Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
Concerned about immigration issues following President Donald Trump's re-election? Click Here
Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a presidential proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States. This announcement follows a period of heightened political debate over immigration enforcement, border security, and federal resources.
While the White House frames this declaration as necessary to address what it calls an ongoing border crisis, opponents argue that it is a political maneuver that circumvents Congress and jeopardizes civil liberties. As an immigration attorney dedicated to upholding the rights of all individuals—citizens and non-citizens alike—my goal here is to unpack the legal and practical ramifications of this executive action, provide context for its origins, and offer resources to those who may be affected.
According to the official White House statement, the administration considers the surge in unauthorized entries, drug trafficking, and potential criminal activities at the southern border grounds for a national emergency. While national emergencies have been declared in the past—often for events like terrorist attacks, pandemics, or large-scale natural disasters—using an emergency declaration specifically for immigration and border infrastructure is relatively rare and legally complex.
The modern legal basis for declaring a national emergency is the National Emergencies Act (NEA) of 1976, which outlines the powers granted to the President once an emergency is declared. Under the NEA, the President must specify the specific statutory authorities that will be activated by the proclamation. Typically, these additional powers allow the executive branch to shift resources, bypass certain regulatory requirements, or alter how federal agencies function. However, the Act also includes provisions for congressional oversight and termination of the emergency if both chambers of Congress agree to do so.
While national emergencies are not new, their use in immigration matters has been controversial. For instance, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush declared a national emergency to address the threat of terrorism. However, the scope of that emergency was significantly different, focusing on national security against foreign terrorist organizations rather than general immigration enforcement. Declaring a national emergency primarily over unauthorized border crossings and drug smuggling, as seen in the latest proclamation, tests the boundaries of presidential authority and has prompted debates among legal scholars and legislators about whether the current conditions indeed constitute an “emergency.”
The text of the proclamation, available on the White House website, underscores several key points:
These measures raise serious questions about due process for asylum seekers and the extent of executive power to reallocate funding that Congress has already designated for other purposes.
The emergency declaration stretches the definition of “emergency” beyond its intended scope. The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, and many members of Congress from both major parties have expressed concern that the President is effectively sidestepping their authority. Legislative challenges to previous emergency declarations have gone as far as the federal courts, with judges examining whether presidents have overstepped constitutional boundaries.
Courts historically grant the executive branch significant deference on matters of national security and emergency powers. However, that deference is not unlimited. In cases such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the Supreme Court struck down President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills during the Korean War, ruling that he lacked constitutional or statutory authority—even under the guise of emergency. While the specific facts differ from the current border declaration, Youngstown is often cited to illustrate that presidential power has limits, even in a national crisis.
Soon after the new national emergency proclamation, civil rights organizations—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others—publicly stated their intention to challenge the order. Several states, particularly those along the southern border, have signaled they may join federal lawsuits, contesting the reallocation of funds and arguing that a crisis at the border is politically manufactured rather than factually demonstrated. In these cases, the courts will likely scrutinize how the administration justifies the necessity for emergency measures and whether it followed proper legal protocols.
One of the most immediate consequences of heightened enforcement can be seen in the asylum process. Current U.S. immigration law, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158, requires that any individual who arrives in the United States and expresses a fear of persecution be given the opportunity to apply for asylum. Yet, increased militarization and potential expedited screening procedures may discourage asylum seekers from crossing at official ports of entry. They might be left in limbo in Mexico, unable to enter or facing prolonged waits. Reports by organizations such as the American Immigration Council and Human Rights Watch emphasize that forced returns and the denial of legal entry for asylum seekers can lead to severe humanitarian crises.
Border residents, both citizens and non-citizens, may feel the impact of heightened enforcement in everyday life. Communities along the southern border often have strong cultural and familial ties that cross the national boundary. Checkpoints, increased surveillance, and potential expansions of the physical barrier disrupt these connections. Additionally, local economies that rely on cross-border commerce could see a downturn if people fear traveling freely or face stricter inspections.
Farmers and ranchers whose properties border Mexico have voiced concerns about losing access to land or water sources and about potential damage to the environment. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and local organizations, have long argued that border wall construction can harm wildlife habitats, jeopardize conservation efforts, and cut off natural wildlife corridors.
Any spike in detentions brings the risk of overcrowded facilities and the possibility of family separation. While the Trump administration insists it adheres to established protocols, past reporting by reputable outlets such as PBS NewsHour and The New York Times has documented cases where family members were separated for weeks or months due to policy misapplications, backlogs, or bureaucratic misunderstandings.
Under an emergency framework, the rushed or large-scale expansion of detention centers could invite errors in processing and undermine established due process protections.
If you or someone you know is approached by immigration authorities—whether at home, at work, or on the street—understand that you have rights. You do not need to answer questions about your immigration status or country of origin without an attorney present. Organizations such as the ACLU provide “Know Your Rights” materials in multiple languages. These resources cover your right to remain silent, your right to refuse consent for a search in most situations, and your right to speak with an attorney.
Navigating the complexities of asylum applications, visa renewals, or deportation proceedings is already challenging. An atmosphere of heightened enforcement and emergency declarations can compound fear and uncertainty. It is critical to consult with a qualified immigration attorney or reach out to nonprofits that specialize in immigration law.
For those facing immediate legal issues, seeking professional counsel quickly can make a substantial difference in protecting your rights and securing relief.
If you are concerned about potential raids or border stops, keep a record of interactions with law enforcement. Retain copies of any notices, forms, or official correspondence you receive. If you have a phone available, note the date, time, and names of any officers or agents with whom you speak. Organized documentation can help an attorney build a stronger case.
The declaration of a national emergency at the southern border underscores a larger debate about how the United States manages immigration, border security, and humanitarian obligations. This measure, while portrayed by the administration as necessary, has sparked significant legal and ethical concerns. Critics argue that it bypasses constitutional checks and balances, infringes on local communities, disrupts the rights of asylum seekers, and sets a troubling precedent for future executive actions.
Whether you are directly affected by increased enforcement, simply concerned about the broader implications, or somewhere in between, staying informed is your first line of defense. Reading official documentation, consulting reputable news sources, and knowing your rights are all essential steps for anyone living along the border or interacting with the U.S. immigration system.
If you or your loved ones are facing uncertainties, it’s crucial to consult with experienced legal counsel. John W. Lawit, a seasoned immigration attorney in Irving and throughout Texas, is here to guide you through today’s dynamic and often confusing legal terrain. Whether you need assistance with asylum claims, family petitions, removal defense, or simply want up-to-date legal advice on how this emergency declaration might affect you, our team is committed to standing up for your rights.
Call us at 214-609-2242 to schedule a confidential consultation. Learn more about your options, your rights, and how we can help you navigate the challenges posed by this declaration.
With the stakes this high, it pays to work with an attorney who not only understands the intricacies of immigration law but also cares passionately about justice and fairness.
Now, more than ever, access to reliable legal representation can be the difference between confusion and clarity, or even between deportation and a fresh start. Stay informed, stay protected, and don’t hesitate to contact us for the professional support you deserve.
