Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has firmly responded to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) demand for Texas to cease and desist its heightened border security measures at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass. The demand, conveyed through a cease-and-desist letter on January 14, required Texas to comply by January 17 or face further action.

The Texas Military Department had implemented increased security measures at Shelby Park on January 11 to safeguard public safety and address deterioration in the protective structure impeding illegal activities by local residents.

However, DHS asserted that these heightened security measures had tragically resulted in the deaths of several individuals attempting to illegally cross the Rio Grande. These claims contradict filings made by the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In response, Attorney General Paxton's letter emphasized that Texas has allowed U.S. Border Patrol to utilize the Shelby Park boat ramp for emergency medical purposes when required. It also pointed out that Texas national guardsmen promptly conducted a thorough search for other individuals needing emergency medical assistance after the emergency situation had ended and Mexican officials had already recovered multiple bodies.

Attorney General Paxton stated in his letter, "President Biden has authorized DHS to send a threatening letter through its lawyers rather than addressing Texas's urgent requests for protection. But Texas has lawyers too, and I will continue to defend this State's constitutional powers of self-defense. Instead of seeking an injunction, you should advise your clients at DHS to fulfill their duty and adhere to the law."

Paxton emphasized that Texas will not yield to President Biden's open-border policies, which they deem detrimental. The Attorney General remains committed to safeguarding Texas' constitutional authority in defending its territory, sovereignty, and citizens.

Texas' steadfast stance against the Biden administration's border security demands sets the stage for a potential legal battle between the state and federal authorities. As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on how this conflict plays out and its implications for the ongoing immigration debate in the United States.