Yeah, heading into the 2018 midterm Trump tried to create a border crisis. It didn't work. This is their election trick, create a lot of smoke, rile up the base, think that it will rile everyone else up.

I mean let's look at the core aspect of Abbott's argument from his statement.

That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Right out the gate, Abbott is based his ideology on a dissenting opinion. That is, the NON-MAJORITY finding of the court in Arizona v. United States. In fact, Arizona v. United States indicated explicitly that enforcement of the border was the sole privilege of the Federal Government. So right out the gate Abbott is literally using a case that ruled the opposite of the determination he indicated in his statement.

Additionally, Art. I, § 10, C. 3 of the Constitution.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Historically this was used for Native American invasions of property and so the key factor in cases around this is "will not admit of delay". Texas is not burning. No historical read of this section of the Constitution supports immigrants coming into the Nation. By definition as we have it thus far, Texas is not being invaded. Additionally, Scalia's conceptualization of this section, no other Justice has joined in on that understanding. So outside of the opinion of a single justice, a Governor just saying "I'm being invaded! I get to invalidate federal law!" nobody else has ever indicated this is the way it should be read.

With Art. I, § 10, C. 3, you can say "I'm being invaded!" But you still have to follow the law. You can fight invaders and maintain the law of this land, they are not mutually exclusive things, no matter how hard Abbott or Scalia wishes it to be otherwise.

And finally, the Art. IV, § 4 argument.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Again, no court would uphold that Texas is being invaded. But Abbott is adamant about Biden "isn't enforcing…" And the thing is, Governors do not get to legally make that determination. What laws are and are not being enforced by a President is the sole prerogative of the Executive branch. (Wayte v. United States)

The Governor of Texas cannot just unilaterally make a determination that the President isn't XYZing. That's what the court system is for and distinctly the thing that Abbott has lost. If the Governor felt that the President was not holding up their end, they have every right under Article III of the Constitution to take it up there. Which that's what Abbott did and lost. Also, why when he was questioned if his defiance would be upheld by SCOTUS, he merely indicated that he felt the 5th Circuit would uphold it. Meaning, he knows that SCOTUS will overturn any determination the Governor is making on this front.

And with all of that, his core argument has nothing. It's easy to pick apart. Now here's the thing, Gov. Abbott is not stupid in the legal sense. He's quite aware that his determination is unfounded. He's banking on stirring the pot enough to make either Biden do something so that can be plastered all over the place or getting the issue fresh into his base's minds.

And like I said, this is exactly what they did 2018 and lost. Abbott is just trying to get under everyone's skin and he seems determined to spend as much of Texan taxpayers' money in litigation to do that one thing.