The Politics Of The Border: Analyzing The Political Theater Of March 21

The news headlines blared that “hundreds of migrants rush troops” on March 21 suggesting a border invasion that was unfolding before everyone’s eyes.

El Paso District Attorney, Bill Hicks who was appointed by Greg Abbott to fill the unexpired terms of Yvonne Rosales after she resigned, told the Texas Tribune that nine migrants cut through the concertina wire and that “an estimated 425 migrants broke away” from the group of 1,000 migrants before reaching another barrier.

The unfolding drama played right into the border narratives about border security with many sides, each trying to outdo themselves for the attention of the news audiences captivated by the political spectacle that is the border. Behind the scenes but very much at the center were the presidential political necessities of Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Republican Party.

The current drama had been brewing for some time as Donald Trump is seeking a second term. But the drama started to heat up when Greg Abbott – in search of political points – set in motion a constitutional challenge, not intent on settling the debates over state’s rights, although that is the narrative, but in creating the atmosphere over the direction of the country – nativism versus nationalism. Nationalism is more tolerant than nativism in that nationalists allow for different cultures within their midst if they are loyal to the flag. Nativists, on the other hand, believe that only one cohesive mores is acceptable.

The battlefield is the voters’ attention over a “border invasion.”

On December 18, Greg Abbott began the latest fray by signing three bills into law whose purpose was to make immigration a Texas issue. The three bills provide for state funds (Senate Bill 3) to construct border barriers, make it a state crime (Senate Bill 4) to cross the border illegally from México, and the last bill (Senate Bill 4 – Special Session) increased the sentence for smuggling undocumented people from two to 10 years in jail.

Wrapped in the political rhetoric of keeping Texas safe, the underlining driving force, as Abbott insinuated, when he said that “Biden’s deliberate inaction left Texas to fend for itself,” when he signed the bills in Brownsville, was the presidential election, specifically tying border chaos to Joe Biden’s inaction.

The headlines soon moved on to other border issues but lost in the narratives is that the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement processed and deported migrants while state officials charged them with state crimes. Supporting the drama as second chairs were El Paso’s County Judge, Ricardo Samaniego and District Attorney Bill Hicks.

When the migrants bypassed the Texas National Guard and the barriers they surrendered to the Border Patrol. They did this because one provision of U.S. immigration law requires migrants seeking asylum to surrender to an immigration official, not the state guard or state troopers, but to immigration officials on U.S. soil and request asylum. Requesting asylum before entering the U.S. takes longer and is fraught with difficulties.

Dear reader, I hope you appreciate this article. Before reading more, I ask that you consider my work and make a small donation to help keep this publication open for everyone. El Paso lacks news diversity. I offer 20+ years of historical knowledge about El Paso’s politics and public policy. Media diversity matters. Make a small donation today to help keep my work going for another 20+ years. Thank you.

Although Texas authorities wanted to charge more than 300 migrants, ultimately 221 were charged by Hick’s office on state misdemeanor rioting charges, except for nine who were charged with felony charges. Two of those who face felony charges were processed by the border patrol and likely deported.

An El Paso magistrate judge, Humberto Acosta, ordered an unknown number of migrants released on personal recognizance bonds on Easter Sunday because Hick’s office “was not ready” to prosecute the migrants. However, the migrants remained at the county jail because they were under immigration detainers.

With Texas officials at loggerheads with federal officials about the immigration issue, El Paso County judge, Ricardo Samaniego added to the political theatre days after the first batch of migrants were charged with rioting and brought to the county jail. After a second incident in which a guardsman allegedly shot a migrant, Samaniego told KTSM that although the county could manage the latest arrests, further migrant arrests would lead “no more” jail space.

Although the county has about 2,800 jail beds, 300 to 350 beds are unavailable due to ongoing construction. Samaniego wanted state officials to take the migrants they arrested on rioting charges somewhere else. Although bed space was part of the issue, what was driving Samaniego to ask state officials to take their prisoners to some other jail was simply – money.

An issue largely left unsaid by county officials is that migrants jailed on state charges at the county jail only generate $85 to $87, per day, according to the Border Report, but the migrants being detained on federal immigration charges at the local jails generate $110 a day. Although Samaniego did not say so, for county officials, it is more lucrative to house migrants on federal immigration charges than on Texas crimes.

Federal officials treat migrant crossings in between ports of entry as an illegal entry, whereas Texas officials continue to insist on charging migrants with state crimes. For county officials the issue was more pragmatic – money.

Federal officials took the March 21 detained migrants, processed them and scheduled them to be deported. While awaiting deportation in jail, Texas officials charged them with rioting charges.

Another April 12 crossing of a large group of migrants, who cut through the concertina wire laid down by Texas guardsmen near Gate 36, led Texas officials to charge another 140 migrants with state riot charges. Texas was intent on flexing its immigration enforcement arm to prove it was on the right side of the immigration debacle. However, it is all political theater for the voters’ attention.

Immigration remains a federal issue, as much as Texas would like to believe otherwise.

El Paso County-At-Law No. 7 Judge Ruben Morales found no probable cause in the arrest affidavits of the migrants arrested in the second batch of arrests. Although the migrants would not been released from jail because of immigration detainers, essentially state officials had failed to convince a judge that a state crime had been committed for second time. But the show must go on, so Bill Hicks persisted.

Bill Hicks proceeded to take the charges to a grand jury, where he secured indictments on state charges against 141 migrants. All are charged with a Class B misdemeanor.

Kelli Childress, from the El Paso public defender’s office who has been defending the migrants against state charges in court, told El Paso Inc. that she was “troubled” by Hicks’ decision to seek indictments on misdemeanor cases. She added that, “never in 30 years of practice have I seen a district attorney indict a misdemeanor case.” Childress believes that “there’s something behind” the charges “than a standard prosecution.” The “something behind” is the border drama of the politics of November.

Hicks faces a challenge to keep his seat in the November elections from either Alma Trejo or James Montoya depending on who wins the runoff election on May 28. El Paso is a Democratic Party stronghold and Hicks is on the Republican ticket.

But the local political spectacle is one minor part of the drama. There is the larger part of the play – will the nativists or will the nationalists win in November?

A former Border Patrol sector chief told KFOX 14 that the migrant surge was “like a beta case” of what was to occur across the border in coming days. In response to the migrant rush at the Texas guard, Abbott ordered “more razor wire” installed and ordered more Texas National Guards to El Paso.

In a statement, congresswoman Veroncia Escobar reiterated that the Texas National Guard do not have the “resources,” or the “training” and “experience” and that the border patrol must deal with the situation.

What both Escobar and KFOX14, along with many of the other sensationalized stories about what happened on March 21 did not point out is the inconvenient truth that the migrants “made their way across [the] concertina wire…where they were momentarily forcibly held back by a small group of National Guardsmen.” After moving past the guardsmen, the “migrants made their way to the next border barrier, and turned themselves in to Border Patrol” agents. (emphasis authors).

At 3pm, on the day of the chaos, the Border Patrol issued a statement that stated that the “situation is under control” and that “additional personnel have been deployed to the scene.”

It was clear that the federal government remained in control of the border, notwithstanding the endless soundbites of an “invasion.”

Most of the news media and the border patrol statement neglected the important context that the migrants “turned themselves” into the border patrol. It is this context that is an important element of what drove the migrants to force themselves across the border.

As The Hill reports, the “entire incident took place on U.S. soil, where all foreign nationals are entitled to request asylum from federal authorities.”

Asylum seekers, under U.S. are allowed to cross the border and approach a federal immigration authority and request asylum. At which point the migrant is handled as an asylum seeker.

Under federal law, Texas Guardsmen are not allowed to accept asylum requests as only federal authorities are empowered to do under the law. The migrants faced the situation of remaining on the Mexican side of the border not knowing if or when their asylum petition would be processed while knowing that once on U.S. soil their request to a federal immigration official would immediately begin the asylum process for them. Another often ignored part to stories such as this is that even when migrants turn themselves into immigration authorities to request asylum it becomes a ticket to the American Dream. Instead, even under the Biden Administration, many are detained and eventually deported.

Escobar told The Hill that she had spoken to “federal officials on the ground” who told her that “there were no issues” with the migrants once the Border Patrol agents took them into custody.

As The Hill pointed out, “federal officials are mandated to apprehend and process anyone crossing the border,” while the guardsmen and other Texas officials seek “to forcibly prevent” the migrants from crossing the border.

All the bit part players in the drama had a part to play in the larger drama that unfolded on March 21. From Abbott to Samaniego and on to the migrants themselves, and the directors behind the scenes – Biden and Trump – each orchestrating for their political points.

What happened at the El Paso border on March 21 is nothing more than political theater played out for the spectacle of America’s voters. As a spectacle, the false narrative is that a border “invasion” is underway when, in reality, federal immigration officials controlled the border as the headlines blared “invasion.”