OPINION:
Lost in the media stampede this week over the Supreme Court’s correct and prudential decision that former President Donald Trump could not be disqualified from state ballots on the whim of unelected election officials was the court’s decision the same day of a less voluble but probably more significant controversy.
The court stayed for a week a decision on whether Texas had the authority to enforce immigration law on its own if the federal government — as is the current case — refused to do so.
The law in question is the latest in a long-running and primarily successful effort by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to remake and reframe the issue of illegal immigration. The most obviously successful part of that effort has been to share the consequences of our lack of a southern border with cities and states in the interior of the nation by shipping illegal immigrants to those cities and states.
Mr. Abbott’s plan has made places such as New York City and Montgomery County, Maryland, discover that perhaps they would rather not be sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, especially now that previously free virtue-signaling comes with an actual cost.
Mr. Abbott has changed the terms of the contest and the terrain on which it is fought. Suddenly, a host of states have decided that they need to do something in light of the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce our southern border.
Not surprisingly, states governed by Republicans have taken the straightforward approach, reasoning that if the problem is one of lax enforcement – and it is – the appropriate response is to, you know, enforce the law.
The usual suspects — Florida, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Utah and Tennessee — have sent National Guard troops to the border. Twenty-five Republican governors supported Mr. Abbott in his legal contest with the Biden administration. Republican lawmakers in Arizona have proposed making it a crime for migrants to cross the border.
In the wake of the murder of University of Georgia student Laken Riley allegedly — I am required to include “allegedly” — by a man in the United States illegally, Republicans in Georgia have moved to make it a crime to be in Georgia if one is in the United States illegally.
Unfortunately, Democrats really know only one song — throw cash at a problem. In Colorado and the state of Washington, Democrats made it easier for illegal immigrants to receive state-funded health care subsidies. In Colorado, the state-funded financial assistance was for up to 11,000 people. That cap was reached in two days.
Illinois has already spent $638 million on illegal immigrants, and its budget includes an additional $182 million. New York Democrats have proposed creating a new multibillion-dollar fund to provide unemployment benefits for illegal immigrants.
The list goes on and on.
The direct and unavoidable truth is that this issue exceeds dollars and cents. If you are one of those people who worry about the United States breaking apart, the issue of illegal immigration should strike you right in the middle of your soul. When states such as Texas, Arizona and Georgia decide the federal government is either too feeble or too indifferent to protect their citizens, they are left with little choice but to take steps on their own to maintain the sanctity of their borders.
The Supreme Court no doubt senses the gravity of the moment. Defense of the southern border is clearly a federal function. It is also clearly a function this administration has no intention of performing. If the court rules that Texas has the right to defend its borders — irrespective of the federal government’s preference to maintain an open border or no border at all – then it would have essentially decided that Texas is superior to the federal government with respect to the border.
If the court decides that Texas must yield to federal authority on the the border, it would present Texans with a difficult choice.
The principal job of government is to keep its citizens safe. The state of Texas rightfully fears for the safety of its citizens. If the federal government can’t or won’t protect them, Texas will, even if the Supreme Court – and other elements of the federal government — try to prevent it.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times and a co-host of The Unregulated podcast. He remembers the Alamo.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.