Yes, that is exactly, literally what they are saying.
National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd praised Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for blocking off part of the southern border to allow “us to deploy our resources to other areas.”
It’s one of those things you think should be an Onion article but no, it’s real life. 
Almost. The head of the BP union. Which isnt part of the Federal Government.
He is a current Border Patrol Agent and voted in by the other current Border Patrol Agents.
But he does not represent the Border patrol or the US Government. Just a number of his union members.
Yep. Hell, he might be echoing the sentiments of all the Border Patrol Agents. But he is not exercising the authority of the Federal government.
If the true Federal authority commands the BP to quit fucking around, no cozying up to the locals, and do your goddam jobs (to the extent that leads to confrontation), it will be interesting. Mutiny? Course correction? I guess we’ll see.
We sure live in interesting times, don’t we?
I posted about this in another place last week. Do the officials in Texas understand that, if they convince the Supreme court that they’re allowed to usurp the Federal job of protecting the border, that opens the door to the Feds just washing their hands of the whole thing? Devolve the responsibility onto the individual border states, and tell them, “Good luck with that!”
Will Texas be happy that they now have to spend hundreds of millions setting up their own border control systems? And will they be happy being the target of all the people complaining that they haven’t fixed the problem overnight?
Which is perhaps even more disturbing. When push comes to shove it matters how the rank and file feel too.
By the time this could theoretically happen , we will be in the next administration.
If it’s GOP, they are planning a federal government war on Mexico. Maybe Trump will back down on that, but defending the border is his signature issue, and he will want to reward Greg Abbott for his support.
As for the Democrats abandoning border control responsibilities, this would poll very poorly. Biden wouldn’t dare.
Re talk of civil war, here’s a reminder of the last time there was low level civil war in the United States:
Today, the left AFIAK has no organizations that are incipient violent armies. So if Trump wins, he will have no one fighting against the government. Maybe there will be a few riots, but a riot does not make a war.
If Biden wins: Why should a year when the administration didn’t change spark one? Maybe there would be some sort of attack on a state electors meeting, but there won’t be a lot them, and they would be addressed by law enforcement.
The Union rep did not poll the membership. Yes, he was selected by them, but we dont know how many rank and file BP agents support this idea, since it is well outside the purview of a Union rep.
What is the source of your quote? I was around in the 1970s, lived in the Bay Area in close proximity to the “hard-hit” city of San Francisco, and while I do remember some bombings and the groups to which you refer, I don’t recall them as “commonplace.” A review of your source might explain why their assertions and my recollections are so different.
A union rep who espouses positions unpopular with his constituency does so at great risk.
I’ve been a national union rep although not a union spokesperson.
One of the jobs of a union rep when talking to the press is to make management look stupid. Sometimes it’s also useful to trot out what amounts to a swaggering “Yeah, we mostly pretend to work. You got a problem wit dat?”
In this case IMO the union rep was saying
Hey Texas, the more you patrol the less we have to. That’s less work for us. Go for it; we’ll hold your beer. Oh, yeah, and BTW our management are spineless idiots. Kick them in the shins for us while you’re at it. Thanks."
Apologies for leaving out the Time Magazine link:
The Bombings of America That We Forgot
This, and the rest of your post, does bring up how big the insurrection has to be before it is declared a civil war. The Naxalite–Maoist insurgency in India is a real, current, 56 year old civil war, but when people claim the U.S. is heading for civil war, I think they mean something less contained.
Well, all of his union members. I guess that’s a number.
I’m not sure why you are responding to me. That is literally what I said. I was responding to a post that said the Border Patrol is being interfered with. I said the officers themselves might feel different than the official agency line. Pointing out that the union president and current officer doesn’t speak officially for the government’s is a little confusing. At what point did I say he was? When saying Washington calls it interference I think it’s relevant to point out the opinions of those actually doing the job.
Well, in answer to the OP’s question, I guess we’ll soon find out. According to breaking news headlines on MSNBC, the Supreme Court ruled against Texas 5-4.
Interesting to see that Barret was one of the 5.
I can’t imagine what the case for the State would be in this one – seems like it’s clearly a federal issue.
So when do we see the murder trials for the Texas agents?
The State’s POV is described upthread.
If the Feds take on the responsibility, they have to do an adequate job. The Feds are (arguably) refusing to do their job adequately. That amounts (arguably) to the Feds giving the State the right to “top up” the Fed’s efforts to be adequate. Or even to pre-empt the Fed’s efforts once they’ve demonstrated they aren’t going to act adequately.
It’s schoolyard logic, not law. But it plays well to the rogue’s rube’s gallery. And given a pliant enough SCOTUS, just might work. Note that 4 justices effectively agreed with Texas’ argument, or at least with Texas’ desired outcome.
Yeah, but it’s bizarre playground logic. I mean, the Feds are pouring money and manpower into the effort. I don’t see how Texas can argue it’s not adequate. Anyway, to the point of the OP, I don’t think this is the start of a new civil war.