Horowitz: The only solution to border invasion is for Texas to remove illegal aliens

What is the solution when the federal government not only fails to secure the border but actively invites the largest influx of illegal aliens in American history? Well, the Constitution is a two-way social compact, in part, between the states and the federal government. If the feds are breaching it in order to violate Texas sovereignty, and California can breach it to invite in illegal aliens, why can't Texas uphold sovereignty by removing illegal aliens?

Just consider the predicament of the Lone Star State. The preliminary border numbers for July show that 205,000 illegal aliens were apprehended, a number that is simply unfathomable, and up from 188,829 in June. Just in the Rio Grande Valley alone, there were 8,144 apprehensions over the weekend. That is an annualized pace of nearly 1 million just for one border sector!

If that is not an invasion, then the word has no meaning. Some might suggest that there is no violence involved, but aside from the violent cartels orchestrating the flow, let us not forget the end-result that Texas must deal with. The latest report from the Texas Department of Public Safety tabulates more than 573,000 criminal offenses committed by 344,000 criminal aliens, 235,000 of whom were confirmed to be here illegally, who were booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011, and June 30, 2021. The crimes include:

• 1,245 homicides
• 66,924 assaults
• 17,456 burglaries
• 72,835 drug charges
• 980 kidnappings
• 33,335 thefts
• 4,155 robberies
• 7.076 sexual assaults
• 8,332 sexual offenses
• 49,408 obstructing police charges
• 8,317 weapons charges

These numbers only account for those illegal aliens who already were encountered by the feds and have a matching fingerprint in the system, so the numbers are really much higher. Keep in mind, that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegals evading Border Patrol this year. Those are usually the worst criminals, but if they are arrested for a crime in Texas and they are not in the DHS IDENT database they are not included in the count.

However, given that those recorded as committing crimes were already known to the feds, why weren't they removed? As Hans van Spakovsky asks, "Why were these 235,000 illegal aliens – who were identified because they had been previously detained by DHS – still in Texas, still present in this country, and thus able to commit their crimes?"

The federal government not only floods the state with criminal aliens, in contravention to nearly every section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), they refuse to remove those aliens caught committing new crimes in the country. Is Texas really at the mercy of the federal malfeasance to secure its own sovereignty?

Article I, § 10, cl. 3 (the Compact Clause) states clearly that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, ….or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

If this is not an invasion, I'm not sure what is. Also, nobody is suggesting that Texas go to war with the countries of origin of these invaders. But the principle of sovereignty of states spelled out in the social compact, and clearly preserved in the Constitution, dictate that a state has the right to evacuate itself from imminent danger if the federal government is unwilling or unable to help. In this case, the federal government is actively aiding and abetting the invasion.

Even former Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong proponent of a robust federal government, stated clearly during the Virginia Ratifying Convention that states ultimately have the final say when the people believe they are in danger. "This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary," said Marshall during the debate on the Compact Clause on June 16, 1788.

Some might suggest that the federal courts will throw a tantrum and say they cannot deport illegal aliens. Indeed, a George W. Bush-appointee had the nerve to rule that the Texas governor could not use COVID-19 to stop the transporting of aliens throughout Texas, even as the courts have greenlit governors to control our businesses, movement, and bodily autonomy under the guise of COVID-19.

In fact, last year, Gov. Greg Abbott set up checkpoints on the roads leading into Texas from Louisiana to screen people and enforce the mandatory quarantine, as if Louisiana were an international border. The courts had no problem with it. Suddenly, when it comes to invaders, they have more rights than we do.

The courts have lost all moral and legal authority on this issue. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and most certainly, judicial supremacy is not a suicide pact. The time has come to kick the federal courts out of illegal immigration. Remember, these are the same courts that had no problem with sanctuary cities and even upheld New York's policy to criminalize federal enforcement of national sovereignty. Yet, when states want to enforce their own sovereignty when the feds are refusing to enforce provisions of the INA, the courts suddenly find religion with federal powers.

When the courts tried to block Arizona from dealing with the influx under former President Barack Obama, the late Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his partial dissent in Arizona v. U.S., "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State." Well, Texas needs to ask the same question Scalia did of Arizona: "Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?"

"A good way of answering that question," continued the great justice, "is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding?"