DOJ and Texas Face Off in Court Over Border Buoys to Deter Migrants
August 2023 | Volume 15, Issue 2
Read the full article from NBC News.
According to the article, the state of Texas went to court recently to defend placing a string of buoys in the Rio Grande to deter people from crossing the river from Mexico, a day after Governor Greg Abbott acknowledged moving some of the barriers out of Mexican waters.
The federal government has ordered Texas to remove the barriers and filed suit against the state when Abbott refused.
A study the Justice Department submitted as part of the lawsuit showed that most of the buoys were on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, where it is called the Río Bravo. It also showed that anchors for the buoys were on the Mexican side.
The department said the International Boundary and Water Commission, which regulates the river and settles boundary disputes and issues, saw excavators and workers doing construction in the river and a concrete anchor being repositioned closer to the U.S. bank. The commission had received a call about work going on the previous night.
“The United States had no advance notice that Defendants would be performing additional work on the Floating Barrier,” the Justice Department stated in a court document filed. “When questioned by counsel this afternoon, Defendants admitted Texas is presently repositioning the Floating Barrier in the river.”
The federal government has ordered Texas to remove the barriers and filed suit against the state when Governor Abbott refused.
Attorneys for the federal government said the repositioning of the buoys and anchors and the unauthorized construction “underscore” why the court should grant the Justice Department's requests for a preliminary injunction. The department said Texas is not only harming the United States by violating federal law governing the river, but also harming the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico and “other compelling federal interests.”
The river serves as the international border between the two countries. It hosts several vehicle and pedestrian bridges that are crossed daily, but also is traversed by people who do not have permits to cross legally.
The buoys were positioned between Eagle Pass, Texas, and Piedras Negras, in Mexico. On a recent visit to Eagle Pass, Abbott said the buoys were moved “out of an abundance of caution” after what he said were allegations they had drifted to the Mexican side.
Discussion Questions
- According to media reports, dead bodies, presumably immigrants who attempted to cross the Rio Grande River from Mexico to the United States, have been found alongside the buoys commission by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Critics of Governor Abbott have criticized the buoys as being “inhumane.” Comment on this criticism.
Inhumane is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “marked by a lack of compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.” Based on this definition, Governor Abbott’s policy could be defined as inhumane. Whether this criticism is outweighed by state and/or national security interests is an issue to be considered by those who are exposed to it. - In terms of deciding whether to install such barriers, should diplomatic relations with Mexico be a pertinent issue? Why or why not?
This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary.
In your author’s opinion, diplomatic relations with Mexico should be viewed as the “macro” (big picture) issue, while buoys dividing the Rio Grande River should be viewed as the “micro” (small picture) issue. Diplomacy is defined as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations,” or the “skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility.” One must be reminded of the fact that in terms of geographic proximity, Canada and Mexico are our closest neighbors. - As the article indicates, the federal government has taken issue with Governor Abbott’s decision to install the buoys, and litigation between the United States and the State of Texas has resulted. In your reasoned opinion, who will win prevail in this litigation? Explain your response.
The United States Constitution delegates to the U.S. Congress the power “[t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,…throughout the United States.” Thus, the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine which foreigners can become citizens, and under what condition. Although the Constitution is silent on the issue of immigration, it is reasonable to assume that if the Framers of the Constitution intended for the federal government to determine which foreigners can become citizens, it also has the power to determine the circumstances by which individuals can come lawfully to the United States.
One must also consider the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 2), which states that the federal Constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. The Supremacy Clause prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional power, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
In your author’s opinion, the federal government “reigns supreme” over state government in terms of addressing matters related to immigration. Logically, if immigration is a matter of national concern, should not the federal government, rather than individual governments, address the issue? Should Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, or any other state be allowed to dictate U.S. immigration policy?