borders and Texas
continuing our conversation
Columns on immigration along the southern border continue garnering welcome thoughts from this readership. As I say in the welcome notes I compose individually for each new person signing up, along with when I close most entries, my sole goal really is to expand discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone on but provide expanded data points on how actions create consequences, ACC. Two observations I received since last night are worth mixing into our rich conversation.
One reminds all of us of the dangers of drug trafficking entering through these border crossings. I did not mention that as I took it as a possible given condition but our reader is certainly correct. Drug trafficking, along with people trafficking, are distinct possibilities as the coercive effects of illegal activities manifest the unknowns for many of seeking to enter the country regardless of their status or illegal activities.
This reader also observed she anticipates a major terrorist incident along that same border. While I have heard past such speculation, the porous nature of the border certainly creates conditions which could feed someone with truly evil aspirations. As we have seen in the past, terror threats emanate from multiple places, including some of our most cherished allies (the ‘shoe bomber’ twenty years ago was a British national, of course), much less places with which we have occasional frayed relationships. I imagine the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, officers probe for these dangers regularly but it’s hard to dispute that their ranks are currently understaffed and overworked with the influx. Thanks to one of our earliest subscribers last year for raising these two concerns. I appreciate them since I did not note them as would have been appropriate.
The other exchange I had today is quite detailed so I include the writer’s text. It’s a nuanced view of someone quite familiar with U.S. immigration law.
‘I think there’s two important points that Americans don’t understand - you may be aware of these details, but I find a lot of natsec folks aren’t. (I wish someone would do TED talk on this.)
1. People ask: why don’t they come legally, like our forebears did?
In fact, for most of these people, there is no possible legal avenue ever to immigrate to the US legally.
Most of our immigration is based on family relationships. If you don’t have a parent, child or sibling already legally in the US, you’re out of luck. In addition, even with a relative, the wait list is almost endless for some nationalities. If you’re an American citizen and you want to bring your adult child from Mexico, your offspring must wait about 20 years from the time you submit the paperwork until “his number comes up.“ (Mexico, Philippines, India and China have especially long waits. If you’re from another country, the wait is closer to 10 years.) (https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-february-2024.html)
“Immediate relatives” (parents, minor children, spouses) don’t have to wait in this queue, so they can normally come as soon as the paperwork gets processed.
So an “anchor baby” may be useful, but you have to wait until she’s 21 to initiate the paperwork, plus see point 2 below.
Work visas for immigration generally require specialized training the people coming illegally lack, and they also are complicated and can have wait times.
2. Once you have lived illegally in the US for more than I year, you are barred from the US for 10 years. There are waivers and exemptions, but in the main, if you come to the US and remain illegally, you have no way to sort it out, even if you marry a U.S. citizen, have kids here, etc., unless you depart for 10 years, and then have your spouse or kids file for you. (In order to immigrate, you have to provide police reports and other info documenting your residence abroad, so it is difficult to evade this requirement. ) (https://www.legacyimmigrationattorney.com/is-there-a-way-around-the-three-3-and-ten-10-year-bars/#:~:text=There%20are%20exceptions%20to%20this,and%20children%2C%20and%20trafficking%20victims.)’
Most interesting details that I confess rarely appear in most conversations. I knew the point one but had not really focused on the second part. Thank you to both readers for augmenting our knowledge, whether any of us agree with it or not. Actions create consequences so people react to the actions they see, as potential illegal or legal immigrants or as those objecting to or welcoming the arrivals. I am awed by the range of knowledgeable people reading along with all of us.
I would also note that it appears Texas Governor Greg Abbott could provoke a constitutional crisis with his border stance. Again, my point is neither to endorse nor condemn the stance as you make up your own minds. However, I believe the issue will become ever more tenuous as Abbott is challenging one of the oldest legal traditions in our nation’s history: the Supreme Court’s ultimate final say on jurisdictional primacy (I am sure the many lawyers reading this have a better phrase which can help us).
Teaching U.S. politics for years to undergraduates, one of the cases that established our legal system was Marbury v. Madison in 1803, arguably the most important case ever because it established the Federal Judiciary’s rule over laws and statutes across the land. Marbury may come into play as Governor Abbott continues invoking Texas’ right to protect itself against the influx of migrants, despite the Supreme Court a fortnight ago narrowly upholding the Biden administration’s right to cut the barbed wire Texas is setting as a deterrent. At some point, this fundamental struggle for ultimate decision-making authority seems bound for a resolution.
I don’t pretend to know how that resolution will turn out but I do know this is a monumental issue for the future of judicial authority, federal versus state authority, and for countless disputes across our landscape.
I welcome any and all of you to weigh in on this contentious topic. You may understand it differently than I do so I am keen to hear your thoughts. It’s these vital issues we need discuss as citizens for many reasons. I hope attorneys and non-attorneys will offer thoughts. ACC for so much in our society.
It was another beautiful day in the Chesapeake region, priming perhaps for an early spring. I was delighted last night when a woman contacted me about one of the photographs across the Creek in yesterday’s post. She and her husband built one of the houses prominent in the shot, though they now live elsewhere in town with fewer stairs. But, she was clearly delighted to see her former residence in such a nice light in a facebook post citing substack.
This is today’s early light allowed for amazing reflections.
I welcome all of you to this column daily. Please feel free to circulate if you find the topics useful. Please also feel free to become a paying subscriber if you are so moved as I deeply appreciate by your financial support. In any case, I am so glad you are here.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Bradford Betz, ‘Supreme Court sides with Biden in Texas border wire case; Border Patrol Union blasts ruling’, foxnews.com, 22 January 2024, retrieved at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-biden-texas-border-razor-wire-case