Power Line's John Hinderaker considers the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals banning the enforcement by Texas of its SB 4 law concerning illegal immigration. Perhaps you'll find his thoughts useful.
Whether or not the influx of millions of illegals across the southern border is an invasion in constitutional terms, it certainly is an invasion in common parlance. And for a border state like Texas, it is a comprehensive disaster. The people of Texas plainly have a right to defend themselves against this evil.
If being part of the Union makes it legally impossible to defend themselves, it is only right that they should consider whether they want to remain in the Union. This is doubly true if the problem arises from a malicious determination on the part of the federal government to abandon, indeed subvert, one of the basic responsibilities that Texas and other states have delegated to that government.
Of course, no state would secede over an issue of less than enormous importance. But for Texas and other border states–and perhaps for some non-border states as well–illegal immigration is an issue of unparalleled significance.
Might a state like Texas legitimately decide that the federal government has so abandoned its duties under the Constitution that it has no alternative but to remove itself from the Union, and vindicate its citizens’ rights itself? I think such a decision, given the enormity of the issue of illegal immigration, would indeed be legitimate.
Looks like the outline for an amicus brief, doesn't it? Texans remember that it was an independent nation that existed for almost 10 years, before deciding to join the union. I'd guess most Texans believe the decision to leave is likewise theirs to make, should the need arise.
I recognize that Abraham Lincoln thought otherwise. Perhaps we can resolve this dilemma peacefully this November, by electing a government which takes border security seriously.
