Video of Federalist Society Daniel Webster Series Debate on Border Issues

I debated former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich over various issues related to the southern border, particularly whether illegal migration and cross-border drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" under the Constitution.

I recently participated in a debate over border-related law and policy issues with former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. We particularly focused on the question of whether illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify s an "invasion" under the Constitution, thereby triggering states' power to "engage in war" in response; Texas has argued the answer is "yes" in two cases currently before the courts. The debate was part of the Daniel Webster debate series, sponsored by the Georgetown University Law Center Federalist Society. Unfortunately, I am unable to embed the video in this post, because the producer has blocked that option. But it is available on Youtube here.

I have written more extensively, about why illegal migration and drug smuggling are not "invasion" in this article, and in an amicus brief in one of the cases before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

 

Comments

[JonFrum]

If we were talking about a small number of people trickling across the border, invasion would make no sense. When you get to millions, however, I think we're there. An army isn't necessary for an invasion - if enough people share the same goal, that's good enough for me.

[windycityattorney]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I am going to go on out a limb and say the parties were engaged in what are called "legal" arguments. This could include stuff like case law examples, statutory definitions, common law definitions, even commonly used dictionary definitions of what 'invasion' means as that term is used in the US Constitution.

What it would not include is your arbitrary line in the sand number of people that transforms migration (legal or illegal) into an 'invasion.' Plus you didn't even provide the number. But you set up the premise. A "small" number of people crossing the border is not an invasion. "Millions" of people make it into one. So please enlighten us... how many border crossers (and over what length of time) do you believe is sufficient for Texas law enforcement or nat'l guard to mow them down or possibly carpet bomb them? Once the invasion has commenced and Texas activates its war powers, does that include children and babies as legitimate military targets to kill? Details matter.

[Rubbish!]

Whatever the numeracy test, this was definitely an invasion, and has certain eerie parallels to today's ... invasion?:

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3014131993/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

"You're forgetting something, Miles. You've no choice."

[Roger S]

Foreigners coming in. Thousands of them. Seeking to take resources. Sometimes bringing in illegal drugs that are killing Americans. Feds not adequately defending the border. Yes, it is an invasion.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The murder rate and fentanyl deaths got much worse in 2020…so by that standard Trump failed to secure the border! Lololololololololol!!!! You people are so dumb! And you might win just like Bush won in 2004 running on slaughtering Muslims and punishing gays.

[Roger S]

You're right, Congress refused to fund the Wall, and invaders kept coming in. The states should have taken their own preventive measures.

Bush ran on fighting wars, but not punishing gays.

[damikesc]

Trump was the most gay-friendly candidate to ever run for office. That has not changed. Trannies are, of course, a different story.

And, please note --- those evil Bush people --- almost universally support Kamala.

[David Nieporent]

Seeking to take resources.

False.

Sometimes bringing in illegal drugs that are killing Americans.

"Guns don't kill people; people do. Oh, and drugs."

[IANNAL]

Frum can defend himself, but perhaps you missed his inclusion of an intent element (although without specifying what that shared goal might be).

[SRG2]

At the time of the Constitution's writing, did "invasion" encompass illegal immigration?

[Michael P]

At the time of the Constitution's writing, was there such a thing as illegal immigration?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, but it was more a question of state and local laws. Here's an interesting article from Cato, if I am allowed to post the link:

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day

[Randal]

Does that apply to foreign armies also? As long as it’s just a trickle of soldiers and tanks it’s not an invasion, until there are “millions?”

Face it, your nebulous, racist, feelings-based definition of “invasion” is transparently results-oriented and not founded in any discernable principle.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thinking of it as an “invasion” identifies one as a racist. No, they are not coming in “for a common purpose to take over”. No, they are not disproportionately criminal. No, they are not bringing in drugs. They are desperately seeking a better life, and once here, they are more law-abiding than native born Americans (for obvious reasons) and contribute their share to the tax base. They just happen to be non-white.

[Roger S]

So you are being racist by assuming that non-whites will not follow the rules? Or by assuming that non-whites are more likely to be desperate? What exactly is racist?

[Randal]

None of the above. There are tons of white people here illegally. You, Trump, and MAGA just don't care about them... after all, they're white. You care more about legal Haitian immigrants than illegal white ones. Because you be racist mon.

[verochkax]

They're not more law abiding than native born white Americans. They may be more law abiding than black Americans, but that's like bragging about winning in the special olympics

[Randal]

Yes, they're more law-abiding than native born white Americans. Jeez you are a racist bunch!

[Kleppe]

Ad hominems are dull. Confront people's arguments or stay the hell out of the arena.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're an idiot who wouldn't win an argument against an empty lemonade stand. You're just butt-hurt because captcrisis correctly identifies people with your views as being racist assholes.

Stay in your gutter.

[Sarcastr0]

Learn what ad hominem means.

And don't defend prejudice. Because that's what y'all are doing - pre-judging people.

The openly racist guy is a good object of discussion - what is the difference in baseline thinking re: immigration between you and him?

[Randal]

Uh... he did confront people's arguments. He pointed out that all your claims are false, and proposed that the only remaining rationale for your behavior is racism.

Now, do you care to confont his arguments? Apparently not. The only one engaging in ad hominem here is you, Kleppe.

[verochkax]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/04/americas/haiti-gang-attack-intl-latam/index.html

These are the inferior beings Harris, Somin and the others want to fill America with for votes.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yet another racist commenter who thinks of nonwhites as subhuman. Why does this site attract such people?

Muted.

[David Nieporent]

It's not "yet another." This is the same guy. He just keeps coming back with a new handle, either because the previous one was banned or because enough people had blocked him that his trolling wasn't getting the desired results.

And he's a troll.

[Roger S]

He wrote inferior, not subhuman. If they were truly subhuman, they would never vote.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "this article" link is a good general summary.

[Kleppe]

Reminder for any newcomers here that Ilya Somin is an Open Borders extremist who opposes any restrictions on immigration whatsoever.

[David Nieporent]

Reminder that our country was founded on open immigration.

[Roger S]

No. The USA originally limited naturalization to free white Christians of good character.

[Randal]

Well that excludes you.

[David Nieporent]

No. The USA originally limited naturalization to free white Christians of good character.

Aside from being false, that is not responsive to what I wrote. I said immigration, not naturalization.

[Kleppe]

Are we still a fledgling nation with a vast untamed wilderness needing to be settled? Or is there some other reason to believe the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world should have the same immigration policies as it did 250 years ago?

[Sarcastr0]

Our nationalism relies on the principles of the Founding.

That there's a subgroup who would prefer our nationalism be more European-style nativism doesn't change that this is what has made us exceptional throughout our history.

Such people when asked about this country tend to be less patriotic and more profoundly hostile to modern America.

I think this is related.

They also tend to be retired, and male. I don't know if this is related.

[David Nieporent]

We are one of the largest and least densely populated countries on earth.