If This Is an Invasion, Who Aided the Invaders?
Killing legislation that would have stopped the "invasion" is allowing it to happen.
The current administration and its allied political voices have begun describing the situation at the southern border not just as a crisis, but as an invasion. This isn’t merely semantic. Under the Constitution, labeling something an invasion could trigger extraordinary powers, including the potential suspension of habeas corpus under Article I, Section 9. That clause allows suspension only in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it.
That kind of language is not just policy positioning—it’s legal justification for rolling back fundamental rights. Habeas corpus, the bedrock of due process and the right not to be detained without cause, doesn’t just get brushed aside lightly. The fact that we’re even entertaining the possibility based on immigration policy rhetoric is a sign of how far we've allowed fear and narrative to reshape our constitutional boundaries.
But here’s the uncomfortable part for the administration and many in the MAGA movement who are championing this framing: If it is an invasion, who helped the invaders get through?
The Border Act of 2024: What Was on the Table?
During the previous administration, a bipartisan bill—The Border Act of 2024—was introduced to address the growing challenges at the southern border. It proposed:
Giving the President authority to bar access to asylum or rapidly expel individuals entering the U.S. between ports of entry, especially during surges.
Increasing funding for border patrol, immigration judges, and asylum officers to expedite and enforce immigration decisions.
Ending "catch and release" by increasing detention resources.
Tightening the asylum process to reduce fraudulent claims while maintaining protections for those in legitimate danger.
This was a serious and comprehensive attempt to give the executive branch more power to control the border. And yet—Donald Trump and MAGA-aligned lawmakers killed it. They rejected the legislation not on grounds of policy failure, but political calculus. The crisis was more useful as a campaign talking point than as a solved problem.
Aiding and Abetting an Invasion?
Let’s take them at their word. If this is truly an invasion—if unauthorized immigration rises to the level of foreign incursion—then actions that facilitate or obstruct efforts to stop it deserve serious scrutiny.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2, anyone who aids or abets the commission of a federal offense is punishable as a principal. Meanwhile, 8 U.S. Code § 1324 makes it a felony to knowingly bring in, harbor, or shield unauthorized individuals from detection. These laws are traditionally applied to smugglers or those running underground networks. But if the nation is under invasion, should political actors who actively blocked lawful defense measures not be held to similar scrutiny?
If Trump and his allies blocked real border solutions, only to later declare the fallout an existential invasion—what does that say about their role?
The Political Arsonist's Playbook
The hypocrisy is staggering. You cannot:
Block the construction of a legal wall and then blame others when the floodgates open.
Sabotage bipartisan legislation and then decry the consequences as existential.
Play both arsonist and firefighter and expect the public not to notice the gasoline on your hands.
The Reckoning Will Come
Here’s the truth: If this is an invasion, then those who blocked defense measures, , including MAGA and President Trump himself, could be viewed as aiding the enemy. Under federal law, aiding and abetting a hostile force—by action or obstruction—makes one culpable as a principal.
On the flip side, if it isn’t an invasion, a view that I hold, then invoking that term to suspend habeas corpus, limit due process, and concentrate executive power is a naked authoritarian grab—a direct violation of constitutional protections.
Either way, they’re guilty. They’ve either betrayed the country by enabling a hostile incursion or they’ve shredded the Constitution to consolidate power. And if habeas corpus can be discarded on manufactured grounds, no American is safe from arbitrary detention.
Please decide—so that we can properly prosecute after your reign of terror.
