Is there a problem at our southern border? Even a mess? Yes. It’s a multinational legal and humanitarian problem that over and over has reached crisis levels. To say it’s complicated is like saying it’s takes special talent to be a pro-athlete or opera singer. For decades people have tried in good faith to address both the problem at the southern border itself, and even the root of the problem – the reasons why so many make the arduous journey to try to get into the U.S.
And then there are those who have NOT worked in good faith to address the problem. People who WANT it to continue, and even try to make it worse so they can exploit if for political gain.
As you know the Senate has been working and on a bi-partisan basis to deal with the immediate problem and the WH while not having much direct involvement is staying informed and offering its thoughts. Which include a willingness to accept the proposal that seems to be close to approval in the Senate. You also know that Trump is furious because the proposed bill is something of a wet-dream for conservatives who’ve wanted a tougher border policy. It would take multiple articles to address the various issues and also direct aspects of what’s reported to be in the legislation. However what matters is Trump openly says he WANTS things to be bad. To NOT be fixed. So HE can use it as a campaign weapon, and some Senators have joined colleagues over in the House saying what Trump wants, Trump gets.
That my friends is what I meant when I talked about bad faith. They take a problem (in this case a decades long one), make it worse and then blame the other side in the hopes voters will be fooled and they can win an election!
So far I’ve been talking about the action in Washington, DC but plenty of it is on border states, including Texas which due to it’s size has (by far) the longest stretch of border with Mexico. Second only to California (lest we forget another border state) in population Texas has a large impact on national politics. And the GOP has all the statewide offices locked up under it’s control. Gov. Gregg Abbott has turned into an attention seeking tyrant, and wants to make the border problem worse as much as any of the asshats on Capitol Hill.
Worse, he’s provoking what he WANTS to be a Constitutional Crisis. Is he trying to set himself up for a 2028 run for the WH? I’m really starting to wonder. So I believe is Rupert (and son Lachlan too) Murdoch and it seems they aren’t at all keen on that idea. This Newsweek article The WSJ editorial board has written a rather scathing takedown of Abbott and his antics. Again, the WSJ editorial board is a key part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. It’s commonly considered a major media source advocating for conservative political views. While criticizing the federal government for alleged failures in border security, the Friday piece from the board focused most of its criticism on Abbott’s decisions in the standoff, warning that he will lose in the event that his maneuvers provoke a constitutional crisis. From the linked Newsweek article:
“If Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is a constitutionalist, he will carefully consider his next move,” the board wrote. “His state’s jostling with the U.S. government on the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass isn’t yet a constitutional crisis, but it could become one. Although Washington is failing to secure the border, it remains supreme in our federalist system.”
Newsweek goes on to say the WSJ (sorry, the link to the WJS editorial is behind a paywall) talks about Abbott invoking a clause in the U.S. Constitution that allows Texas the “right to self-defense” in the event of an “invasion,” which is how he and many other conservatives have characterized the recent surges in migrant crossings. My first thought (before today when I first hears about this) was “Invasion? I don’t think that word means what you think it means Abbott!” Anyway, the WSJ editorial criticizes this as an inadvisable stretch. And also that Congressional approval is needed to begin acting on the clause.
“The first question is whether migration, however anarchic, is an ‘invasion.’ Do conservatives really want to start stretching constitutional terms? Progressives will do that better,” the piece argued. “And what power is Texas even trying to unlock? If migrants who have walked 1,000 miles qualify as an invading army, does Mr. Abbott intend to ‘engage in War’ on them?”
The WSJ editorial also expresses concerns (well DUH!) things might turn violent:
“But it isn’t hard to imagine a more direct conflict emerging if Texas continues trying to box out the Border Patrol in Eagle Pass. Would Mr. Abbott or other officials defy a resulting court order and risk contempt? Would Mr. Biden invoke the Insurrection Act to have the military intervene?”
Gee, ya think? Well, besides the Murdoch’s signaling to Abbott that as far as they are concerned he’s not Presidential material they are telling him to back the hell down. As a border state Gov. those in DC should take his concerns into account, and if he has constructive suggestions to offer they will be taken seriously. But the bottom line is that immigration and control of our borders is a federal matter and states are there to help as needed the federal govt. if the feds feel they can be of some type of assistance. Not the other way around. SCOTUS has already just backed (albeit narrowly) the federal government on this and it’s likely that will continue.
The Wall Street Journal always had a conservative lean but got more so once Murdoch acquired it. The OpEds from the editorial board are Murdoch and his empire without which conservatives would be screwed. Abbott is bluntly being told to stand down. Will he listen?
Do we have a problem at the border? Actually we have problem countries south of the border-why not punish them the leaders in particular, instead of the people who cannot do anything but leave their f*cked up nations? Why is it we hear so little of THOSE kind of solutions? It isn’t as if we don’t have the power to do this AND the power of persuasion to get other countries to join us–look at N.K as a for instance.
Does anyone really think the folks teeming at our border attempting to get in made that their first choice as opposed to living where they were born, grew up, married, had children…? Who in the f*ck wants to leave their home to live in a place where you likely don’t speak the language, the culture is wildly different than the one you grew up in, and the native population often hates you because you come from another country?
That my friend is the root of the problem – our having abandoned those central American countries and they fell into lawlessness. Conservatives want to rail about “take care of Americans” and to hell with foreigners and their countries. They don’t want to accept that money spent in some places winds up benefiting US far more than it costs. However, for conservatives catering to rural/small town WHITE Americans in particular it’s an effective political/electoral strategy to rail about foreign aid. How much did has it cost us because after the old USSR was driven from Afghanistan that Charlie Wilson was ignored when he requested a couple million (that’s million with an M, not billion with a B) to build medical clinics and schools over there. It wasn’t just conservatives but too many moderate Democrats who took the “why spend money over there?” attitude.
So somebody else started spending money there and not in a good way. You know what that led to. Over time, say a decade we might have spent as much as a half-billion dollars and made a generational ally in a region where we need allies. Instead the kind of short-sightedness you point out has cost us TRILLIONS. And blood, limbs and lives.
The vast majority of folks coming through San Antonio are coming from Venezuela. Why? because we have heavy sanctions against that country to try to overthrow the government. They qualify for asylum because they are fleeing a government we are sanctioning. I am sure Maduro is a total dictator, but we deal with dictators like MBS all the time. The US sanctions are driving people out of Venezuela but our foreign policy is a mess. Biden just imposed new sanctions, which will lead to more people trying for asylum. The cycle continues, but no body really looks at the causes. mis dos centavos
Amen Brother! I have thought the same thing for years!
I think the EPA should go in and take the wire down, it’s very bad for the environment as all the photos show.