Completing the Border Wall Is Necessary to Prevent a Renewed Wave of Illegal Immigration, and the Supreme Court Should Lift the Injunction Blocking It
Source: John and Andy Schlafly. "Stopping Mass Immigration Depends On Finishing The Border Wall." October 30, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The authors argue that border enforcement alone won't keep illegal immigration down if Democrats gain power, so the wall needs to be finished. They say a judge wrongly stopped construction in West Texas, that federal law bars such rulings, and that the Supreme Court should let building resume.
Conclusion
Stopping mass illegal immigration over the long term requires finishing the border wall, so the Supreme Court should stay and reverse the district court injunction halting construction in the Big Bend sector.
Premises
- Trump's enforcement and deportation efforts have stopped the flow of illegal aliens across the southern border, but this success is dependent on political conditions and could be reversed.
- Migrants are already moving north (e.g., about 400 Honduran migrants entering Mexico in September) in anticipation of Democratic gains in the midterm elections, which indicates a renewed influx is likely.
- A physical barrier of steel bollard walls, cameras, and vehicle barriers, funded by the One Big Beautiful Bill, would provide permanent security that enforcement alone cannot guarantee and would reduce the costly and dangerous work of finding illegal entrants already inside the country.
- Construction in the Big Bend sector (517 of the 1,254 Texas-Mexico border miles) was halted by Judge Cardone's Oct. 2 injunction, even though the work was only land clearing, and Big Bend is a corridor for illegal crossings.
- Federal law (the 1996 IIRIRA as amended by the 2005 REAL ID Act) strips district courts of jurisdiction over such challenges except for constitutional claims, and there is no plausible constitutional objection to building a wall.
- Congress gave the DHS secretary broad authority to build border barriers and to waive all legal requirements needed to ensure expeditious construction, so the injunction exceeds the district court's authority.
Assumptions
- A physical wall is an effective deterrent to illegal crossings and is more durable than enforcement policy that can change with administrations.
- Migrant movement toward the border is driven primarily by expectations of Democratic electoral gains rather than by other factors such as conditions in home countries.
- The statutory jurisdiction-stripping and waiver provisions apply to this particular project and injunction, and the plaintiffs' claims are not constitutional ones.
- The injunction is motivated by ideological opposition ('leftist lawfare') rather than legitimate legal or environmental concerns.
- Reducing illegal immigration is a goal that outweighs competing concerns, such as environmental impact on Big Bend National Park, landowner rights, or cost.
- An anecdotal group of 400 migrants is a meaningful indicator of a large-scale future surge.