The Texas border has long been a hot ticket item in policymaking in the state and beyond. However, with the looming Senatorial election, and the alleged recent entry of the “vicious” Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, it has come into the spotlight. Amongst other things, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced this month that the Texas DPS will be utilizing civil asset forfeiture, tighter criminal penalties, and increased surveillance to combat the issue. The entrance of malicious foreign actors into the country via the border has been a talking point in multiple recent elections, and Abbott (amongst other Texas politicians) has seized upon the opportunity to present a strong front against what he has named a “tier one gang.” While the news stories proclaiming the arrival of a new foreign terrorist organization are alarming, the Texas border and politics are inextricably linked, and the shifts we are seeing may usher in a new relationship between the state and federal government on immigration and border patrol. 

The political, social, and economic ties between Texas and Mexico have been present long before the days of Abbott and the border crisis. The first legislation resembling what is currently in place began under the Reagan administration: the Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, was deployed to increase border security in 1986. Following this, in 1990, Operations Hold The Line, Gatekeeper, and Safeguard stationed guards and vehicles along the border. This era marked an important shift to prevention, rather than deportation. Over the next 25 years, multiple federal government actions would seek to fence off, close, and further regulate the border. 

The last 8 years, beginning in 2016 with the election of former President Trump, have seen some of the most contentious debates regarding immigration and deportation. The hallmark of Trump administration policy was constrictive and hardline. Nearly 472 administrative acts were employed to restructure legal and illegal immigration. Efforts were made to construct nearly 400 miles of border walls, strip federal funding from sanctuary cities, end catch-and-release programs favoring illegal immigrants, and establish safe protocols for the return of migrants awaiting trial. In contrast, the policy of the Biden administration, while still somewhat tough on immigration, focused on legislative routes to bolster legal efforts for asylum and migration while discouraging illegal border crossings. His administration also placed a heavy emphasis on curbing drug trafficking, making major investments in detection of fentanyl on our borders. All of this policy, however, was taking place at the federal level somewhat far removed from ground zero, which leads us to where we are today in the state of Texas.

Since his election in 2015, one of the cornerstones of Abbott’s position has been immigration. A strong advocate for Texas’ “Constitutional Right To Defend Itself From Invasion,” and proponent for states’ rights, Abbott has continually pushed for controversial immigration policy. Clause 3 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution includes a section called Acts Requiring Consent of Congress. Within the clause, it is written that states may not engage in war or hold troops “unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Utilizing this, he has been able to skirt, and at times, fully ignore federal rulings on immigration. The case is essentially that the influx of migrants can be considered an “invasion,” and that Texas has a right to arrest and deport them regardless of federal regulation. This is, of course, what makes the immigration debate so compelling. It falls at the corner of federal and state regulation and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. SB 4, a controversial piece of legislation, was signed into law by Abbott making illegal immigration a state crime. It allowed Texas to return migrants without the required asylum considerations. The Biden administration, as well as several civil rights groups, fought the bill all the way to the Supreme Court, leading them to issue an administrative stay on the 5th Circuit Court and barring Texas from enforcing the legislation. The federal government also cited precedents from several other contentious immigration law cases, including Arizona v. United States. Arizona was prevented by the courts from enacting a similar piece of legislation, encouraging the court to rule that Texas was also overstepping. 

Regardless of the constitutionality (or moral considerations) of SB 4 and other immigration legislation, it is clear that there is an issue in Texas. Small border towns are unequipped to handle mass influxes of people, and finding a solution with common sense reform will likely benefit the state greatly. The issue is hard to address though, as it has become a chess game of constitutional interpretation, human rights considerations, and election tactics.

The ever evolving issues surrounding immigration led to Governor Abbott addressing the Texas public in September. Flanked on either side by multiple cowboy hat wearing DPS agents, he delivered a statement on immigration and the suspected gang activity that has followed. Undoubtedly, it was compelling. The idea of vicious gangs entering the state is likely to put anyone at unease. Tren de Aragua, the gang in question, is a trans-national criminal organization hailing from Venezuela. The group has been accused of multiple crimes including predatory smuggling of desperate migrants, drug trafficking, and sex trafficking. Allegedly, the gang has even taken over a Motel 6 in El Paso, however, these reports are unconfirmed. Abbott is likely to use all of this to bolster his advocacy for states rights. Ted Cruz and Colin Allred, contenders for a position in the Texas Senate, have also seized on the issue, leaving Texas policy circling around immigration. 
So where does this leave us? Considerations need to be made as to how we deal with immigration in our country. In September of 2024, nearly 270,000 migrant encounters occurred on the Southwest border, only a fraction of the total for our entire country. Immigration is not inherently bad, and has been shown to have positive externalities within the country, but not without proper regulation and legal pathways to entry. The standoff between the federal government and the state, as well as Democrats and Conservatives, will continue until we find an appropriate way to handle these issues. Abbott’s actions, along with those of other Texas leaders, will likely drive unprecedented shifts in the way that we view immigration and the relationship of the federal and state governments.