Lawmakers told Constitution requires secure border

by Bob Unruh 

An organization that made a name for itself fighting China’s plan to take over American ports now is urging states to demand that Washington obey the U.S. Constitution and secure the borders.
Jonathon Moseley, executive director of American Border Control, told WND his group has been sending letters to members of the legislatures in border states such as Texas and Arizona.
The letters point out that the Constitution requires the federal government to secure the borders if state legislatures or governors ask.
The group cites Section 4, Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

American Border Control is asking legislatures of states along the Mexican border “to formally demand that the United States government immediately secure” the border.
ABC argues the constitutional is “unconditional,” “objective, not subjective,” “does not allow any decision by Washington” and “does not empower the U.S. government.”
“Thus, it is a constitutional command that the United State government ‘shall’ protect the border states against (a) invasion and (b) domestic violence related to a failure to secure the border,” ABC’s request to states explains.
“Border incursions by violent drug smugglers and other criminals form the primary basis for this constitutional demand. To protect against these criminals, the U.S. government is constitutionally required to secure the state’s borders (for all purposes).”

The request notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that states gave up many of their rights to pass laws controlling incursions when they joined the union. Furthermore, President Obama has exercised absolute control in that regard, bringing a lawsuit against Arizona for its law allowing state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has charged Obama “is waging war on Arizona over illegal immigration.”
His comment came in response to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s decision to suspend for Arizona “the 287(g) program.” The program is named for a provision of federal law used by DHS to deputize local, county and state law enforcement officers to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
“Evidently Obama didn’t get everything they wanted from the Supreme Court, so they decided to retaliate against Arizona,” Arpaio said.
The administration decision was announced after the Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s State Bill 1070, which would have enforced federal anti-incursion laws.
The high court decided the state has the right to ask whether suspects are in the United States legally but cannot provide a punishment for having an illegal status.
“What the Obama administration wants is amnesty,” Arpaio said at the time. “DHS has made it clear the goal is to allow people here illegally to hit the streets.”

The new campaign said that’s just fine.
“Article 4, Section 4 was a corresponding guarantee that the U.S. government would take over that responsibility. As a condition of Arizona giving up the power that the U.S. Supreme Court says has been ceded to the federal government, Arizona received in return an absolute, unconditional guarantee of protection from the federal government. Therefore, Arizona does have the power under our U.S. Constitution to force action by Washington to secure Arizona’s border with Mexico to the same extent that Arizona handed over such power to the federal government,” the ABC campaign explains.
“‘Invasion’ does not necessarily have to be large,” the group says. ‘In 1789, a typical military action could be a small cross-border raiding party. A state of war might involve months of inactivity in between small battles. Violent incidents across the Mexican border demonstrate a pattern of violence with systematic coordination, comprising invasion.”
ABC says it might be “an impeachable offense for the commander in chief to disobey this clear and unequivocal command of the U.S. Constitution.”
In the letters to lawmakers, ABC says: “Border incursions by violent drug smugglers and other criminals is the primary issue here. To protect against these criminals, the U.S. government is constitutionally required to secure Arizona’s borders (for all purposes).”

Lawmakers are told: “You would of course have to document a compelling need in factual terms. Incidents of actual violence, gang activity, and threats within Arizona resulting from a lack of border security would be the basis of this constitutional demand. Well-known
examples and incidents suffered by Arizona citizens and law enforcement would be the
core of such a resolution.”
Moseley wrote, “I believe that the legislature would easily be able to itemize something like a ‘Bill of Particulars’ chronicling many examples and patterns of such real-world effects on life in Arizona against which the U.S. government is failing to protect your state.”