Border Governors Slam New DHS Measures, Insist Federal Legislation Needed
Washington, D.C. – March 31, 2024 – A united front of governors from key U.S. border states voiced strong dissatisfaction today with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) newly unveiled operational measures. Issued in the wake of a setback for proposed border security legislation in the House of Representatives, the DHS plan, announced on March 30th, has been met with sharp criticism from state executives who describe the situation on the ground as increasingly dire.
Governors Greg Abbott of Texas, Katie Hobbs of Arizona, and the Governor of New Mexico joined forces in a joint statement released this afternoon. Their message was unequivocal: the federal government’s latest efforts do not go far enough to address the persistent and significant challenges posed by the ongoing migrant influx along the southern border. The governors characterized the DHS plan as “insufficient” and fundamentally lacking the necessary resources and strategic depth required to effectively manage the situation.
Context: Failed Legislation and Executive Response
The backdrop to this gubernatorial outcry is the complex political landscape surrounding border security. For months, lawmakers in Washington have debated various proposals aimed at overhauling immigration laws and enhancing border enforcement. The recent failure of a significant House bill, which contained provisions intended to bolster federal capabilities and resources, left the Biden administration reliant on executive actions and existing authorities.
It was in this context that the DHS announced its new operational measures on Saturday, March 30th. While details of the DHS plan included adjustments to processing protocols and deployment of federal personnel, the governors argue these steps fall short of the comprehensive approach they deem necessary. Their joint statement implies that the federal response, as articulated in the DHS plan, does not acknowledge or adequately address the scale of the challenge faced by states like Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, which bear a significant brunt of the migrant arrivals.
Governors Detail Criticisms and Resource Needs
The governors’ statement specifically targeted the perceived lack of resources allocated within the new DHS framework. States have been dedicating substantial personnel and financial assets to manage the border situation, including deploying state National Guard forces and funding humanitarian support services. The governors contend that the federal government’s plan does not provide the commensurate level of support needed to match the on-the-ground reality.
Their criticism extends beyond just funding and personnel. They argue that the new operational measures do not offer states the essential tools and authorities required to regain control over border areas and streamline the processing and management of arriving migrants. This dissatisfaction underscores a recurring tension between state and federal roles and responsibilities in border security.
Urgent Call for Congressional Action
In light of their assessment of the DHS plan’s shortcomings, the governors reiterated their urgent call for Congress to step in and pass meaningful, comprehensive border security legislation. This demand highlights the governors’ belief that only statutory changes enacted by the legislative branch can provide the enduring solutions and authorities needed to bring stability to the border.
The governors were specific in their legislative demands. They explicitly called for Congress to include provisions that would grant states and federal authorities increased flexibility and authority for the deployment of National Guard forces. While governors can deploy state National Guard under state authority, federal deployments or deployments with broader federal mandates often require specific congressional authorization or funding, which the governors appear to be seeking to expand.
Furthermore, the governors advocated for expanded powers similar to those previously granted under Title 42 of the U.S. Code. The public health order, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed for the rapid expulsion of certain migrants at the border. Although Title 42 has since ended, border state governors have frequently called for the reinstatement or creation of similar, expedited expulsion authorities, viewing them as crucial tools for managing large flows of migrants and deterring unlawful crossings.
Operational Bottlenecks Highlighted: El Paso and Yuma
The governors’ statement also drew attention to specific operational challenges at key points along the border. They highlighted concerns about processing capacity at ports of entry, explicitly naming El Paso, Texas, and Yuma, Arizona. These locations are critical transit points and have frequently experienced overwhelming numbers of arrivals, straining federal processing capabilities and impacting cross-border trade and traffic.
The mention of insufficient processing capacity at these key areas underscores a core issue: even if migrants are intercepted, the ability to process them efficiently, whether for asylum claims or expulsion, is limited by infrastructure, personnel, and procedural constraints. This bottleneck contributes to overcrowding, releases into communities, and difficulty in managing the flow, issues that directly impact the border states.
Conclusion: A Call for Federal Leadership
The joint statement from the governors of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico serves as a forceful declaration that, from their perspective, the current federal strategy, including the new DHS operational measures announced on March 30th, is inadequate. They argue that executive actions alone cannot substitute for comprehensive legislative reform.
By calling specifically for increased National Guard deployment authority and expanded Title 42-like expulsion powers, and by pointing to critical operational challenges in locations like El Paso and Yuma, the governors are pressuring Congress to overcome political divisions and enact legislation they believe is essential to secure the border and alleviate the burden on their states. Their message is a clear demand for greater federal leadership and more effective tools to confront the ongoing migrant crisis.
