Donald Trump wasted no time making his mark upon returning to the White House.
In less than a week, the president signed dozens of new executive orders and repealed nearly 80 orders and memorandums from the Biden era.
If the federal government declares that an invasion has occurred, states have the right and arguably the obligation to respond accordingly.
One of the most notable orders titled “”guarantee the state's protection against invasion,” introduced immediate changes to immigration law.
The order temporarily suspends a controversial policy that allows immigrants to enter the United States by claiming asylum.
It also directs federal agents to block the entry of immigrants who cannot provide sufficient medical information or reliable criminal and background records.
Perhaps the most important change is one that has received little attention from the media. This is the “invasion” classification of the ongoing border crisis.
Many of Trump's critics have categorized “invasion” rhetoric as xenophobic or racist, but in doing so they have completely removed important policy justifications for using the term. I missed it. By calling what is occurring at the southern border an “invasion,” Trump has effectively given states the right to take drastic action against illegal immigration.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution gives priority to federal authority over state authority in immigration matters.
The court held that Article II gives the president the power to regulate many aspects of foreign affairs, including issues related to immigration.
article i Congress controls the process of becoming a citizen, forcing it to “establish uniform naturalization rules.”
The Constitution makes little mention of states' rights regarding immigration. This is a lack that is often interpreted as a justification for federal control of the issue.
However, in Article 1, Section 10the Constitution declares that “no State shall engage in war without the consent of Congress, unless actually invaded, or exposed to such imminent danger as to admit no delay.”
In other words, states cannot determine citizenship or set diplomatic agendas one step removed from the president, but they can protect themselves from invasion.
During the Biden administration, authorities reported more than 8 million Illegal border “encounters” is a number that captures the number of people caught by officials while attempting to enter the United States illegally. Importantly, data on “encounters” does not reflect the potentially millions of other immigrants who came to America illegally during the same period but were not captured.
In some states, this wave of illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion” and state officials should have the right to take action because the Constitution allows the state to fight invasions. I am claiming.
For example, in 2023, Texas legislators claimed that the state had been invaded and then passed senate bill 4which, among other things, gave Texas police the power to arrest illegal immigrants.
The law has been tied up in courts since it was passed, primarily because of a reluctance to give the state power over immigrants, and because claims of “invasion” depend on the meaning of the Constitution's meaning. Legal scholar.
The Trump administration has officially declared the recent immigration crisis an “invasion,” so there should be no doubt that states have the legal authority to protect themselves. This would be a significant enhancement of states' rights, assuming that the designation and subsequent actions on parts of the state would overcome legal challenges.
Regardless of your position on immigration, we should all be able to agree that nations should have the power to defend themselves in case of invasion. And if the federal government declares that an invasion has occurred, states have the right and arguably the obligation to respond accordingly.
If you disagree, who exactly should have the right to decide when an “invasion” occurred?
Opponents of the new order don't want to hear it, but in fact elections have consequences.
