Recently, there has been quite a commotion down in the Lone Star State, Texas. Throughout 2023, the number of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico has skyrocketed, pressuring Texas to strengthen its border security. Despite sounding reasonable, Texas has taken its defenses to the extreme, employing barbed wire that has already claimed the lives of numerous would-be illegal immigrants. In response, the Biden administration has taken a strong stance against these practices, claiming them to be hazardous, even taking the issue to the Supreme Court and winning the case.
Fast forward to the present day, multiple lawsuits have been launched from each opposition, and before the Supreme Court’s ruling, border patrol can cut through any barbed wire, but Texas is not barred from placing new wire. The Biden administration claims it can take up to 30 minutes to remove a trapped individual from the wire and even risks the injury of any present officers. On the other hand, Texas claims it is its constitutional right to defend its territory, and its overall objective is to protect the American people from illicit substances being trafficked into the country.
With each side gaining support from different states, many fear that the country will be split in two, resulting in another civil war; House Republican Jeremy Faison even called the situation a “battle of federalism.” The issue is a battle between state rights and federal power. If Texas wins, the result will be a weakened central government and increased state power, which could lead to more changes. In contrast, things will remain the same if the U.S. government is victorious. However, tensions between the two sides will not disappear overnight.
The issue of border security and state rights has split our country in two, and it is a safe bet this controversy will affect the upcoming election if it continues to escalate. However, explaining the logic behind both sides before concluding is important. As stated in the CBP use of force policy, border patrol officers are permitted to use deadly force with the intent of stopping their target subject; similar to Texas’s employment of barbed wire, their stated intention is to prevent illegal immigration, not kill. So, setting up barbed wire as a deterrent seems more humane than laying fire upon them. Between the two, the only difference is we are taking the choice of someone potentially dying from the officer’s hands and into the would-be illegal immigrants. Even if you are at gunpoint, you can still surrender to an officer, in contrast to barbed wire, which will kill you regardless.
Overall, each side has its reasons for its stance on the implication of barbed wire, but at the end of the day, it boils down to whether an illegal immigrant’s life is worth protecting. Yes, they are consciously choosing to attempt crossing over despite knowing the risks, and yes, they are inherently in the wrong, but does that justify us laying down death traps at our doors? Personally, each side is correct, it’s each state’s duty to protect our nation’s security, and by laying barbed wire, we are preventing not only illegal migration but also drug mules or cartel members seeking to bring harmful substances into America. However, the majority of illegal immigrants, and even some drug mules, are innocent people who are trying to secure a better life for their families, who were unfortunately forced to turn to the cartel for help.
In conclusion, I believe that the root of the issue does not lie in the security of our borders but instead in the flawed immigration system that hinders wholesome families from entering the country legally. By implementing various changes to our immigration system, we can kill two birds with one stone, cutting out the cartel completely and resolving the issue of barbed wire.
