Increasing Conflicts Among U.S.
Policing Agencies
Battle Over Federal and State Authority: U.S. Department of Justice Sues Texas Governor
- Kathleen Chandler -
Conflicts in the United States between the
federal government and Texas Governor Greg
Abbott concerning authority on immigration
matters continues to escalate. After sending
about 1,000 state troopers to the border area,
on July 28 Abbott issued an executive order
calling on them to stop cars "transporting
migrants who pose a risk of carrying COVID-19."
Immigrant rights advocates immediately
protested, saying the action could not be
carried out without racist profiling by the
state troopers. As well, as they have no means
of assessing who poses a risk, profiling by
country of origin would also likely be used. The
state troopers were given authority to stop cars
they "suspected" were transporting migrants and
to force them to return to their point of origin
or a port of entry and to seize the vehicle if
the driver refused.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland
threatened action July 29, saying the Order was
"dangerous and unlawful," and calling on Abbott
to rescind the Order. He said the Order
"violates federal law in numerous respects, and
Texas cannot lawfully enforce the Executive
Order against any federal official or private
parties working with the United States." Abbott
refused, specifically saying that his "duty
remains to the people of Texas, and I have no
intention of abdicating that."
The Department of Justice filed suit in U.S.
District Court, El Paso on July 30 . The suit
emphasizes the supremacy of the federal
government for immigration matters. It states,
"No State may obstruct the Federal Government in
the discharge of its constitutional
responsibilities," and that the Order "directly
interferes with the administration of federal
immigration law." It speaks to the ongoing
conflicts saying that the Executive Order
"causes injury to the United States and to
individuals whom the United States is charged to
protect, jeopardizing the health and safety of
noncitizens in federal custody, risking the
safety of federal law enforcement personnel and
their families..."
The federal government contracts with numerous
religious and non-profit organizations to assist
in transporting migrants, including refugees
seeking asylum, to shelters or bus stations,
airports, etc. It is these people and
organizations who are being directly targeted,
as well as federal authority more generally. It
is also the case that implementation of the
Order could mean that larger numbers of people
will be forced to remain in federal detention
camps, as they cannot be transported.
President Biden is also using COVID-19 as
justification for blocking entry by refugees and
forcing them to return to Mexico. In this manner
both federal and state governments are violating
the rights of immigrants and refugees, while
also battling over authority.
Keep in mind that all the various forces now
involved -- federalized and state National
Guard, federal agencies including Immigration
and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, Texas
state troopers and local sheriffs -- are all
armed and receiving conflicting orders. As the
suit states, the situation is "risking the
safety of federal law enforcement personnel."
Even if the Court decides in the federal
government's favour, it does not mean Abbott
will submit. The potential for direct
confrontation among the policing agencies,
including armed confrontation, is greatly
increasing.
Significance of South Dakota Governor Sending
National Guard to Texas Border
At the request of Texas Governor Greg Abbott,
South Dakota Governor Kristi L. Noem deployed 50
South Dakota National Guard troops to the
southern U.S. border. She announced the
deployment June 29, saying she was responding to
Abbott's call to augment border security with
law enforcement resources from other states. The
initial deployment will reportedly last 30 to 60
days, but Noem can extend it and add additional
troops. She also said the deployment was being
paid for by a private individual who is a mega
donor billionaire and supporter of Trump and the
ruling factions Trump represents. Abbott and
Noem are Trump supporters as well.
The deployment, though small in number, is
significant in terms of states acting
independent of the federal government on
immigration matters. It indicates that
governors, also representing vying factions
among the rulers, are rejecting the compromise
concerning armed forces reached at the time the
Constitution was written. That compromise was
that the ruling factions would not organize
their own private armies but would accept one
public army, the Continental Army, which is
today the U.S. military forces as a whole under
the command of the President, as
Commander-in-Chief, and thus the Pentagon. The
state National Guard was to be mobilized, within
each state, for hurricanes, fires or other
natural disasters.
Each state controls major armed forces in the
form of that state's National Guard, along with
state-based policing forces. The governor of
each state, not the Pentagon, commands those
forces. Out-of-state deployment of the Guard
involves the President, with the consent of the
governors, federalizing the state forces, so
that the Pentagon commands them. This has been
done to send large numbers of National Guard to
Iraq and Afghanistan, something usually reserved
for active-duty soldiers.
There are already about 4,000 troops from
different states at the border, mostly
federalized National Guard, along with some
active-duty soldiers. They were deployed by
then-President Trump in 2018 and put under the
command of the Pentagon and they have remained
there ever since, now under Biden.
The Texas and South Dakota governors
positioning troops on the southern U.S. border
under their own direct command is a new
development which will inevitably exacerbate the
conflict that already exists between and within
federal and state policing agencies, especially
where the southern border and immigration are
concerned. California, for example, refused to
send forces to the border when Trump called for
them.
Abbott has already deployed the Texas National
Guard to the Texas border with Mexico and Noem
is now adding a contingent of South Dakota
National Guard to that force. Since neither the
Texas nor South Dakota National Guard are under
the command of the Pentagon, they can carry out
law enforcement activities such as making
arrests and detaining people.
In addition, there are already private
mercenary armies in the U.S., but they have
generally remained under the command of the
Pentagon -- such as in Iraq -- or other federal
policing agencies. Even so, they represent the
privatization of armed forces, operating
directly for oligopolies, commonly with the
backing and support of government policing
agencies. Such forces have been used, for
example, against Indigenous peoples, like water
protectors at Standing Rock. In that respect,
the ability of private armies controlled by
oligopolies to act independent of and even
against the federal government is part of the
intense rivalries between the ruling factions.
The danger of violent civil war increases as
these developments unfold. The vying ruling
factions are striving to maintain their rule in
conditions where their usual mechanisms for
lessening the conflicts are not functioning, as
indicated by this deployment, the failure of
elections to do so and the deepening dysfunction
of Congress. They must also contend with the
peoples everywhere who are rejecting their
legitimacy and fighting for the rights of all,
uniting against war and the use of force.
In this situation, the rulers and their media
are again trying to paint the problem as one of
picking "the right side" -- Biden or Trump --
depending on which side is called "the right
side." Trump visited the Texas governor and the
border on June 30 with much effort made to
arouse passions for one side or the other. The
united efforts of the peoples, including those
both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, as seen in
El Paso and elsewhere, show that it is this
striving for people's empowerment that provides
a way forward, not choosing sides among the
rulers.
Awareness is growing amongst the people that
they cannot afford to "pick a side" as they are
urged to do. On the contrary, they must work out
how to intervene to their own advantage, on the
basis of their own aims for the country.
This article was published in
Volume 51 Number 8 - August 1, 2021
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2021/Articles/M5100812.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
