Taking Control of the Texas Border: Operation Clean Sweep by Huffines Liberty Foundation

“OVER 30 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH MILLIONS LIVING IN TEXAS”

of people. The cost of this invasion is astronomical, with police officers and everyday citizens left unsafe due to increased criminal activity and taxpayers placed on the hook for billions in housing, schooling, and medical care for illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are costing Texas taxpayers over billions of dollars each year in services. For decades, Texas has been bearing the cost of an open border more than any other state.

Texas is at the heart of an unprecedented border crisis. Each day, thousands of illegal aliens cross into our State in an attack on our sovereignty and safety. According to the Center for Immigration Study, over 2 million persons have entered the United States illegally since the inauguration of President Biden (CIS), with many consisting of visa overstays and other illegal entry through standard ports of entry. The U.S. Southern border is facing a tidal wave

Texas cannot rely on Washington, D.C. to provide solutions in the short term. The State of Texas must implement policies that can be sourced and supplied by Texas herself. Such solutions need to be sustainable, affordable, and scalable. Frequently, policies enacted in emergencies drain the treasury to no long-term benefit. Many times, these emergencies reappear when the measures are pulled back.

Therefore, the solution to the Texas border must work for the long term. Such a solution must come with an understanding that Texas can pay for it without the federal government’s assis-

Huffines Liberty Foundation

tance. The border solution must also be capable of being adjusted for future demands.

Fundamentally, resolving the border crisis requires serious organization and a whole-of-government approach. Cooperation, not competition, with existing federal enforcement efforts is critical for Texas’ border security. Additionally, cooperation from the federal government of Mexico and the Mexican border states is required for long-term solutions to our problems.

A Brief History of Immigration Law

Before 1875, the United States did not have immigration laws under the current understanding of the concept. There were numerous restrictions on voting, entry, and citizenship based on race, nationality, country of origin, and other criteria in the United States.

The first uniform rule governing citizenship was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited citizenship to “free White person(s)… of good character”. The act excluded Native Americans, Amerindians, indentured servants, slaves, free black people, and later Asians. However, several states allowed free black people citizenship at the state level. The act further declared that Christians, in particular, were eligible for citizenship.

of 1740. Before this law, British colonies had few uniform naturalization processes for residents to become subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain (the forerunner to the United Kingdom). The British act excluded Catholics and declared, “An Act for Naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty’s Colonies in America.”

While the 1st United States Congress had the good sense to broaden the scope from the older imperial laws, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was exceedingly narrow. Through the late 18th and mid-19th centuries, a massive wave of people immigrated to the United States, overwhelmingly from Europe and the European colonies in the Americas.

In 1861, the United States of America erupted into Civil War. After the Civil War, several amendments were added to the United States Constitution. One of which, the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, described citizens’ rights and equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment can be described as a true forerunner to modern U.S. Immigration Law. The amendment defines the conditions and context of citizenship in the United States and the conditions by which naturalized citizenship can be revoked.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend citizenship to the Native American population.

The American Naturalization Act of 1790 resembles the British Parliament Plantation Act

During this time, the United States was still settling much of the Western United States, and

HuffinesLiberty.com

the native tribes were considered both foreign entities akin to foreign states. A naturalization process had to occur to obtain citizenship as a former member of a native tribe.

One of the most important lines of the Fourteenth Amendment is “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This Citizenship Clause is the basis for the modern concept of birthright citizenship in the U.S., or jus soli. However, birthright citizenship was not always understood to be part of this provision. It was not until 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. The court held that:

“a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.”

pertaining to the entry and business of foreigners on American soil and territories.

In 1875, a series of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases on immigration occurred where the court established federal supremacy over state immigration law. New York, Louisiana, and California established laws allowing state inspectors to charge passengers of incoming ships and deny entry to the United States for foreigners without bond. In Chy Lung v. Freeman 92 U.S. 275 (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has supremacy over immigration and foreign affairs.

In 2012, Arizona v. United States 567 U.S. 387 ruled that parts of Arizona’s SB 1070, an immigration law granting additional powers to local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, violated the enumerated powers of Congress, citing Chy Lung v. Freeman. This case often dictates many state versus federal government rulings on immigration.

Nor did the Fourteenth Amendment settle the debate on state-level immigration law. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes that federal laws are the supreme laws of the land. Before 1875, the United States had several different state-level regulations

However, immigration law does not directly apply to law enforcement and the self-preservation of states or the federal government. These court cases primarily reserve immigration policy to immigration law enforcement and regulatory affairs of the U.S. federal government. Noticeably absent in these cases are incidents where illegal aliens are harming American interests or persons. This absence is due to the fact that states have the authority to enforce their laws on all state residents. Absent the question of cre-

Huffines Liberty Foundation

ating independent criteria for citizenship and residence for foreign persons, the states have broad constitutional discretion on enforcement.

Self-Defense and the Guarantee of Republican Government

While the current understanding is that immigration law is governed and enforced by the U.S. federal government, a vital issue in the contemporary debate about immigration and border security is the issue of sovereignty and security. The current border crisis is a clear and present danger to the border states and much of the United States.

Two major, little-understood constitutional clauses not addressed by the cases mentioned above give states the ability to act in self-defense. First is the Guarantee Clause, or the Republican Form of Government Clause, in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause guarantees each State a republican form of government and protection from invasion. Under the current deluge of people, tons of narcotics, and the ensuing crime, the repub-

lican form of government is threatened, and the federal government is not providing protection from invasion.

The Guarantee Clause 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.”

This clause was important to delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Similar language was proposed as part of the Virginia Plan by Founding Father Edmund Randolph. The clause was not solely focused on foreign invasion; it was meant for domestic actions extending beyond a conflict between nation-states. Founding Father and 4th U.S. President James Madison, in Federalist 43, wrote, quoting Montesquieu, “should a popular insurrection happen in one of the States, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound.” Understanding the background of the Guarantee Clause is essential to understanding its context interacting with other clauses. It sets not only the conditions by which compacts can be necessary and proper but also the conditions under which force can be used domestically.

James Madison further elaborated during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that the clause could apply beyond pure military actions.

HuffinesLiberty.com

“THE CURRENT BORDER CRISIS IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE BORDER STATES AND MUCH OF THE UNITED STATES”

Madison stated, “[States] are restrained from making war, unless invaded, or in imminent danger. When in such danger, they are not restrained.” He further explained using an example of where the Virginia militia was used to subdue a smuggling ring too powerful for local authorities. According to Madison:

States. The federal government is not adequately addressing crime and narcotrafficking’s imminent and unresolved danger. Specifically, the current president of the United States is unwilling to address the problems of the border states, demonstrating a complete abdication of federal responsibility.

“There were a number of smugglers, who were too formidable for the civil power to overcome. The military quelled the sailors, who otherwise would have perpetrated their intentions.”

With this example, we have cause for the State of Texas to exercise independent powers belonging to the State, the law, and the historical context to combat any invasion, including those by non-state actors.

The second important clause is the Compacts Clause. The Compacts Clause, in Article I, Section 10, reads:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Currently, the US-Mexico border is entirely porous, with thousands upon thousands violating the sovereignty of Texas and the United

Despite the established case law affirming federal supremacy in immigration disputes with the states, the condition of the US-Mexico border is not purely an immigration issue. The Supreme Court has not ruled to what extent the states can engage in self-defense or whether other parts of the Constitution allow the states to exercise self-defense in military operations other than war. For example, state national guards are frequently federalized in natural disasters. Nothing is restraining governors from having their National Guard units act on behalf of the State beyond the laws typically governing the National Guard, including the case of invasion.

There is much debate over the meaning of invasion in the Compacts Clause. The term is not explicitly defined or enumerated in law. Therefore, a state governor’s declaration of an “invasion” may be sufficiently broad to involve any hostile act. The U.S. Department of Defense defines a hostile act as:

“A hostile act is an attack or other use of force by any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or terrorist(s) (with or without national designation) against the United States, U.S. forces and,

Huffines Liberty Foundation

in certain circumstances, U.S. nationals, their property, U.S. commercial assets, or other designated non-U.S. forces, foreign nationals, and their property.”

Thus, a hostile act does not require members of a uniformed, opposing military intent to seize the territory of the United States or otherwise seek to subdue or change U.S. policy overtly. Instead, a hostile act is the general threat of severe bodily damage to its citizenry, property damage, or otherwise unduly influence U.S. policy in some way. The massive amount of people, money, and narcotics fit this definition. Combined with the ensuing violence and drain on public treasuries, the acts undermining U.S. sovereignty by foreigners can be considered hostile acts.

James Madison parallels this definition again in Federalist 43:

“protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression used here seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors”

today as “Military operations other than War” or as the raison d’etat.

History of U.S. and Texan Domestic Armed Conflicts

To date, the United States of America fought most of its major conflicts overseas, especially after the turn of the 20th Century. Excluding the U.S. Civil War, the United States fought multiple conflicts on its soil and bordering nations, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The U.S. Civil War is unique because of its scale, violence, and intensity of intranational disputes between the United States federal government and the Confederate States of America (CSA). Outside of that conflict, other major conflicts on American soil were the American War of Independence, the War of 1812, the Texas Revolution, the Mexican-American War, and the Indian Wars. Later in 1916, the United States launched the “Punitive Expedition” of the Mexican Border War.

Interstate conflict exists on a continuum, and bordering municipalities are particularly vulnerable to various nefarious foreign intents and intrigues ipso facto of their border state status. Madison defines and lays out this non-military enforcement typically defined

A unique theme across these well-known American conflicts is the widespread use of irregular citizen-solider units. Though in every American conflict, the standing, professional U.S. military fought major battles, they were often accompanied by or came to the relief of militia, state militia, and proto-law enforcement groups engaging in the territorial defense of the polity under threat of invasion or attack.

The American wars against Mexico and the Native American tribes displayed the exercise of power

HuffinesLiberty.com

by state and territorial governments. These wars, often taking place over large swaths of land in series of rolling skirmishes, required the broad exercise of local authority. In each of these conflicts, often the first ‘troops’ to interdict hostile foreigners were citizens armed with personal weapons. Many times, these governments would simply act in their self-defense independent of Federal mobilization, with the slower federal troops entering battle days after the opening of hostilities.

In Texas, municipalities and the State had to fight multiple conflicts with and without support from the federal government. During the Texas Republic period, numerous Indian raids on the newly independent nation required the fledgling militia to fight back to hold ground against tribes kept at bay previously.

The State of Texas, the U.S. Government, and the Confederacy fought several minor conflicts in the Comancheria against raiding Comanche and Kiowa tribes, often led by Texas Rangers and local militia groups. The Apache Wars also saw similar fighting across multiple territorial governments against native raids. Especially during the U.S. Civil War, many native tribes attempted to push back the American settlements, and the locals often were left to fight for themselves without the support of regular military units, who were fighting elsewhere.

der saw cooperation between local militia, the Texas Rangers, Mexican militia, and the United States Army, then the Confederate Army. Cortinista bandits attempted to carve out territory for themselves from Mexico and the United States in this fight. Following the end of this conflict, bandit raids continued from the Mexican border.

Other minor conflicts, such as the Las Cuevas War, a brief battle in 1875 between the Texas Rangers, eventually supported by the United States Army, and a local Mexican militia, illustrate this use of authority. Upon hearing reports of cattle theft by Mexican bandits, Texas Rangers attempted to return the cattle to the American side. A battle quickly broke out between the two sides, with the U.S. Army decisively intervening.

A fact worth noticing, many of these minor conflicts did not require federal authorities or federal approval to act. The state and local authorities were allowed to react of their own volition to defend the territorial integrity of the United States. Furthermore, they often worked in concert with federal troops and agents. The State acting in self-defense is not contrary to, and often complementary with, the U.S. government’s obligation under the Guarantee Clause.

The Cortina Troubles of 1859 to 1861 on the Rio Grande River along the U.S.—Mexico bor-

More recently, as military operations have expanded beyond the suppression of rebellion and direct military conflict, so have the obligations of state military and law enforcement apparatuses. Whether natural disasters or Operation Lone Star, the State of Texas reserves and regularly uses its

Huffines Liberty Foundation

security organs to preserve law and order.

Constitutionality of Declaring a Border Invasion

The courts are noticeably silent on using military and law enforcement to defend against foreign threats and armed, hostile non-state entities on U.S. soil. The laws mentioned above pertain to federal supremacy in creating uniform immigration law, management of federal law enforcement efforts, and the laws and decisions guaranteeing due process and habeas corpus for civilians in the United States. Therefore, in light of the federal government’s abdication in enforcing the law as written, border states have the right to act in their own defense against hostile actions in a manner that exceeds the typical duties of state-level criminal prosecution for the duration of the emergency.

The Border Emergency

Currently, the U.S.–Mexico border faces waves of people seeking to cross from countries across the globe. Millions of people attempt to circumvent the laws and customs of the United States to come to the country. While many may seek opportunities in the American labor market, substantial, unknown quantities of people are engaging in illicit activities, namely human smuggling and semi-organized crime. Furthermore, these people who arrive in the United States become a drain on public resources. Owing to their status as illegal, unauthorized persons, they cannot obtain health insurance

in the typical fashion. Medical professionals must seek payment from taxpayer-funded coffers for rendered services. Other significant consequences of the overwhelming deluge of persons are the impact on housing availability, public health, black market creation, and public vagrancy.

Mexican narco-terrorist cartels are at the heart of the border crisis. Almost all illegals pay the cartels to cross the Texas Border. Tragically, the Mexican cartels that control nearly the entire 1200-mile Texas border are the most dangerous criminal organizations in the world.

The human trafficking, drug smuggling, gun running, and other actions by narco-terrorist cartels on both sides of the Texas-Mexico border are putting the lives and livelihoods of Texans at risk. Human trafficking is earning the cartels millions every single day. It is time our state leaders recognize this attack on Texas as an invasion and use the authority granted to them in our state constitution to protect our State.

HuffinesLiberty.com

“THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING, DRUG SMUGGLING, GUN RUNNING, AND OTHER ACTIONS BY NARCO-TERRORIST CARTELS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TEXASMEXICO BORDER ARE PUTTING THE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS OF TEXANS AT RISK.”

Authority of the Governor

The governor of Texas has the power under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution to activate the entire Texas National Guard, Texas military forces, and necessary state law enforcement personnel to defend Texans from attack, enforce immigration laws, deport illegal aliens, and address the insecurity of the Texas border at the source.

As mentioned above, during the 19th Century, Texas state military formations engaged in domestic military and policing actions under the law. Through the 20th and 21st centuries, Texas military forces and law enforcement participated in several military operations other than war, such as Operation Lone Star and disaster relief.

The governor of Texas has the right of his office to use Texas military forces and law enforcement under the law according to the Texas Constitution. Article IV, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution, states:

“He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.”

non-emergency circumstances, a declaration of an invasion gives additional legal authority to the governor to secure the border.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Federalization of the National Guard

One of the many challenges the State of Texas will face in securing its border is the lack of cooperation from the federal government. Under any state of invasion, the courts will be the center of public debate about the merits and conditions of operations securing the border.

One of the primary tools the federal government has to curtail any state-based enforcement using the national guard is the Insurrection Act of 1807. The act grants the president of the United States power to federalize the National Guard under three conditions: when requested by the State, to address an insurrection, or to protect civil rights. The act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which otherwise limits the use of military personnel under federal command or law enforcement purposes.

The section of the U.S. Code governing the protection of civil rights, 10 U.S. Code § 253, gives the president broad latitude to federalize the National Guard. In it, it states:

While the law is not clear that the Texas military forces can be called forth under normal,

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or

Huffines Liberty Foundation

conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

(Emphasis added)

Obstruction of federal law, obstruction of due process, or obstruction of the courts gives the president of the United States discretion to invoke the Insurrection Act sua sponte. The act requires him to give notice to disband before invocation. Great care must be taken to respect federal jurisdiction while attempting to correct border problems.

The Insurrection Act was invoked in the Indian Wars and labor conflicts during the 19th Century. In the 20th Century, it was used to enforce desegregation laws. Other incidents include its invocation by request of the states during rioting with Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and the 1992 Rodney King Riots. Congress briefly amended the act in 2007 to permit military intervention without state consent in case of an emergency

that hindered the enforcement of laws. However, Congress repealed the amended language in 2008 after all 50 governors issued a joint statement opposing it.

Operation Clean Sweep

The United States faces a tremendous crisis with immigration and border insecurity. In recent years, millions of people have illegally entered the United States through its Southern border. Meanwhile, many more flagrantly disregard U.S. immigration policy by willfully overstaying their work and immigrant visas. The federal government has effectively abandoned any efforts to stop these invasions by foreign nationals. It is time for the states to invoke their powers under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution to protect State and national sovereignty from these invasions. The following actions are how Texas can successfully end the invasion of Texas across its border with Mexico and protect the life, liberty, and property of Texans and all Americans.

End Operation Lone Star

Operation Lone Star has been a failure. Texas has spent billions of dollars, yet the invasion of illegals into Texas continues. With no clearly defined mission or the possibility of success, the morale of the Texas National Guard is low. The deployment of the National Guard should immediately end, with all troops sent home to be with their family and to their businesses and jobs. This rest time will prepare the National Guard for deployment once the governor declares an invasion of Texas’ border.

HuffinesLiberty.com

Pass Laws that Remove Incentives to Come to Texas

The legislative session should be used to pass legislation that removes incentives for the millions of illegal aliens taking part in the current invasion. These include:

Adopt Interstate Compacts

States adopt interstate compacts regularly. During the upcoming 2023 legislative session, the governor and the Texas Legislature must pass compacts with other states per Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. These compacts would require states to deploy their military with the military of the border state to secure the U.S. border. Then, once enough states have passed a particular compact, Congress may consider it. If the Senate and the House approve a compact, and the president signs it, it becomes operational and part of federal law. However, the imminent danger and invasion exceptions in Article I, Section 10, U.S. Constitution provide an alternative path to making a compact operational. Thus, states may adopt a compact that would require member states to deploy their military with the military of the border state to secure the U.S. border that could become operational “without the Consent of Congress” if one or more of the states faces imminent danger or invasion.

Meet with Mexican Border State Governors and Representatives of Countries Participating in the Invasion

While the Texas Legislature is in session in 2023, the governor must meet with all four governors of the Mexican states sharing a border with Texas. Meetings should also be held with representatives of the federal governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and any other country sending large numbers of illegal aliens

Huffines Liberty Foundation

into Texas. These meetings must clearly communicate the seriousness of this invasion and the consequences of them not securing their borders. These meetings are to warn all bad actors of what might be coming.

Adopt Military Plans to Repel the Invasion

While preliminary steps are being taken to reduce the flow of illegal aliens across the Texas border, the Texas military leadership must complete plans to repel the invasion of illegal immigrants. This should be done in conjunction with Texas law enforcement officials and would entail a tremendous amount of logistical planning. Locations would need to be found for all the troops and staging areas, in addition to food, training, and preparing everything necessary to repel the invasion.

Preposition Forces to Repel an Invasion

Once the Texas Legislature has concluded in May 2023, Texas must preposition its troops and resources according to its developed plan. The Texas governor must also call on governors in states that have joined the interstate compact to send their military forces to the border under the Imminent Danger or Invasion exceptions to the Compacts Clause in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. The governor should not declare an invasion until all resources are deployed and prepositioned as necessary to repel the invasion in advance. Once the governor declares the invasion, the

federal government will likely attempt to obtain a court order to stop Texas from repelling the invasion. The strength of ignoring the court order lies in the operation that would be ongoing on the border and the amount of force that is already deployed to repel the invasion.

Declare an Invasion of Texas and Implement Operation Clean Sweep

Once the military and law enforcement assets are in place, Texas’ governor must declare that Texas has been invaded and invoke the powers granted to the states under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. The timing and location of this should be known to Mexico and all other involved actors. Operation Clean Sweep, the military operation to secure the border, should start with the Air National Guard, with F16s flying low-altitude missions along the river. All 21 crossing bridges over the river would immediately be closed to all traffic. Anyone crossing the river without U.S.-issued IDs or proper visas will be immediately rounded up and deported back to Mexico.

The plan is to repel the invasion, which includes putting economic pressure on Mexico to secure its borders. Thus, all commercial truck traffic from Mexico except for perishable items and livestock will be turned around and sent back to Mexico. All truck traffic leaving Texas into Mexico would be allowed to proceed. The key here is to flip the tables on U.S. Border Patrol. Texas now captures illegals and turns them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, releasing most of them into

HuffinesLiberty.com

the United States. The goal is to convince the Border Patrol to capture the trespassers and turn them over to the Texas military so they can immediately be deported. The goal is not to enforce immigration law, it is to stop an invasion by immediately deporting all invaders. There are three direct points of attack:

1. Enact various laws in this legislative session to discourage illegal immigration.

2. Use all means possible to physically expel (deport) all invaders, arrest all who aids invaders

3. Use all creative means possible to apply maximum economic pressure on Mexico to force them to secure their side of border.

Economic Pressure on Mexico

Mexico is a G-20 country. According to the World Bank, Mexico’s GDP is USD 1.29 trillion (current 2021 Dollars), ranking as the 15th largest economy in the world. According to the World Bank, the United States is the second largest economy at a GDP of $21 trillion (current 2021 Dollars). The State of Texas has a $2.354 trillion (current 2022 Dollars), according to the U.S. Federal Reserve of St. Louis.

According to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, Mexico imports $410.66 Billion of goods (Current 2020 Dollars, estimated). According to the World Factbook, approximately 54% of those imports come from the United States of America, approximately $221.76 Billion, or just over 1.0% of the GDP

of the United States and about 17% of Mexico’s GDP.

According to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, Mexico exports $434.93 Billion of goods (current 2020 Dollars, estimated). According to the World Factbook, approximately 75% of those imports come from the United States of America, approximately $326.2 billion, or just over 1.5% of the GDP of the United States and about 25% of Mexico’s GDP.

Tourism typically accounted for approximately 8.5% of Mexico’s GDP from 2010 to 2019. In 2020, the COVID-19 Pandemic and ensuing lockdowns dramatically reduced overall tourism to 6.7% in 2020. That is nearly 2.0% of GDP lost. During 2020, the U.S. Federal Reserve of Dallas estimates that the Mexican economy shrank by 4.5%. Output in service-related industries was the primary driver of the GDP loss for Mexico, but the impact of depressed international tourism contributed significantly. According to the Government of Mexico, international tourism has not returned to pre-COVID levels. Further complicating economic problems from loss of economic activity from tourism is the rise of narcotrafficking in historical tourist destinations like Acapulco, which may be correlated.

With limited e-commerce and primary exposure to the United States for trade and tourism, cross-border trade or travel disruptions can cost Mexico billions of dollars. Current projections of hotel occupancy by the Mexican government for

Huffines Liberty Foundation

2022 suggest that tourism has not rebounded totally from its lows in 2020. They expect hotel occupancy to be at approximately 55% for 2022. We project tourism to rebound compared to the previous year, but tourism will unlikely return to 2019 levels.

Economic pressure upon Mexico by the State of Texas can have immediate and dire consequences for the short-term health of Mexico. Mexico’s debt to GDP ratio is at 54%; more importantly, the country has a BBB credit rating across various credit rating agencies, with Fitch rating it at BBB-. Weighing heavily on credit ratings are public corruption, violence, reduced government revenues from the COVID pandemic, and other previous financial instability.

The Mexican government needs to do more to assist in securing the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border. In 2019 Mexican President Lopez Obrador deployed the newly formed federal gendarme force, the Mexican National Guard, to bolster existing security arrange-

ments. However, this new force created out of preexisting security forces is primarily positioned to secure the Mexico-Guatemala border. That same year, Mexico deployed additional troops to the US-Mexico border. The deployment was rushed to comply with a 2019 security agreement with the United States after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened economic consequences. However, the additional security on that border seems not to have muted the tide of illegal aliens coming into the United States. Especially following the enactment of the US Remain-in-Mexico program, the Mexican border has faced increased pressure.

Mexico spends roughly 0.8% of its GDP each year on defense. Since 2018, the government of Mexico has increased defense spending from $5.6 Billion to $7.7 Billion in 2021. As of 2022, the Mexican National Guard is under the control of the Mexican Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA). The Armed Forces of Mexico has over 300,000 troops, with the National Guard possessing an additional 70,000 agents (SOURCE). As of 2019, Mexico deployed upwards of 15,000 troops to the US-Mexico border and 10,000 soldiers on the Mexico-Guatemala Border as of 2021 (AP). Given Mexico’s dynamic internal security issues, it is unknown what the current troop levels are.

Despite these efforts, in 2021, the United States Border Patrol reported they arrested a record 1.7 million people attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. U.S. Customs report a

HuffinesLiberty.com

“WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP THREATENED TO PLACE A TARIFF OF 20% ON ALL IMPORTS FROM MEXICO, THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT STEPPED UP EFFORTS FOR BORDER SECURITY.”

1,066% increase in the seizure of fentanyl and a 98% increase in the seizure of cocaine. Mexico’s efforts at assisting in border security or controlling its own porous borders have failed or are severely under-resourced. We assess the failure because of insufficient political will in Mexico City to cooperate with U.S. border security efforts.

The only option that has worked so far is compelling the Mexican government using economic pressures. When President Trump threatened to place a tariff of 20% on all imports from Mexico, the Mexican government stepped up efforts for border security. Therefore, absent robust border security efforts from the Mexican government, the State of Texas and other border states must pressure Mexico’s economy. This will be accomplished twofold:

1) Stop, search, and, if necessary, seize all trucks and other shipments transiting the US-Mexico border through Texas. State inspectors will pull aside vehicles searching for contraband and human smuggling along the major roadways. The State of Texas reserves the right to inspect these shipments for illicit materials and proper paperwork.

2) Discourage tourism in Mexico by employing the State’s regulatory powers and advertising budget. The State of Texas maintains a large budget for advertising, which can be used to educate citizens in Texas and elsewhere on the hazards of traveling to Mexico. Also, the State of Texas can use its regulatory ability to

pass laws that ban direct advertisement for tourism to Mexico. While dire, the U.S. State Department’s warnings are ignored by most media.

In our assessment, Mexico is likely to comply in assisting further border security efforts. The United Mexican States has too much to gain and too much to lose by not helping the United States or the State of Texas with greater border security. Whether recent events or more historical ones, the history of U.S.-Mexico relations is a story of mutual assistance and compromise, not heated conflict, it is only recently that rhetoric has been intense, in part due to a lack of a solutions-minded approach to security issues on both sides of the border.

Prepare for the Unexpected

In an operation this complex, there will always be unexpected occurrences that will need to be addressed. However, some events may be more easily foreseen and planned for, such as the lack of cooperation from the United States and Mexico governments in carrying out Operation Clean

Huffines Liberty Foundation

“THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES HAS TOO MUCH TO GAIN AND TOO MUCH TO LOSE BY NOT HELPING THE UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF TEXAS WITH GREATER BORDER SECURITY.”

Sweep. This would come as no surprise because the United States and Mexico governments have done very little to stop the current incursions across the U.S. border between Texas and Mexico. The key to gaining the cooperation of both governments is for Texas to deploy additional assets to bring economic and political pressure on the leaders in both governments.

One way to do this is to deploy assets from the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard to search all commercial airliners from all countries where illegal immigrants invading Texas originate, such as Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador, for illegal drugs and other contraband related to the invasion. Texas could also utilize some of the money saved from canceling Operation Lone Star to implement a marketing ad campaign showing how danger-

ous it is to be a tourist in Mexico, focusing on the violence of the Mexican cartels. Finally, Texas could launch a public relations campaign across the nation showing the horrors of the cartels, the violence on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border, the crimes committed by illegal immigrants throughout the U.S., the effects of drugs smuggled across the border on the U.S. population and make it clear that the federal government has taken the sides of the Mexican cartels, sex traffickers, fentanyl smugglers, murderers, and rapists.

Conclusion

There is nothing magical about reducing the flow of illegal immigrants into Texas and other border states. The previous administration demonstrated how determined efforts by the U.S. and economic pressure on Mexico could slow the flow of illegals. An all-hands-on-deck effort like Operation Clean Sweep, supported by the people of Texas, could stop the flow of illegal immigrants. All it requires is a concerted effort to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the citizens of Texas.

HuffinesLiberty.com

The Huffines Liberty Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan research institute.

Our mission is to advance the cause of liberty, prosperity, and virtue in the State of Texas by educating citizens so they may hold their elected officials accountable.

We have developed an agenda based upon the common sense liberty principles of individual rights, fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, limited government, and social conservatism.

The Huffines Liberty Foundation encourages and educates citizens so they are better informed to tackle the toughest challenges.

Taking Control of the Texas Border: Operation Clean Sweep

About the President

Don Huffines