As I read the Constitution, it appears to be the state’s decision whether they are being invaded or not.
Article 1, Section 10: “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”
“...or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”
Naw...I don’t think the courts would see the current situation as being covered by this. To do so would require the Mexican Army to be crossing the border with intent to invade and conquer the U.S. (or Texas). That would constitute a “war” to engage in by the original intent of the passage.They might even consider “armed” criminals (like the drug cartels) crossing the border as “war.” However, a bunch of non-state actors (mainly children) crossing the border for a better existence (while I agree is definitely illegal and wrong) does not consitute and invasion calling for “war” by a state. This is not in keeping with - to me anyway - the obvious original intent of this portion of the COTUS. Also, I do not think a court would see the current situation as being an “imminent danger” necessary for a state to conduct a war. (Once again I would disagree with the court...but that is what I believe they would rule....the wording is too plain for the meaning to be obscure).
Regardless of how I disagree with the current situation where our borders are being ignored and illegal immigration is occuring. I realize this is in no way a situation where a true “war” against an invading hostile force is required Because the reason for this being in the COTUS is when immediate action (conducting a war) by the state being attacked by a foreign power is necessary because the federal government has not yet had time to respond.