Americans Believe Biden Border Crisis Is An Invasion; Federal Judges Disagree

While the majority of Americans agree that President Joe Biden’s historic border crisis amounts to an “invasion,” federal judges refuse to acknowledge the depth of the problem.
Numerous videos have emerged showing masses of military-aged men flooding across the southern border.

Record numbers of military-aged Chinese illegal aliens have also been apprehended at the southern border — or were found spying at military installations across the country.

Meanwhile, judges still refuse to entertain the fact that the issues at the southern border have moved well beyond a crisis, reaching to the level of an invasion.

States like Texas have put forth the argument that the border crisis does amount to an “invasion,” which would give them the authority to control their borders through the U.S. Constitution’s invasion clause, since Biden refuses to enforce immigration laws and actually orders his Border Patrol agents to assist in the invasion.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released in early April showed that the majority of Americans agree with the “invasion” argument, with 64% of likely voters stating that it was an “accurate” description while only 33% disagree.
Meanwhile, federal judges have repeatedly failed to protect Americans from Biden’s border crisis-turned-invasion, and have refused to consider the “invasion” argument.

For example, Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, claimed last week that the Founding Fathers would not have viewed the massive influx of illegal aliens, human smuggling and drug trafficking into Texas as the state being “actually invaded.”

“Texas’s new interpretation of its power to protect itself against alleged invasions goes far beyond the original and natural meaning of ‘invasion’ and incurably exceeds the power granted to the states by our Founding Fathers,” wrote the Reagan-appointed judge.

Ezra and several other judges, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have given very little attention to the invasion argument amid ongoing legal battles between Texas and the Biden administration over border security.

Attorney Ken Cuccinelli, who is a major proponent of the invasion argument, explained in a statement to the Washington Times that he believes the argument will fare better as the cases enter other courts.

“I trust that when more open-minded judges who are more respectful of the actual words of the Constitution get this case, you will see more respect from the courts for Texas’ continuing right to defend itself against the invasion taking place across the Mexican border,” he told the outlet.

Meanwhile, Texas has the support of 25 other Republican governors who have asserted the state’s “constitutional right to self-defense.” The issue will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court — and although the high court has a 6-3 “conservative” majority, several of the weaker, more pro-establishment justices may not agree with Texas’ right to protect its citizens from invasion. This is especially apparent considering the Supreme Court’s previous temporary ruling that allowed the Biden administration to continue dismantling Texas’ border barriers while a case goes through the legal system.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR