patrick.net

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico, where Texas officials have deployed miles of concertina wire.

The order did not explain justices’ decisions. For now, it effectively upholds longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security.

In October of last year, Texas sued the federal government after Border Patrol agents cut some of the wire strung along the Rio Grande, arguing the Department of Homeland Security destroyed the state’s property and interfered in Texas’ border security efforts.

The 5-4 order from the Supreme Court vacated a previous injunction from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented Border Patrol agents from cutting the concertina wire.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Biden administration’s request to allow the border patrol to remove Texas’ border wire.

The justices agreed 5-4 to vacate an injunction put in place by the Fifth Circuit that temporarily blocked border patrol from cutting the wire installed by the state while the lawsuit is pending. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would have left the injunction in place, according to the order.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked the justices in an emergency application in early January to freeze the order, arguing the wire prevents agents from accessing “the very border they are charged with patrolling and the individuals they are charged with apprehending and inspecting.”

In 2021, early on in America’s historic border crisis, I wrote that the United Nations was abetting the problem by handing out debit cards and cash vouchers to aspiring illegal border crossers on their way north.

One outraged group of 21 border security-minded lawmakers pitched a bill that would require the United States, the UN’s largest donor, to turn off the taxpayer money spigot.

H.R. 6155 never caught fire, though, in no small part because “fact checks” from outlets such as the AFP claimed that the UN was doing no such thing.

Those fact checkers lied.

The UN’s just released the 2024 “Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela” (R4V for short), a planning and budget document for handing out $1.6 billion in 17 Latin America countries.

It confirms the UN, with the helping hands of 248 named non-governmental organizations, is indeed giving debit cards to illegal migrants — funded, in large part, by US taxpayers.

The short version is, in an uninformative, three-sentence, 5-4 order, the Supreme Court struck a Texas federal court injunction banning Biden’s Border Patrol from removing Texas’s carefully-installed anti-immigrant razor wire except in medical emergencies.

The Supreme Court’s order did not explain its reasoning. But, in their briefs to the Court, both sides — Texas and Biden’s Border Patrol — argued the other side was being irrational.

Biden’s lawyers’ brief argued that, since it takes 10-30 minutes to remove razor wire, the injunction’s ‘medical emergencies’ exception was irrational and useless, because drowning migrants would be floating around dead by the time Border Agents could cut through all that wire to save them. I mean, come on! How are Agents supposed to deliver medical services to criminals trying to flood the border with all that razor wire sitting there? Plus, it’s the Border Patrol’s J-O-B to be on the border. It’s right in the name. Texas’s razor wire stops them from getting to their workplace.

We never ever remove the wire to let migrants in, Biden’s lawyers soberly promised the Court. We only do it to protect the border and to save human lives.

Texas’s lawyers were like, look, we are literally being overrun and the Border Patrol keeps cutting up our fences as soon as we uncoil them. The fences don’t even stop criminals from crossing, it just slows them down. Plus there’s been no documented case of any Border Patrol agent being stopped from saving a drowning migrant’s life. So it’s irrational to let the Border Patrol access Texas’s border when the Border Patrol is helping an army illegally invade Texas. ...

Yesterday’s decision wasn’t a ruling on the case, it only applied to the anti-cutting injunction. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have let the razor-wire injunction stand for now, but Justices Roberts and Barrett sided with the three liberal justices and agreed that, for the time being, the injunction must go. But the case continues and Texas will still argue — the longer way — that under states’ rights it should be allowed to install razor wire along its border whenever necessary.

There is currently a standoff on America’s southern border. The entity calling itself America’s federal government is refusing to enforce the border; as a result, millions of migrants have poured across, not only from Mexico or even from Latin America, but from all over the world – China, Africa, the Middle East. Many of them are young, male, and fit. Some suggest they’re just cheap labour. Some say that the plan is to pack the voting rolls and help fortify the upcoming election. Others, with an eye on the recruiting crisis, hold that the regime plans to offer them citizenship in exchange for service, sending them to die abroad in World War III while also using them to bring the hammer down on the despised Amerikaner at home. It would not be the first time Washington made use of foreigners to murder Americans other Americans did not want to murder: during the Civil War the North made extensive use of European immigrants, making up for a manpower shortage resulting from the reluctance of the homegrown population to fight in Lincoln’s unpopular war.

Whatever the purpose of the migrants, Texas finally had enough, and sent its National Guard to secure the border. They erected razorwire barriers, and even went so far as to evict federal personnel, who were being ordered to tear down those barriers as fast as Texans could put them up.

Inevitably, it went to the courts. As I write this, the Supreme Court has returned a 5/4 decision in the White House’s favour, ordering Texas to stand down.

Constitutionally, that was probably technically correct: the border, after all, is federal jurisdiction.

Politically, it was extremely foolish.

The objective reality of the Supreme Court is that it is just nine people sitting on a bench: four old and unreliably based white men, one of whom is gay, one old and very based black man, one ‘based’ (lol) evangelical AWFL with adopted black children, one Jewish lady, and two affirmative action hires, one a semi-literate Latina and the other a black woman whose profound stupidity is exceeded only by her preternatural ugliness. The Jewish lady, the Latina, the black woman, the AWFL, and the gay man banded together to discover that the unwritten penumbras emanating from the Constitution mean that America doesn’t get to have a border if it makes Washington sad. The first three voted exactly as one would expect them to vote: not being Americans, they are hostile to America. The AWFL, on paper, is a conservative, but voted with her ovaries when she saw the poor niños drowning in the river. The gay man is also technically conservative, but he is also gay.

The next surreal story came from Texas, which appears to be following through with Governor Abbott’s vow to keep fighting after the Supreme Court vacated an injunction Tuesday that barred the Border Patrol from removing razor wire except for medical emergencies. Take a look at this equally-unbelievable headline also from yesterday’s Daily Mail:




The hot takes yesterday suggested Texas was somehow “defying” the Supreme Court, which is wrong, because the Supreme Court did not order Texas to do or not do anything. Thus, there was nothing to ‘defy.’ All the Supreme Court did on Tuesday was remove a lower-court ban against the federal government. It’s order didn’t even require Texas to let the Border Patrol into Eagle Pass, even though it took away one of Texas’s arguments for keeping the feds out.

According to the Mail article, after Texas seized Shelby Park — the public part of Eagle Pass — somehow border jumpers seemed to immediately know all about it and have started crossing on private ranch property on either side of the area now controlled by the Texas National Guard. Not surprisingly, the ranchers complained, and Texas responded by offering to install razor wire fences on their property for free.

Border Patrol needs ranchers’ permission to enter their private property, which some ranchers appear to be giving. The ranchers’ views about border crossers seems to somewhat depend on their political persuasions.

But much more significant than the razor wire giveaways were Governor Abbott’s public comments. In his recent tweets, Governor Abbott has repeatedly referred to two connected concepts: the Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, which allows States to declare war without Congress if they are “actually invaded” or are in “imminent danger.”

Abbott has repeatedly cited Section 10 adding that he has also officially declared an invasion, which seems to satisfy the Constitution’s “actual invasion” requirement. Not that it will stop Biden’s lawyers, but it seems pretty hard to argue that Texas isn’t being “actually invaded.”

Abbott, known for being cautious with his language, issued a fiery official gubernatorial letter yesterday, and its first paragraph inarguably evoked pre-Civil War rhetoric by accusing Biden’s federal government of “breaking its compact” with the States...

The final paragraph in Abbott’s letter, referring to Section 10’s Constitutional authority, seems pregnant with possibility for future conflict, since it suggested Texas intends to ignore the Border Patrol’s federal statutory authority...

There are a couple ways to read that. Saying the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary is just uncontroversially reiterating black-letter law. Of course the Constitution supersedes conflicting statutes. But in context, that statement triggered a lot of democrats, some of whom are now calling for Biden to “seize control” of the Texas National Guard.

Remarkably, historically, and surreally, the dispute between one of the largest States in the Union and the federal government is playing out in real time on social media, as evidenced by the very first, inflammatory comment to Abbott’s tweet about his letter, by the owner of America’s largest social media platform:




The dispute is causing so many problems for Joe Biden that some liberal commenters are even speculating that the Supreme Court knew this would happen when they issued their decision on Tuesday revoking the razor-wire-removal injunction. So far, no one seems able to suggest any good move for Team Biden; every possible response — including inaction — would be politically unviable and would be a gigantic election-year black eye for Biden.

Let us count the ways Biden has failed lately. President Peters is about to lose his epic Proxy War in Ukraine, a prospect he himself has described in apocalyptic terms for two years now. Just this month Biden started a brand new Proxy War against Iran, via Yemen and whatever else our military is doing in the Middle East these days, with or without a conscious Defense Secretary. And now, Biden has launched an unwinnable political battle with Texas that appears to be shoving the country towards the precipice of Civil War.

Not too good!

Any of these developments would be remarkable on its own. Together they are unprecedented. Nothing like this has ever happened in our lifetimes. In saner times, cooler, wiser heads would have long since headed off this kind of conflict with Texas, de-escalated, and brokered some peaceable resolution behind the scenes, but that kind of statesmanship doesn’t seem to be happening these days.

And as if to underscore the stakes, a timely independent story broke this week about a hardened Middle Eastern terrorist illegally crossing the border and, in a citizen-recorded video, vowing to teach America a lesson that, whatever it is, is probably something we’d rather avoid:




Presumably the feds gave this guy a free iPhone, a pre-loaded gift card, and a free no-I.D. flight to anywhere he wanted to go. Good luck finding him now. Hey, don’t complain; you have to break a few eggs to make an immigration omelet. Melting pots, and so forth.

Currently the ominous illegal immigrant’s identity is hotly disputed. Nobody’s officially admitting it is known terrorist Samadov, and some sources claim he is still free as a jailbird in the Middle East and anyway is way too old now to make any trouble. Uh-huh. But all that is besides the point. Even if the threatening Middle-Eastern border-jumper isn’t Samadov, he easily could be, and that is the point. Regardless, the story keenly illustrated the worst implications of the border problem.

Under Attack: Border Patrol Agent Assaulted While Arresting Illegal Aliens, Taken to Hospital

The longer President Joe Biden and his administration ignore the true severity of the border crisis, the uglier it gets.

And a recent photo shared in a Facebook post by the US Border Patrol Yuma Sector graphically demonstrates that fact, portraying a border agent’s wounds after he was assaulted while taking illegal aliens into custody at the border near San Luis, Arizona.

According to the caption on the photo: “Human smugglers assaulted an agent with rocks while he was arresting illegal border crossers on the west side of San Luis, AZ, Tuesday morning…The agent was transported to the hospital for treatment. Yuma Sector is working with our investigative partners to bring those responsible to justice.”

Under Attack: Border Patrol Agent Assaulted While Arresting Illegal Aliens, Taken to Hospital

You can search in vain for any reports about migration problems in Russia. Similarly, China has no illegal immigration problem despite its massive land border. Like Russia, China appears to be strategically exporting migrants. ...

My working hypothesis is that Russia and China have deployed a vast, migrant-based attack against the entire West. For the theory to be correct, China and Russia would need to have co-opted the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and many judges and politicians in the West, maybe through a blackmail system of some kind. In America, our enemies — especially China — would have had to co-opt the Biden Administration somehow. ...

This is only a theory; a working hypothesis. But I am not aware of any better explanation anywhere. I am not making this up, if you try to find an explanation for why the entire West is suffering from illegal immigration all at the same time you will run smack dab into a bunch of silly hand waving about climate change, which still fails to explain Russia and China. ...

You wanted an explanation, there it is. I’m open to alternative theories that account for all the facts. But I think this theory provides the only framework to fix the problem. Our non-coopted elected officials need to start acting like the border invasion is coordinated enemy activity with aid from internal enemies.

If you agree, and struggle to know what to do, you could forward today’s post to every elected official you know.

With a constitutional crisis brewing in Texas and voters nationwide alarmed by the toll of illegal immigration, some of the FBI’s most famous retired executives are issuing a stark warning to Congress that President Joe Biden’s border policies have unleashed an “invasion” of military-aged male foreigners who pose “one of the most pernicious ever” threats to American security.

Ten former FBI executives – some who oversaw the bureau’s intelligence, counterterrorism, criminal and training operations – expressed their alarm in a letter dated Jan. 17 to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and the chairmen of the House and Senate committees that preside over the U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security apparatus.

Their language affirms that of both current FBI Director Christopher Wray, who testified the nation’s security lights are “blinking red,” and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who alleges Biden’s loosening of border security has allowed an “invasion” of America by foreigners with troubling origins and attributes.

“In its modern history the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and, yet, one is unfolding now,” the FBI luminaries wrote. “Military aged men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands - not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane but rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.

There have been other incidents of migrants landing boats in tony coastal areas in the last few years -- I've seen reports of migrant boats landing in Coronado, Huntington Beach, and Malibu, but as you can see from the video, this was right out front in downtown La Jolla in broad daylight.

Until now, it's never been this brazenly done.

Where are they going? What will they be doing? Who are the NGOs on the inside who are helping them? We know that home break-ins and car burglaries are dramatically up in La Jolla, and yes, foreign gangs from places like Chile have been implicated. Where are these recent arrivals now?

The topic is trending on Twitter because it's such a shock to those of us who know the place.

Many people are asking how the hell that boat got through right there next to the signature port of the world's mightiest Navy, with the home of the great nuclear submarines just down the coast at Point Loma?

Was nobody guarding the coast? Or are migrants simply being waved through, perhaps for a handsome cartel payment? Who pays for that disposable boat with its $20,000 engine?

Imagine if those military-aged young men rolling out into that waiting van on La Jolla Boulevard were actual soldiers? As this video makes the rounds on the internet, you can bet China and Russia are watching.

My working hypothesis is that Russia and China have deployed a vast, migrant-based attack against the entire West.

What do you call it when young men from other nations storm the beaches of San Diego?