Recently, news about the confrontation of Texas with the Union ** has attracted a lot of attention. The Texas National Guard is facing off against the federal **, and a potential American civil war appears to be brewing. At the same time, right-wing militias entered in secret, sparking speculation about who would fire the first shot. What is even more surprising is that Russia's sudden recognition of "Texas independence" seems to be just watching the excitement. In addition, NATO has also become involved in the situation in Ukraine, providing it with military aid, and even involving China's "military reunification".
However, to truly understand the causes of this uproar and the question of the legitimacy of Texas' confrontation against the Union**, we need to go back to early January 2024. At the time, most people were busy welcoming the new year, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott was in a state of trouble. The problem he faces is a staggering statistic: In the last month of the end of 2023, the influx of illegal immigrants into Texas reached a record 22,500.
All this is a consequence of Biden's loose immigration policies. And Texas, a pro-Republican red state, did not welcome the influx of illegal immigrants. This has sparked concern and dissatisfaction with the Governor's Federation. As a result, the Texas National Guard has rallied and mobilized, and in order to defend the state's rights, they are facing tensions in a confrontation with the federal **.
The development of this series of events is worrying, leading to speculation about the outbreak of American Civil War. However, the truth remains murky and further attention is needed to the development of events to get a fuller picture of the situation.
Abbott has tried to tackle the problem of illegal immigration by adopting a more moderate approach. He personally sent a letter to Biden, hoping that Biden would pay attention to Texas' demands and move these migrants to the Democratic-controlled blue states on a large scale. However, Biden did not respond to this, causing the influx of migrants to far outpace the speed of delivery, and as a result, a large number of migrants were stranded at the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, which had a significant impact on the local area.
In the process, the Democratic Party has labeled itself as open, free, and inclusive, calling for humanitarian care for illegal immigrants and political benefits from them. However, the Republicans who govern the red states have had to pay the price. Faced with the situation of immigration data getting out of control at the beginning of the year, Abbott's patience finally reached its limit. On January 11, he ordered the Texas National Guard to take control of the Shelby Park crossing in the small town of Eagle Pass on the U.S.-Mexico border and begin building a barbed wire fence there. This move not only hindered Biden's interests, but also led to the tragic deaths of several migrants in the process of crossing the border into the United States.
Faced with this situation, Biden decided to sue Texas in the Supreme Court. In the ruling on the 22nd, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to find that the construction of the barbed wire fence in Texas was illegal and authorized Biden to dismantle it. Immediately, Biden sent the federal ** to Texas to dismantle the barbed wire.
Abbott was uncompromising and quickly issued a Declaration on the Right to Self-Defence. He accused the Union of violating the contract signed with the Union on the rights and interests of independent states when Texas joined the United States, arguing that this was an infringement of state rights and put Texas in danger of invasion. He invoked Article 1, Section 10, (c) of the U.S. Constitution to assert that in the event of an invasion, he had the right to declare martial law in Texas and to act beyond Congress and the Federation.
Then, large numbers of the Texas National Guard rushed to the border, blocking access roads around Shelby Park. In the face of the deterrent force of the National Guard, equipped with tanks and armored vehicles, the federal ** was almost unable to deal effectively and fell into a tense standoff.
The Republican Party also took immediate action, and the former US **Trump** called on various Republican states to send troops to support Texas on social media. In just a few days, 25 states have expressed their support, pledging to send the National Guard to help Texas defend its borders. At the same time, a large number of militias supporting the Republican Party spontaneously organized themselves and went to Texas one after another, gathering a large number of military forces for a time. The situation was reminiscent of the American Civil War, and talk of an imminent civil war in the United States began to spread widely on the Internet.
Biden was anxious, and out of anger, Biden went so far as to order a freeze on the export of natural gas from Texas, implementing a "self-sanction" initiative. This has strengthened the conviction that there are already two Americas, and that a huge conflict is about to break out between the Republicans and the Democrats.
The United States is restless, and polarized voices are becoming more and more acute. One side supports the Texas governor's "self-defense" stance and advocates confrontation with the federal government, while the other side believes that Texas' actions are illegal and should obey Biden**'s directive to dismantle the border wall. However, the essence of this dispute is far from a simple black-and-white confrontation, but involves the respective legal bases of Texas and the federal**.
It is important to note that Texas and the Union are not legally unfounded, making it unlikely that this border dispute will turn into the second Civil War in American history. Some have overlooked a key detail in the storm, which is that the U.S. Supreme Court's stance is more Republican, especially in Trump's favor. This position stems from Trump's nomination of three Supreme Court officers during his term of office. However, the latest verdict shows a situation that is contrary to the Republican Party's tendencies, and supports Biden** to win the case. This is not a drastic change in the court's position, but is based on the clear provisions of the U.S. Constitution on immigration issues.
Under the U.S. Constitution, immigration policy falls under the jurisdiction of the federal ** and should be developed by it. Despite the broad autonomy enjoyed by independent states, the federal ** has significantly more authority over the states when it comes to immigration. In this case, Republicans in Texas are accused of violating Biden's policy of not using dangerous means to obstruct the entry of immigrants. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court may be leaning Republican, it will have to rule in favor of Biden** because his actions violated constitutional provisions. This judgment demonstrates the supremacy of the law and the Constitution in preserving the unity of the country and the distribution of powers.
A series of actions taken by Texas are based on legal grounds, and although the enforcement authority for immigration at the border is federal**, the specific provisions are unclear due to the restrictions on the nature of immigration in the U.S. Constitution. Even the Supreme Court is difficult to determine with certainty as to whether an immigrant is naturalized, naturalized, illegally entered, or invaded. The Supreme Court's decision was rather vague, allowing Biden to remove the barbed wire, but not making it clear whether Texas would be allowed to set it up.
Texas cleverly exploited this ambiguity, defining its actions as not violating the Supreme Court's rulings while exercising the right to self-defense under the Constitution. According to this interpretation, Biden** could send federal law enforcement officers to dismantle the barbed wire, while the Texas National Guard would use force to stop it to secure the border, making it impossible for federal law enforcement officers to actually carry out the removal of the barbed wire.
This highlights the problems within the U.S. legal system, where many outdated statutes are no longer applicable in the face of social change, and have even become a tool for some politicians to exploit loopholes. The right to self-defense law invoked by Texas was signed at a time when the United States was not yet strong and was intended to prevent the formation of a puppet regime after an external invasion. Today, however, it has become a legitimate reason for Texas to confront***, highlighting the challenges that legal loopholes have brought over time.
In this case, it has become quite difficult to investigate the responsibility of the other side because both sides have a legal basis to support their positions. The current state of standoff may have reached a tipping point, especially considering that this is the first year of the year, and both Democrats and Republicans aspire to control the country more effectively through electoral means.
It is expected that the final solution will involve a compromise between one side and the other, which will serve the coming United States to some extent. Texas' claim that it is "ready for war with the Union" may simply be an attempt to add bargaining chips in the final negotiations.
However, this is not without risk. While high-level politicians can play the political game, people and soldiers at the bottom may not be as they would like. On January 27, an accidental incident occurred at Fort Carvazos Military Base in Central Texas, where two soldiers belonging to the 1st Cavalry Division of the U.S. Army's Third Army opened fire on each other in an altercation, resulting in one wounding and one dead.
Although the incident may be related to the current left-wing struggle in the United States, the US military did not provide further details. However, we can judge from this incident that if similar situations continue to occur, it is likely to lead to a further deterioration of the situation at the border.
In addition to the above, militia forces in some less visible places are also quite dangerous. In these places there are many radical right-wing militias, whose ideas are very fanatical. If these militias go to Texas and clash with the federal **, resulting in ***, it is likely to trigger an escalation of the conflict and put the two parties in the United States in a deep predicament.
To sum up, it would be better for both parties in the United States to be more cautious when it comes to partisanship in such a threatening manner. Otherwise, a sudden American civil war would bring unbearable disasters to both parties. While the United States is in turmoil, some countries that have been suppressed by the United States for many years are waiting to see what happens.
The opinion that Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, made statements on January 26 about the creation of the Texas People's Republic seems to be becoming more and more realistic. He wrote on social **: "At the end of the year before last, I jokingly made a similar prophecy. Although the rhetoric was sarcastic, after the ridicule, Medvedev was even more merciless in his criticism of Biden**. He accused Biden of doing nothing in response to the immigration crisis that erupted in Texas, suggesting that US hegemony is being spontaneously weakened from within.
At the same time, Medvedev also admitted the possibility of a civil war in the United States. He concluded by quipping that while the turmoil in the United States poses a huge risk to global stability, other countries are watching the morbid outbreak of the United States gloating while munching on popcorn.
Over the past few years, the United States has continued to support Ukraine** against Russia, and has worked with European allies to sanction and isolate Russia. This move puts Russia in a passive position in the field of global and international diplomacy. Obviously, Medvevedev is taking this opportunity to look for an opportunity to reshape the situation and give the United States a taste of ridicule.
In addition to Medvevedev, another Russian MP, Mironov, made remarks on social media on January 27, claiming to support Texas in the Texas v. USA case. At least Texas will not interfere in the affairs of other countries, he said. And, if necessary, Russia is ready to help in the event of an independence referendum in Texas. At the same time, he also said that Russia would recognize the Texas People's Republic.
What the United States may not have expected is that the boomerang of the "referendum" eventually flew back to the United States itself. Russia's schadenfreude is entirely the first after being suppressed by the United States over the past few years. If Texas starts to fight for independence, and the United States continues to support Ukraine, and Russia turns to support Texas, it will become a rare wonder in the world.
However, it is worth noting that such a spectacle may not be easy to happen. In Medvevedev's speech, in addition to ridicule, he also mentioned a very important issue, that is, once the United States **, it will bring great risks to global stability. Although the United States has been using various means against Russia in recent years, the Russian side has to admit that the United States plays an important role in global governance. In order to ensure the stability of the global situation, the United States cannot afford to fall into chaos.
Of course, at present, Russia does not have enough strength to get involved in the internal turmoil of the United States, and can only take a step-by-step approach to future development.
In addition to being ridiculed by Russia, the United States has recently faced pressure from NATO. Aid to Ukraine has stalled due to fierce bipartisan rivalry in the United States that has all but sparked turmoil, and no money has flowed from the United States to Ukraine since the beginning of the year.
However, Ukraine is stuck in the situation of losing almost all of its military-industrial production capacity and can only rely on external military assistance to sustain the fighting. As a result, the responsibility for all aid has been shifted to America's European allies, which has sparked a series of grievances, especially among European countries that are members of NATO, who want the United States to end internal disputes as soon as possible and reduce the pressure on aid.
On the 28th local time, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visited Washington, the capital of the United States, in an attempt to persuade the US Congress to continue to provide aid funds to Ukraine. In an attempt to convince the United States, he even involved China, claiming that the matter was being "closely watched by China." He warned that if Ukraine is abandoned by the United States and its allies, it could lead to military action by Chinese mainland over Taiwan. Obviously, he is trying to take advantage of the bipartisan consensus in the United States against China to force the Republican side to continue to provide aid funds to Ukraine.
Republican lawmakers are not stupid. At present, the United States is rapidly strengthening its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region in an attempt to counterbalance China's growing influence. It's a long-term, high-cost investment that is more effective for the Republican Party than for the Republican Party to contain China by influencing Ukraine. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Republican Party will continue to fund Ukraine for this reason alone.
In addition, the United States is in turmoil at home, and the bipartisan rivalry will soon reach its peak. At this time, the Republican Party's sudden concession is tantamount to giving up its chance in the future. The word "China" alone may not be enough to lure these seasoned politicians to the bait.
Relatively speaking, Stoltenberg is better off being thoughtful. Rather than trying to persuade the United States to change course, he may wish to remain focused on how to resolve the conflict peacefully. After all, it is much simpler to go to the negotiating table than to convince the two parties in the United States, which are currently locked in a military standoff.