In a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) engaged in a pointed questioning session about border security and the infiltration of fentanyl into the United States. The interaction with a witness from the ACLU sparked heated discussions on definitions, responsibility, and the ongoing crisis at the southern border.

The Questioning

During his five minutes of questioning, Rep. Chip Roy confronted the witnesses with a powerful question: “Do you believe the 3,000 Americans who died on September 11th would be comforted by the definition of invasion presented by the ranking member?” The question aimed to shed light on the gravity of security concerns and their impact on American lives.

The witnesses faced a series of yes-or-no inquiries about whether the September 11th attacks constituted an invasion. 

While some hesitated to provide a straightforward answer, the underlying theme was the acknowledgment that the tragic events of that day were indeed an attack and invasion, challenging preconceived notions about the definition of invasion.

Responsibility for the Border Crisis

Rep. Roy then turned his attention to the current administration, asking whether President Biden is responsible for the crisis at the southern border. The witnesses, including Mark Brnovich, Christopher Hajec, Brent Webster, and Omar Jadwat, provided nuanced responses, emphasizing the President’s responsibility for the policies of his administration.

The questioning extended to the rights of states like Texas and Arizona to defend their citizens in the face of federal government shortcomings. 

The witnesses acknowledged the governors’ authority to deploy the National Guard or use state resources to protect their citizens, highlighting the need for state-level action in the absence of federal solutions.

Operational Control of the Southern Border

The discussion concluded with a focus on operational control of the southern border. Rep. Roy questioned whether the United States has achieved the operational control defined by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The witnesses, Mr. Jabot notably, expressed skepticism about ever achieving such control, challenging claims made by Secretary Mayorkas in a previous hearing.

People in the comments chimed in with their opinions: “The rules and laws of our Constitution apply to American citizens only.  To try to reinterpret differently is just plain wrong.”

Another commenter has questions: “Fine. I appreciate Chip. But what happens next? Is Anything going to get done? Or are we just being entertained?”

One person concluded: “The guy says no state can take immigration into their own hands. We aren’t talking about immigration. What is going on at the Southern US border is not immigration.”

Striking a Balance

The intense exchange between Rep. Chip Roy and the witnesses from the ACLU brought forth crucial questions about national security, crisis responsibility, and states’ rights. The discussion underscores the complexity of border-related issues and the need for comprehensive solutions to address the challenges faced by the nation.

What do you think? How do you believe the definition of ‘invasion’ impacts our understanding of national security, particularly in the context of the tragic events of September 11th?

As we reflect on the responsibility of President Biden for the Southern border crisis, what role do you think citizens and states should play in defending their borders in the absence of federal action? How should we balance the need for secure borders with humanitarian concerns, especially regarding immigration policies?”

And finally, do you think the current situation on the Southern border qualifies as an ‘invasion’ according to constitutional standards, and how might this perception influence future policy decisions?

Do You Like This Article? Share It!