1,270 words

The United States Supreme Court dealt a blow on Monday to ongoing attempts by the state of Texas to defend its border with Mexico from the droves of foreigners that constantly pour across. The Texas National Guard has been constructing wire barriers along the banks of the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, a common entry point for migrants crossing into the state illegally. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by the Cuban Jew Alejandro Mayorkas, has sued to allow federal border agents to cut the wires and gain access to a city park that has essentially been commandeered by the Texas Guard on the orders of Governor Greg Abbott. The rationale behind Abbott’s decision is simple enough: If the federal government lacks the will to stop the invasion, Texas can do the job itself.

Of course, Joe Biden and Secretary Mayorkas are eager to aid and abet the Great Replacement any way they can. Make no mistake about it: Mayorkas’s DHS is doing its best to stop a state from protecting its own border. While this is quite possibly the clearest manifestation of anarcho-tyranny we have seen from the current regime, it is hardly a surprise. What I did find surprising, and extremely heartening, about the whole affair is Governor Abbott’s defiant response to the ruling, which is well worth reading in full. In this extraordinary statement, Abbott declares that “[t]he Federal Government has broken the compact between the United States and the states” and characterizes Biden as “a lawless president.” But without a doubt the most noteworthy section is the conclusion:

The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.

What we have here is a sitting Governor openly challenging the legitimacy of the orders of the sitting President and the Supreme Court. Better still, he is not alone, as no fewer than 24 other governors have publicly come to his defense, as has Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. This degree of open defiance on the part of state officials against the executive branch and the Supreme Court has not been seen since the campaign of massive resistance against integration. Significantly, the battleground for this particular fight is immigration, arguably the most racially-charged of all policy areas. Though none of the governors would dare frame it in these terms, their support for Abbott can nonetheless be viewed as part of a white reaction against the Great Replacement.

Abbott and his allies are following the lead of their white base, which demands that something be done to secure the border. This is a winning issue for Republicans. Conversely, this is a lose-lose situation for Biden. Ordering the border patrol to physically dismantle barriers to illegal immigration is sure to be an optical nightmare, especially in an election year. On the other hand, should Biden back down it will substantiate the idea that his administration has lost legitimacy, which could lead to more instances where Republican governors defy his administration. If they can get away with it once, and benefit politically by doing so, why would they not do it again?

As for the controversy’s legal aspect, the constitutional clauses that Abbott references have to do with the federal government’s duty to defend states from invasion, and with the rights of states to repel invasions if the federal government cannot or will not do so. I certainly sympathize with Abbott’s defense of the constitutionality of his actions. But the question of whether Abbott is within his legal rights to secure the border at Eagle Pass is of less practical importance than is his ability to actually keep it secured.

The Constitution, as we well know, cannot enforce itself. The Constitution was on the side of the 11 states that seceded from the Union in 1861, but Lincoln still went to war in order to compel them to stay. It was also on the side of segregationists a century later, but Eisenhower still implemented the diktats of the Warren Court upon the students of Little Rock, Arkansas at gunpoint. Likewise, if the Biden Administration is hell-bent on dismantling the barriers at Eagle Pass, it undoubtedly has the means to do so. But as previously mentioned, this may not be politically expedient for Biden.

As gratifying as it is to see governors resisting the open-borders policies of Mayorkas’ DHS, Greg Abbott is no friend to White Nationalists. This is the same man who denounced the social media platform Gab as “anti-Semitic” while sitting in front of an Israeli flag. Furthermore, this dispute is over one small stretch of the border. If the crossing at Eagle Pass is closed, migrants will find other points where they can enter illegally. And of course, we cannot forget the destructive results of legal immigration. Legal or illegal, the outcome is the same: white replacement. A victory for Republicans at Eagle Pass would likely be more symbolic than anything else. But in this case, the symbolism does matter. If the idea that governors can, and sometimes should, defy the federal government through appeals to states’ rights becomes mainstream, it could serve as a gateway to the idea of secession becoming mainstream as well.

It appears as though this November’s presidential election will be a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. No matter which candidate wins, there will be large swathes of voters who will view the winner’s presidency as illegitimate. Would Democrat governors challenge the authority of a second Trump administration, just as the Republicans are doing now? I think so. In the event of a Trump victory, I would not be at all surprised to see secessionist movements emerge in blue states, not unlike the one already present in Texas. In any case, America is coming apart at the seams as political polarization intensifies, and there will be no putting the pieces back together into a coherent whole.

As I see it, the conflict between Texas and the Biden administration is a very promising development. It is becoming more and more obvious that a group of states as diverse as America is today cannot exist harmoniously under one federal government. The sooner this is acknowledged, the better. As the current system deteriorates, unsatisfied Americans of all races and political outlooks will begin to consider radical solutions — and if recent polling data is any indication, one of those possibilities is going to be secession.

The United States is rapidly transforming into nothing more than a collection of warring tribes held together by no common ancestry, language, history, or political values. Keeping it together will only ensure hostility. Federal politics will consist of various factions competing to dominate and oppress the others. The future for whites under such a system is bleak, indeed.

Fortunately, there is a better way: a national divorce. To be sure, Greg Abbott has not gone that far, but he has challenged the current regime’s legitimacy in a way no governor has for quite some time. In so doing, he may have unknowingly played an important role in returning secession to the forefront of American political discourse.