded nearly 2.5 million encounters. Reports indicate officials made more than 39,000 criminal arrests when engaging the migrant surge. 458 million doses of lethal fentanyl were confiscated last year, enough to kill every man, woman, and child in the country. The crisis is overwhelming federal and state border processing facilities, law enforcement, and welfare resources. The migrants bussed by Governors Abbott and DeSantis to so-called “sanctuary cities” have brought chaos to major cities, including my hometown of New York City. Migrant shelters have been erected all across the city as the city government begs for federal monetary aid to stem the budget deficits accrued in trying to deal with the migrant surge. 

Governor Abbott however, by going to such lengths to block federal access to certain areas of the border, risks upsetting the federalist model this government stands on. His assertion of state supremacy over federal authority on a matter clearly delegated to the latter is concerning, since precedent challenging such power can prove grievous in other situations if handled improperly with this case cited. The law is clear: the White House and other entities of the federal government have supremacy over matters regarding the border unless stipulated in the Constitution otherwise. States must acknowledge that supremacy and act accordingly, but this recent border crisis highlights a predicament in which the state sees it fit and necessary to act because of federal negligence. Though the Biden administration is more than responsible for one of the biggest policy disasters to occur in recent memory and should be judged as such, their authority remains unmistakable, undoubted. The White House, no matter how ignorant and negligent it can be, has the final word on how the government responds to anything concerning the border or anything the federal government is given authority over for that matter. 

Though the Constitution may not be explicitly in his favor, Governor Abbott has come to appreciate other attributes of it, specifically, citing Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, giving the state the right of self-defense if it is “actually invaded” or in “such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” Governor Abbott interprets the massive surge of migrants to be marked within the scope of this clause, claiming that the crisis poses a significant threat to the people of Texas, the citizens his mandate is tasked with protecting. This interpretation has wide implications not just for Texas but for other situations in which states may come to adopt this position. But it is clear and undoubtedly so, that Governor Abbott is citing this clause to highlight the sheer calamity brought to his state as a result of the White House’s ignorance in the matter. Going to such lengths politically and legally displays the Governor’s inability to seek immediate and forceful redress through other options. 

President Biden has placed Democrats on the Hill and across the border states in a precarious position, especially bringing divisions within the party between progressives and moderates seeking to address voter concern over the border surge. If the federal government truly wanted to act on this and restrict state access to the border, it definitely could and would. However, it does not seem to be the most politically expedient issue to govern on, and it will be left to fester for officials like Governor Abbott to handle unilaterally. The constitutional fight between the states and federal government only grows worse from here with every minute passing without effective action taken to address the crisis.

COPY EDITED BY WILL DONAHUE

Featured image courtesy of CNN