SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
border patrol
Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Texas in Razor Wire Border Battle
"The fact that four votes went in Texas' favor is a worrying sign," said one advocate.
Jan 22, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates and legal experts on Monday applauded as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas officials cannot impede federal border agents from cutting down razor wire that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott installed near the Rio Grande to stop migrants and asylum-seekers from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border—but expressed shock that four justices opposed the decision.
The high court voted 5-4 in favor of the Biden administration, which had previously been ordered by a federal appeals court last month to stop removing razor wire.
Right-wing Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberals in voting to allow border agents to cut down the wire.
Texas argued last month that under the Biden administration's orders, border agents had damaged state property and illegally trespassed when they cut through the concertina wire in order to reach migrants who had crossed onto U.S. soil and take them into custody for processing.
The U.S. Justice Department filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to reverse the federal appeals court's ruling.
In the Biden administration's filing, officials noted that three migrants—a woman and two children—drowned just over a week ago while trying to cross the Rio Grande.
The drownings, wrote U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, "underscore that Texas is firm in its continued efforts to exercise complete control of the border and land... and to block Border Patrol’s access to the border even in emergency circumstances."
"It is impossible to say what might have happened if Border Patrol had had its former access to the area—including through its surveillance trucks that assisted in monitoring the area," wrote Prelogar. "At the very least, however, Border Patrol would have had the opportunity to take any available steps to fulfill its responsibilities and assist its counterparts in the Mexican government with undertaking the rescue mission. Texas made that impossible."
The administration said the appeals court's ruling turned the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause "on its head." The clause states that federal laws take precedence over statutes put in place by state governments.
"If that injunction is left in place," Prelogar said, "it will impede Border Patrol agents from carrying out their responsibilities to enforce the immigration laws and guard against the risk of injury and death, matters for which the federal government, not Texas, is held politically accountable."
Journalist Peter Sterne was among those who expressed concern over the four conservative justices' apparent disagreement with the supremacy clause.
"Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law—lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents," said University of Texas School of Law professor and CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck. "That four justices would still have left the lower court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those long-standing principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director of the American Immigration Council, said that considering well-established constitutional law, it was "not a surprise that the Supreme Court ruled in the Biden administration's favor here.
"That said," he added, "the fact that four votes went in Texas' favor is a worrying sign."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Drowning of Women, Two Children Intensify Disgust Over Illegal Border Operations by Texas National Guard
"Gov. Abbott's inhumanity has no limit. Everyone who enables his cruelty has blood on their hands."
Jan 14, 2024
The drowning of a woman and two young children along the U.S.-Mexico border have sparked outrage and rebuke over the weekend after it was reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents attempting a rescue operation were denied access to the area by Texas security officials operating under the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
According toTexas Public Radio:
On Friday night, Border Patrol agents nearby learned from Mexican officials that a group of migrants were in distress.
They tried to call the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas National Guard unsuccessfully and then drove over to Shelby Park, according to Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo), who was briefed on the matter.
"Border Patrol agents then made physical contact with the Texas Military Department and the Texas National Guard at the Shelby Park Entrance Gate and verbally relayed the information," Cuellar said. "However, Texas Military Department soldiers stated they would not grant access to the migrants—even in the event of an emergency —and that they would send a soldier to investigate the situation."
The bodies of the migrant woman and two children were eventually recovered by Mexican authorities.
In his statement, Cuellar called the events a "tragedy" and that the state of Texas "bears responsibility."
White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández confirmed that Texas soldiers "blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance" to the migrants in distress.
"While we continue to gather facts about the circumstances of these tragic deaths," Fernández Hernández added, "one thing is clear: Governor Abbott's political stunts are cruel, inhumane, and dangerous."
The drownings on Friday night came just hours after the U.S. Department of Justice petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene against Texas for taking effective control over Shelby Park and approximately 2.5 miles of border as part of what Gov. Abbott has dubbed "Operation Lone Star." A challenge to the law was previously considered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which stayed action by the federal government pending further review.
"This moment could be a flashpoint in the situation at the border," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director for the American Immigration Council, said Saturday in response to the drownings.
"The Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on the 5th Circuit’s decision any moment," he added. "And now it seems that three people have already died as a result of the Fifth Circuit's order and Abbott's escalation."
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texa) placed the blame for Friday's loss of life squarely on Abbott and other officials in the state who support the policy.
"This is what Operation Lone Star looks like on the ground," said Castro. "Texas officials blocked Border Patrol agents from doing their job and allowed two children to drown in the Rio Grande. Governor Abbott's inhumanity has no limit. Everyone who enables his cruelty has blood on their hands."
On Saturday, footage emerged of Texas National Guard troops deploying razor wire and riot shields to stop migrants and asylum-seekers from crossing the border near Eagle Pass.
"Texas has no legal authority to patrol the border and its National Guard isn't trained to do so. It shows," said Tom Jawetz, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who previously served as deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, in response to the footage.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Friday filed suit against Gov. Abbott and Texas over the state's S.B. 4 that seeks to permit local and state law enforcement to arrest and detain people they suspect to have entered the state from another country without federal authorization.
As the federal government, not individual states, are responsible for enforcing immigration policies and border security in the U.S., the ACLU has warned that S.B. 4 is not only harmful to migrants and those seeking asylum but also unlawful.
"This law will rupture Texas communities," said Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, in a statement on Friday. "It will strip people of their rights under federal law with devastating consequences: Families may be separated, more people may live in fear of law enforcement, and migrants may have a harder time fully integrating into our communities. This plainly unconstitutional law should never have been passed, so now we are seeking to stop its enforcement while the litigation unfolds.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Border Patrol Implements 'Stop and Frisk' Policy in Southwest Border Region
Oct 15, 2015
A woman is driving home at 9:30 p.m. with her four-year-old daughter. She pulls into a rest stop. Behind her, a vehicle appears with headlights so bright she can't see. Nervous, she drives away. The other vehicle follows, tailgating her at 60 mph. She switches lanes, and the vehicle does,, too. After several miles, the emergency lights come on.
At the roadside, a Border Patrol agent with a hand on his gun approaches. Another agent scans the woman's car with a flashlight, illuminating her daughter's face. They're about 75 miles away from the border in Arizona. "You seem nervous," one agent says. "Only criminals and people trying to hide things get nervous." The agent interrogates her, searches for personal belongings, and finally releases the car without explanation. Out of fear, the woman resolves to avoid driving at night. Her daughter has recurring nightmares.
Welcome to life in the border region, where Border Patrol's de facto policy of "stop and frisk" is familiar to residents and yet concealed from public view. A new ACLU of Arizona report -- based on government records obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation -- sheds light on Border Patrol's vast "interior enforcement" operations, which take place, without meaningful oversight, far from any border.
Border Patrol's records undermine the agency's claims that these operations are "safe, efficient, and cost-effective." Documents contain multiple accounts of Border Patrol agents stopping and searching motorists without justification; threatening residents with assault rifles, Tasers, and knives; destroying and confiscating personal property; interfering with efforts to video-record agents; and using dozens of false alerts by CBP dogs to search and detain innocent people.
These are not just a few "bad apples." The records show Border Patrol systematically disregarding the law with impunity. One supervisor instructed agents to "stop any vehicle on the US/Mexico border road" based on the "mere presence of the vehicle." The supervisor allegedly "didn't care if it was the Chief of the Border Patrol and the agent conducted a high-risk traffic stop removing the Chief . . . at gunpoint."
There is no indication that the supervisor was reprimanded.
"You seem nervous," one agent says. "Only criminals and people trying to hide things get nervous."
None of these incidents resulted in any significant discipline. This is consistent with past reports on CBP's failure to investigate, much less punish, agents who violate border residents' rights. The ACLU has documented many similar complaints about Border Patrol's interior checkpoints and roving patrols in recent years, and those complaints were not properly investigated either. Oversight is so lax that Border Patrol doesn't even document any stops that don't result in an arrest, even if the stop leads to lengthy detention or property damage -- a practice clearly out of line with accepted standards.
Yet for all of the harms caused by Border Patrol's interior operations, they result in relatively few apprehensions of unauthorized border-crossers. For example, Tucson Sector interior checkpoint apprehensions in 2013 accounted for only 0.67 percent of the sector's total apprehensions. Yuma Sector checkpoint arrests of U.S. citizens exceeded those of non-citizens by a factor of nearly eight. |
Despite the Supreme Court's prohibition on general "crime control" checkpoints, the agency's records bear out that Border Patrol checkpoints are more directed at drug busts than immigration enforcement. Indeed, it was previously revealed that roughly 80 percent of recorded Border Patrol drug arrests were of U.S. citizens. Despite CBP Commissioner Kerlikowske's promise a year ago to review all checkpoints by expanding data analysis of their efficacy, no statistics have been released or changes announced.
In that same interview, the commissioner said: "You can't separate transparency from accountability." Yet the fact that the ACLU had to file a lawsuit to obtain these public records is telling. CBP's records show that at a time of growing national attention to police accountability, the nation's largest law enforcement agency has yet to reform its culture based on best practices like transparent data collection, a ban on racial profiling, or discipline for agents who violate civil rights.
Border residents are rightly impatient for change at CBP: Whether CBP takes this report seriously will be a good gauge of the agency's true intentions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular