Can the Texas Border Strategy Achieve Its Aims?
![USMX-Border+Wall](/sites/default/files/styles/16_9_small_564x317/public/2024-07/AdobeStock_116752678-USMX-Border%2BWall.jpeg?h=416fe2e9&itok=eRaBMyOf)
Table of Contents
Author(s)
Tony Payan
Françoise and Edward Djerejian Fellow for Mexico Studies | Director, Center for the U.S. and MexicoRoselyn Ovalle
Intern, Center for the U.S. and MexicoShare this Publication
- Print This Publication
- Cite This Publication Copy Citation
Tony Payan and Roselyn Ovalle, “Can the Texas Border Strategy Achieve Its Aims?” (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, July 9, 2024), https://doi.org/10.25613/2P7C-8Y06.
This issue brief is based on a conversation between R. Gil Kerlikowske, former Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, and Tony Payan, director of the Center for the U.S. and Mexico. It summarizes the discussion and includes a transcript of the conversation and question-and-answer session.
Texas Border Strategy
For several years, the Texas state government — through the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Texas Military Department (TMD), under the command of Gov. Greg Abbott — have implemented a program called Operation Lone Star (OLS), aimed at preventing unauthorized migration and illegal drug trade across the U.S. border with Mexico. Texas’ state government has invested over $10 billion in OLS through January 2024. Under this strategy OLS has:
- Deployed as many as 10,000 National Guard members, including military equipment such as armored personnel carriers.
- Positioned DPS agents at the border and state highways and roads to detain individuals suspected of not having authorization to be in the U.S.
- Declared Texas under invasion through Executive Order GA-41.
- Labeled Mexican drug cartels terrorist organizations by Executive Order GA-42.
- Bused detained migrants to Democratic-run cities, such as Washington, New York, and Chicago.
- Deployed a buoy barrier in a 1,000-foot section of the Rio Grande.
- Seized land adjacent to the border — such as Fronton Island, south of Falcon Lake, and Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas.
- Pushed through the Texas Legislature a new law, Senate Bill 4 (SB-4), making illegal immigration a state crime, enabling law enforcement agencies to arrest undocumented migrants, and permitting state courts to order removal of immigrants back to Mexico.
Although Gov. Abbott speaks about fighting an “invasion” of unauthorized migration and preventing illegal drug smuggling, it could be said that the governor is engaged in a war without an enemy: Most migrants today are asylum seekers and turn themselves in to authorities rather than enter the U.S. without authorization and most fentanyl is smuggled through ports of entry. Consequently, despite OLS actions, migrants and asylum seekers have continued to come to the border and fentanyl is still making its way to American streets. Even so, in a report on OLS, Gov. Abbott claims that hundreds of thousands of immigrants have been detained, tens of thousands of criminals have been arrested, and millions of doses of fentanyl have been seized. However, it is unclear what methodologies have been used to measure OLS results. In contrast, national statistics show that the overall numbers of migrants have gone up (Figure 1) or gone down unrelated to OLS efforts; and the number of fentanyl-induced overdose deaths in the U.S. have either gone up or remained steady (Figure 2) since OLS began.
These data raise the question as to whether Texans are getting any value for their investment — although some may argue that the numbers could be worse without OLS. Moreover, there have been serious accusations of human and due process rights abuses by Texas state agents in dealing with migrants.
Figure 1 — Number of Southwest Land Border Encounters, 2012–24
![USMX-Payan-070324-Figure01](https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/USMX-Payan-070324-Figure01.png)
Figure 2 — Number of Fentanyl Deaths in the United States
![USMX-Payan-070324-Figure02](https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/USMX-Payan-070324-Figure02.png)
Symbolism and Meaning of the Texas Buoys
In a virtual conversation last August, former Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection R. Gil Kerlikowske and Tony Payan, director of the Baker Institute Center for the U.S. and Mexico, examined various actions by the Texas state government under OLS — focusing on one of the most aggressive, the deployment of dozens of buoys along a 1,000-foot section of the Rio Grande. The discussion covered the origin and development of the buoy operation by Gov. Abbott, along with its effectiveness, legal challenges, and consequences.
In July 2023, buoys were placed by Texas law enforcement officers in part of the river between Eagle Pass, Texas, and Piedras Negras, Coahuila. The buoys, which are orange spheres 4 feet in diameter, were fitted with saw blades and able to rotate independently from one another. They were placed over fixed mesh fencing anchored to the riverbed.
Although migrants skirted the buoys by going around the 1,000-foot barrier, the obstacles were controversial because they:
- Symbolized the enactment of Operation Lone Star.
- Engaged the state in a legal battle with the federal government.
- Afforded Texas and its governor enormous national attention.
However, by September 2023, a federal judge ordered the buoys removed. As expected, Texas appealed the decision. In a hearing, the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court decision, but Texas appealed for a hearing en banc (plenary), which was granted. The case will be heard by the entire Fifth Circuit court in early August, 2024.
Gov. Abbott has said he will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if the decision does not favor him. Regardless of the final decision and fate of the buoys, their presence along the river is symbolic of the current political theater playing out along the border. Moreover, none of the actions taken by the Texas State government are likely to make much of a difference on both scores — the arrival of irregular migrants and fentanyl smuggling — as these crises require more effective binational cooperation and closer coordination between local and federal authorities, instead of the more contentious approach Texas has chosen to take.
Question-and-Answer Session with Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske
The following is a transcript of the conversation and question-and-answer session held with Kerlikowske on Aug. 22, 2023.
Payan (Q): Commissioner Kerlikowske, welcome to this program. Thank you for joining us. Tell us your first impressions of the buoys as a tactic toward unauthorized migration.
Kerlikowske (A): Texas has a unique strategy, and the buoys are a unique tactic within this broader strategy. But they are inhumane. The Texas Department of Public Safety medics themselves have stated that they are an inhumane strategy — at least that they are borderline inhumane. Of course, Gov. Abbott has said that they are about deterrence, but last month [July 2023], there were 132,000 apprehensions on the Texas-Mexico border, so I am not sure how much of a deterrence this is. What the buoys have done is bring much controversy, and three specific conflicts that will need to be resolved — and none of which can certainly resolve the crisis that Gov. Abbott says he is focused on.
First, the buoys are generating an international conflict. Mexico has argued that they violate its sovereignty, largely because they may be on the Mexican side of the river. If they were not at first, they certainly could drift in the direction of Mexico. Mexico has also argued that they are an unallowable obstruction to the good administration of the binational watershed. That country has also protested the loss of life, arguing that the buoys are inhumane, given their aggressive character toward human life. And indeed we have already seen that several people have lost their lives, although Gov. Abbott argues that these migrants drowned away from the buoys and got caught in them down the river. At this level, the clearest evidence of the buoys becoming an international conflict is the fact that even agencies such as the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), the body that oversees the watershed of the Rio Grande, with its Mexican counterpart, the Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (CILA), have had to engage. The IBWC was asked to appear in a hearing before a federal judge to figure out whether the buoys must be removed.
The second is a conflict between the state and the federal government, and their various agencies. Clearly, there is opposition from the Biden administration to the buoys, and there is legal action from the federal government against Texas. The buoys have in fact escalated a serious conflict not just between Texas and the federal government — something which will have to play out in court through 2024 — but also between various departments at both levels. In fact, … one part that makes the buoys a difficult issue is that it has really impacted the relationship on the ground between Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a federal agency, and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), which [previously] had overall a good relationship — including sharing flight times for surveillance with helicopters so that the National Guard, CBP and DPS’ airwing were not flying at the same time around the same location. That was good cooperation. Can that cooperation be restored, especially after Texas impeded the entry of federal agents to Shelby Park in Eagle Pass? Gov. Abbott appears to be willing to escalate the conflict as far as he can, without really solving either the issue of asylum seekers arriving at the border or fentanyl making it across into the United States.
The third conflict is with civil society organizations. Although over 50% of Texans approve of the governor’s actions along the borderline, there is much opposition to them, and the buoys are quite symbolic of this, because they are cruel. Of course, the U.S. government has warned people not to try to cross the border between ports of entry, desert or water, because it is dangerous. We have warned them about death, dehydration, becoming victims to violent crime, and on and on, and yet none of these warnings have had a significant impact. And it really should not come as a surprise that those buoys have not had a significant deterrent effect on migrants because these are folks that are already fleeing horrific conditions, whether … crime or their economies. They probably think that risking injury and even death is still worth the risk, given the potential reward. But I think the buoys are not any better as a deterrent; they are rather a visible symbol for the public, especially … Gov. Abbott’s political base, but they are certainly not a deterrent.
Q: Thank you for this reflection ... . Given your thoughts on the buoys, and the fact that they cover only about one-third of a mile and are not really a deterrent, can you be more specific about their utility? What is Gov. Abbott trying to accomplish?
A: It is frankly more political theater. It is about telling his audience, “Look what we are doing.” These buoys are extremely visible. … If you take DPS resources and position them while they are patrolling, they are still nowhere near as visible as these buoys are. Their design is shocking. Their effectiveness is about their look, not about their real deterrent effect. When you look at the numbers, this is a time of the year when you normally see a bit of a decrease in migrants, but when you look at the number of people crossing the Darien gap between Colombia and Panama, you can see that there is a pretty significant number of people for whom the buoys are not important. They are probably thinking, “I am going to give this a try for my safety, for economic opportunity, for my family,” a host of reasons, but are hardly thinking about the buoys. But for the governor and his constituents this is visible. [Gov. Abbott] is thinking, “Look, this is what I am doing.” This stunt is like what Gov. [Douglas A.] Ducey in Arizona did when he placed cargo containers and stacked them high along the Arizona border. For the Border Patrol this was not particularly helpful because they could not see around them. This strategy, too, was more for political theater than deterrence.
Q: If the governor loses the various lawsuits — from individuals, communities, and the federal government — and he insists in not removing [the buoys], what recourse do they have?
A: Gov. Abbott has stated that he is perfectly entitled under the constitution to protect the border. So, this takes us to a standoff. Thus far, the Biden administration has been reluctant to take on Texas and the governor directly, including for other stunts that failed to resolve the crisis — such as busing people to other cities — because it means giving it amplification. But the buoys could be the proverbial straw that broke that camel’s back. But even so, Biden is very institutional and is likely to follow that course. So, the lawsuit is there now, and the decision is yet to come.
Q: I do not see the federal government sending agents to remove the buoys. They probably do not want to interfere and want this to play out in court. But if they did so, could this lead to an agency standoff?
A: I believe there could be a standoff. Maybe Mexico, which has said that the buoys are in its waters and should not be there, could do so. Mexico has argued that they violate the water treaty. So, it could be that Mexico acts. But it is unlikely, as we have seen thus far. The whole issue has in fact disappeared from the headlines, even in Mexico. But removing them against Gov. Abbott’s wishes, by either party, could lead to a serious conflict. If the U.S. and Mexico removed them together it may be better, since it is not a unilateral decision, but that is also unlikely.
Q: Mexico has protested the buoys and other actions by Texas, but Mexico has no actionable response, even if the buoys were on or floated toward the Mexican side of the river. Is there really anything the Mexican government can do
A: It would be a significant resource issue for Mexico to remove the buoys. If Mexico were to take this on, they would want to make sure that they are in good standing regarding the fact that the buoys violate Mexican sovereignty. As of now, the most viable option is that the court system plays out the case and that eventually the federal government [will] be entitled to remove them.
Q: Zooming in on … the buoys and their structure, what is the point of adding saw blades in between the spheres? What about making them rotate so that the migrants who cling onto them can easily slip off them? Is there an intention to cause physical damage by adding these features?
A: The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) itself highlighted this issue in their email. They said that they thought this was beginning to border on the inhumane. People do not realize that there is a mesh under the buoys meant to trap people under them if they try to swim under the spheres. This is a real risk to their personal safety. But we have also seen razor wire … stretched so far. And nothing seems to deter migrants from coming. Their decision seems to obey a different logic than any deterrents the government, state or federal, throws at them.
Q: Gov. Abbott, to be fair, has a point. There has been a crisis going on for about 12 years now, and there is no resolution. Migrants keep coming. The government keeps escalating its enforcement. And now the governor has entered the fray, investing billions through OLS, concertina wire, the deployment of the National Guard, placing these buoys, and nothing seems to work. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, could it be that the governor is simply trying to highlight that there is a problem?
A: Probably not. … The evidence shows that nothing has really worked. There is no correlation between what is done to stop migration and the number of migrants that show up. This is about political theater for the governor. It is much like when Gov. [Glenn] Youngkin of Virginia sent National Guard troops from that state for 30 days. You know you cannot just parachute them in to work for 30 days and ensure that they understand what they are doing, what their responsibilities are, what the issues are, etc. Doing this is hardly going to make a difference. It is not going to deter anyone, but it is politics for a governor like Youngkin. Sometimes, these stunts may make things even worse, such as when Gov. [Ron] DeSantis of Florida sent the National Guard from his state, but also the Florida Highway Patrol troopers to the border. Not only were they there for such a short time to make a difference, but none of them were particularly interested in leaving their home to go down to the border. But for this coalition of governors, this is about politics, not about solving the immigration crisis.
Q: So, Texas and the federal government are now eyeball to eyeball. Who will blink first?
A: I think Gov. Abbott is pushing it over the line with the buoys. And frankly, after several deaths, whether they are associated with them or not, the cruelty aspect of them may be what finally pushes this over the line. Remember that CBP and DPS, which had always had a strong relationship, might see cooperation jeopardized, for example. There is nothing more complicated for these agencies than complicated law, such as immigration, which involves a unique combination of civil and criminal law. And they must work together.
Audience (Q): What do you suggest … needs to be done? How does the law need to change to solve this situation, the general issue with immigration?
A: What has been talked about over the years is the institutionalization of a guest worker program. A lot of people are coming in and may not necessarily be interested in staying or raising a family here. Their interest may be more in working and being able to help their families. We saw that from Mexico during the [George W.] Bush administration. A lot of people would come for a short time to work. And a guest worker program has been talked about on both sides of the aisle, but the difficulty is that it is very hard these days to get Congress to change the law.
Audience (Q): Do we need to change the asylum law?
A: Most of the migrants showing up at the border do not qualify for asylum. They first must claim credible fear; then, they go through a hearing. But the system is so backed up that it takes years to go through it. The Obama administration tried a program where these migrants would first try to ask for asylum at a U.S. consulate in their home country and get their hearing there. But soon it became clear that they did not qualify, and so upon seeing many of their neighbors not meet the bar, they did not apply or simply undertook the journey north. And that is where we find the issue here in Texas. Folks are just showing up and we must deal with them at the border.
Audience (Q): Gov. Abbott deployed the buoys, and he used political rhetoric saying that he feels there is an invasion at the border. He said that he feels Texas has the constitutional right to defend the state against an invasion. Can Texas, in a situation like this, say that an “invasion” is allowing them to use the buoys?
A: That is what is happening. It is hard to tell if this argument will be held up in court. But every stunt by Gov. Abbott is certainly not going to resolve the issues that we are facing today. But they are politically quite good. These stunts win elections. It is the same with busing migrants to Democratic-governed cities — such as Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago — or deploying the National Guard, to any other action the governor has taken so far. They do not solve the root causes of this issue. And there is little cooperation among levels of government. There was a time when there was more cooperation and mayors and governors could come up with joint statements, agreeing along the political spectrum, and pushing their legislative delegations to figure out a solution. But today, there is much polarization. I think any change to this dynamic is going to be very difficult.
Payan (Q): Gov. Abbott could lobby and push the Texas legislative delegation in Washington to come up with a solution to the immigration impasse, but he seems to find it more profitable to engage in what you termed political theater. So, this raises the question: Is the governor interested in solving what he calls a border crisis or is he more interested in crisis maintenance?
A: I think he is engaged in political theater, in political rhetoric. There is nothing in his efforts that appears to be solving this crisis. Of course, much of the solution lies with the Republicans. I am certain the Democrats would be willing to contemplate a potential coalition to solve this issue, but that would deflate a powerful political tool for many governors.
Payan: Thank you for your insights, Commissioner Kerlikowske. I appreciate your joining us today for this conversation on the Texas strategy toward the border, and the deployment of the buoys in particular, and what they symbolize in the politics of our time.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.