The argument is badly wrong, and would set a dangerous precedent if ever accepted by courts.
In response to a recent Supreme Court ruling allowing federal law enforcement officials to cut through razor wire Texas placed at parts of its southern border, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement doubling down on claims that undocumented migration qualifies as an “invasion” empowering Texas to ignore federal laws to the contrary:
The argument that immigration is “invasion” is badly wrong and has dangerous implications that go far beyond the specific details of the razor wire case.
Abbott and his lawyers would do well to stop citing James Madison to buttress their invasion argument. As I explained in a previous piece on this issue, Madison specifically rejected the idea that immigration qualifies as invasion
Claims that other statements by Madison support the theory do not withstand scrutiny for reasons I summarized here.
If the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution had expected the invasion provisions of the Constitution to have such radical implications, one would expect them to note it at some point during prolonged debate over ratification. But there is no evidence that they did. The habeas corpus issue, in particular, is one that would have raised hackles in the Founding era, as British abuses of habeas corpus were a major grievance during the American Revolution.