The Buoys of Texas
Terry H. Schwadron
July 27, 2023
Once again, the job of governing is being sent to the courts to resolve rather than depending on having our elected representatives do their jobs.
And once again, the narrowed issue being brought to court is a legal fig leaf for the larger unresolved issues around the precipitating prod.
The Justice Department filed suit in federal court against Texas and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott for placing buoys in the Rio Grande as part of the state’s effort to stop migrants from crossing the southern border. The suit asks a judge to order the state to “promptly remove the unauthorized obstruction” at their own expense.
The specifics of the lawsuit assert that Texas violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, which bars the “creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States.” And that there was no permit to do so from the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
But that’s the skinniest legal excuse for a much wider and continuing set of skirmishes over whether the state can enforce its own immigration policies in defiance of the federal government and the moral war on humane treatment even for migrants trying to enter the country.
At issue are those round river buoys we’ve been shown repeatedly on television, devices that may prove effective in very short spurts but that also have resulted in some migrant deaths. It is the latest weapon being used by Abbott in an ever-worsening war with Washington over the state’s desire to use razor wire, armed state National Guardsmen, bulldozers and more to stop any illegal crossings. It also reportedly has included orders to Texas state troops to push migrants back into the water and to refuse drinking water to parched migrants, even children.
‘See You in Court’
Abbott told Joe Biden, “Texas will see you in court, Mr. President,” arguing that the Rivers and Harbors law doesn’t apply and that, while he shares the administration’s concern for migrants’ welfare, Biden’s “open-border policies encourage migrants to risk their lives by crossing illegally through the water, instead of safely and legally at a port of entry. Nobody drowns on a bridge.”
There is oversimplification on all sides in the immigration issue.
The administration, which had sought to be advance humanitarian concerns after the Donald Trump years of ripping families apart, has been stymied by contradictory court decisions, blatant politicization of border guard policies, the maturation of Mexican cartel smuggling of people and drugs and a refusal among migrants fleeing from several nations to the border to accept the idea that the border officially is closed.
Indeed, there was another federal court ruling this week to stop the Biden administration from enforcing limits on restricting asylum applications from migrants arriving at the border; this time the court challenge came from immigration advocates.
The numbers of arrests and deportations remain high, though in recent months attempts to cross the border have waned from record post-covid highs. Current law had reverted to stricter limits and deportations adopted during the Trump era, and the administration has moved to start asylum process — which is a legal route to immigrate — in Central American countries or by internet. Those policies are now in question again.
Congress has put on stunts for political purposes but taken no action on any kind of comprehensive approach to immigration. Mexico has been less than consistent in its own approach to border problems, and Central American countries simply throw up their hands.
Enter Texas — and Florida and Arizona — to insist that they will act if the federal government does not. Still, by the numbers, it is unclear that state efforts at stopping illegal crossings work better than federal efforts.
So, we have a war not only about placing buoys that can prove fatal in the Rio Grande, but conflict here about who is supposed to come up with solutions and carry them out.
The Texas Rebellion
Texas takes both sides of the issue, of course.
When it comes to a perceived need for increased belligerence and razor wife, Texas officials are aggressive and set aside all the normal rules to ensure they bring yet another law enforcement attitude towards shutting the border.
When it comes time to deal with the migrants, legal or not, who do make it into this country, even temporarily while asylum requests await judication, then Texas checks out, opting to bus and fly migrants to other states and cities where they hope to embarrass Democratic local leaders.
The White House argues that Texas’ independent immigration decisions reflect “dangerous and unlawful actions that are undermining” current enforcement and “making it hard for the men and women of Border Patrol to do their jobs of securing the border and putting migrants and border agents in danger.”
None of this is happening in a political vacuum; we’re in the middle of a presidential campaign in which Republicans want to top one another with ever more increasing aggressiveness about shutting down legal and illegal immigration — without even noting the changes that are reflected in enforcement numbers.
Democrats want to address tighter border security only in the context of a more comprehensive look at our total immigration needs and policies.
Whatever the positions, we seem to prefer standing on opposite sides of the street yelling at each other or going to court, often going judge-shopping first, to throw the nation’s values into an artificially narrowed legal question.
It is too easy to lose sight that real humans are involved, with real fears of poverty and violence.
It is a crazy way to run a country.
##