States Should Block Caravan Invaders If Biden Regime Refuses To Do Its Job

Micah Garen/Getty Images 

'What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?'

What if our own federal government openly encourages caravans to flood the border states and saddles them with violent drug cartels, crime, social ills, hospitalizations, and the public cost of mass migration from across the border? Are the states completely at the mercy of the federal government's refusal to defend the sovereignty of the whole union and that of the individual states, particularly those like Arizona and Texas at the border?

Shouting "Biden, Biden, go Biden!" migrants of various nationalities celebrated the inauguration of the new president of the United States, Joe Biden. "We are very happy with the new president"
Migrantes en Juárez celebran investidura de Biden https://t.co/sr1A99AmAj

— Todd Bensman (@BensmanTodd) January 22, 2021

This is essentially the question Justice Antonin Scalia asked Obama's solicitor general during oral arguments in Arizona v. U.S., when the Obama administration began illegally granting amnesty to illegal aliens and preventing Arizona from enforcing the laws on the books. "What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?" Scalia asked, referring to Arizona's right as an individual state to defend its own borders. "The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as State borders and the States can police their borders, even to the point of inspecting incoming shipments to exclude diseased material," said Scalia during litigation between the Obama administration and the state of Arizona.

This discussion is even more relevant today, as the Biden regime has de facto invited caravans to come for amnesty by suspending Trump's asylum reforms and has now asked ICE to release some of the worst criminal aliens imaginable.

The Constitution is clear as to the responsibilities of the federal government and why we have one in the first place. The federal government exists not to impose more mask mandates and lockdowns on the people, but to protect their rights and security where states are inherently less capable of doing so effectively — namely, in repelling an invasion. Ironically, it is the one act of war a president can pursue without the consent of Congress, yet the invasion at our border is the only one we refuse to address. So where does that leave the states?

Scalia answered this question in his partial dissent in the 2012 Arizona case:

Read the rest from Daniel Horowitz HERE

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.