 |
| Texas Governor Greg Abbott |
SB4 has created fear in immigrant communities, especially as local or state officials could make an arrest for up to two years after the alleged offense. Critics question how officials far from the border could determine if a person has crossed illegally without asking for immigration documents, raising the issue of potential racial profiling.
The bill also allows state judges to issue de facto deportation orders, but it is ambiguous how it will be enforced, as states do not have the necessary facilities, agents and international agreements to deport migrants to foreign countries. In November, The Government of Mexico announced that they “categorically reject any measure that allows state or local authorities to detain and return Mexican or foreign nationals to Mexican territory… [and] will continue its efforts with the U.S. government to address the issue of migration, and reiterates its commitment to protect the rights of all Mexicans abroad.”
The law is scheduled to take effect in March 2024, but it is expected to be challenged. Federal law already makes it illegal to enter the U.S. without permission. In addition, Federal courts have ruled that immigration laws can only be enforced by the federal government, a precedent set by the 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States.
Previously, Abbott has attempted to deter migrant crossings multiple times through the installation of a 1000 foot floating barrier, as well as placing a razor wire near Rio Grande, both of which were rejected in court.
- Momoka Dhanuwidjaja
Sources:
13 comments:
I find it very interesting that the Republican party is taking is starting to double down on their promise on trying to deal with immigration security through state action. Though we learned in class that the federal government in Washington DC has the most power within the country, the state also has a decent amount of powers to carryout state legislature, much like the situation here where the state is passing its own bill. Though I do understand that part of the point of passing the bill is to make it look like to Republican supporters that they are "doing something," I don't think that this bill will actually accomplish much. As Momoka already highlights in her post, "federal law already makes it illegal to enter the U.S. without permission" and with a significant amount of people entering the country, I think Texas will have trouble in terms enforcing the bill. Additionally, the bill seems to lean heavily more towards consequences undocumented migrants could face if caught, which are already present under U.S. law. Overall, I don't think much headway will actually be done in terms of immigration security.
It's incredibly scary to see the amount of power that people are willing to cede to the state because of the fearmongering surrounding the (largely overstated) threat of illegal immigrants. I think it's especially interesting that the bill permits police to take action simply because they *suspect* illegal immigration, rather than having strong documentation of it happening. It is very easy to suspect illegal immigration and I think that this bill opens up a lot of avenues for abuse of power in order to terrorize communities that are already marginalized. Even if the bill is likely not actually going to be instated and enforced in it's full possible form right now (for a variety of reasons; 1. it seems redundant given it's already illegal to immigrants and 2. if immigrants come in illegally, I don't see how they could be punished under US law as they do not fall under US jurisdiction), this has very scary implications for how the Texan and other fearmongering governments are willing to treat and terrorize migrant communities.
I believe this bill is inherently racist. As stated in the blog, the fact that Texas law enforcement would be able to arrest people only "suspected" of being illegal immigrants seems to be a breeding ground for racial profiling and unequal treatment under the law, which as we know, is unconstitutional.
Further research into the law reveals that it would "bar any local policy that would prohibit police officers from questioning a person’s immigration status, even during routine detainments such as traffic stops." I think the issue of racial profiling and discrimination is even further exacerbated by this clause of the bill, because police officers would essentially be given legal protection to regularly hassle people who "seem" like illegal immigrants, obviously something that is 100% directed towards the Latino community.
It's good to see that the law is going to be challenged, as of course, the danger is that other states with strict Republican legislatures may follow suit in adopting similar legislature if it is allowed to exist in Texas. Perhaps a new landmark Supreme Court case dictating the states' abilities to control immigration policy will come out of this ordeal.
I don't think this bill really makes any sense, as most of the immigrants coming here are desperate and looking for opportunities. What's the point of fining someone if they barely have any money? The fear created by this bill may also have other consequences, such as illegal immigrants in the US being unable to report crimes or seek help since they are afraid of being arrested by the police. I think instead of treating illegal immigrants as criminals, Texas should focus more on making legal immigration more accessible and helping them adapt to the US.
Instead of imposing SB4, the US should focus on reforming the immigration system so its easier for migrants to enter legally. This means educating those interested in immigrating to the country on how to do so in a legal way and removing some bureaucratic policies that make the immigration process longer and more challenging. Biden's current immigration policy and Trumps past immigration have proven ineffective, thus a new approach (not through the implementation of SB4) is needed. To dissuade illegal immigration while not preventing immigration entirely, the US must take a moderate approach and not one which is created the extremes of a single party.
It is clear here that minority groups, specifically Mexicans, are at risk of the potential abuse of power by state governments. I agree with Evan that the passing of SB4 will lead to an increase in racial profiling cases, especially with such broad criteria for "suspected" illegal immigrants. With the power to arrest any person based on their looks, Texan authorities will ultimately not get punished as they are protected by SB4. I believe that the US should take action on reforming the immigration system as a whole rather than leaving it to states, such as Texas, to abuse their powers and potentially harm their citizens.
The main part that concerns me is the ambiguous nature of this bill. The bill allows action to be taken on "suspected" illegal immigrants. But, suspicion is subjective and broad, what criteria are they using to confirm these suspicions? I feel like this ambiguity allows for this bill to be easily abused. Echoing what the comments have said, I agree that the focus should be on making legal immigration more accessible.
SB4 is vaguely familiar to me as my group briefly mentioned in our federalism/public opinion slides presentation. Momoka mentioned how SB4 has created fear in immigrant communities, which I agree with, however, based on my understanding, it's not just immigrants and prospective immigrants that are disadvantaged by this bill-- it's also residents in sanctuary cities in Texas that are hurt by this bill, given that it mandates sanctuary cities to cooperate with local law enforcement, thus defeating their whole purpose. (Sanctuary cities are cities that protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or prosecution).
I think that during our presentation, one of my classmates asked whether or not we felt that Texans held certain beliefs toward border policy due to the fact that they are a border state that firsthandedly witnesses the effects of border policy, which I agree with. However, Momoka mentioned that federal immigration laws can only be enforced by the federal government, which is unfortunate for Texas, and might also agitate debate on the role of the federal government versus individual states given that I don't think that an overwhelming majority of states share similar sentiments to Texas on border policy.
This law seems like an extreme overreach by the state into federal immigration enforcement. Jailing migrants for years and allowing wide latitude for racial profiling goes against American values and will likely face major legal challenges.
While border security is complex, criminalizing all undocumented immigrants is not the solution. There should be room for nuance - distinguishing between those posing genuine risks vs migrants seeking better lives for their families. Deportation and family separation should always be the last resort.
Texas would better spend its resources improving immigration courts and temporary housing rather than building private prisons. And Mexico is right to condemn SB4’s encroachment on federal authority over deportation.
Going forward, I hope Texas reconsiders this harsh law and instead advocates for comprehensive, compassionate federal immigration reform. There are better ways to balance security, economic needs, and human rights at the border. Staunch rhetoric for political points does little to solve real policy problems.
This is quite related to the books I read in English 4, Exit West, by Mosin Hamid.
Exit West features a pair of migrants who were forced out of their country and have to survive in the toughest of conditions. Though facing violence, persecution, and poverty in their host nation, I came to understand how difficult it is to move from one country to another with very little.
Harsh punishments for immigration is no way to support a struggling or travelling populations. Some people do not cross borders just for criminal activity. In fact, criminalizing them would make all forms of travel a criminal activity, failing to distinguish between those who seek a better life and those who seek to do harm. Creating laws restricting immigration just makes more "criminals." This type of dehumanization goes against our values of human rights and decency.
What's also quite surprising is that Texas also goes against Supreme Court precedents, which are often hard to overturn, especially with how recent this one is. Is Texas seeking to overturn this precedent? Or is it hoping that no one will enforce such decision?
I was actually just reading the post about aid to Ukraine and how America decided NOT to send aid to Ukraine because they were more caught up on immigration laws. These could be some of the immigration laws they were talking about which is sad to see because it's filled with such negativity. The point about racial profiling does bring up a good point and I could see this law causing a LOT of turmoil in the future if it's put into action. I also feel like the government is putting their energy into the wrong issue in terms of immigration. Sentencing people to 20 years in prison and taking 20 years off someone's life because they wanted to seek a better way of living and make a better life for their kids is not something that people should be punished for at all. I also believe that instead of trying to punish people, I wish we could make the immigration process more accessible for those who do want to come to America to make their lives better.
I strongly advocate for Texas to reconsider the harsh implications of SB4 and instead push for a more compassionate and comprehensive federal immigration reform. This includes focusing resources on improving immigration courts, temporary housing, and addressing the complexities of border security without sacrificing human rights or exacerbating family separations. Ultimately, a balanced and pragmatic approach is necessary to address the multifaceted challenges of immigration in the United States.
I think SB4's stringent measures granting Texas law enforcement the authority to arrest suspected undocumented migrants and penalize them with imprisonment and hefty fines have ignited fear within immigrant communities. Plus, the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "suspected" illegal immigrants raises valid concerns about potential racial profiling, wherein individuals might be targeted based on appearance or subjective judgments.
Crossing the border has been a common practice throughout history, with many immigrants choosing this route to obtain a license that allows them to stay in the U.S. permanently. It is used as a shortcut, offering a faster way to enter the country compared to the legal immigration processes. Many immigrants choose this pathway because of job and education opportunities or to escape violence. In my personal view, some people may cross the border just to obtain identification, but I believe it's an illegal action and risky to try. This approach may potentially result in a negative mark on one's personal record and make it difficult to return to their home country. I believe that Senate Bill 4 should be enforced consistently across all states. It serves as a reminder to immigrants to choose the legal path for entering the country and makes them aware of both the pros and cons. When the law is ambiguous or inconsistently enforced, immigrants may perceive it as a loophole and attempt the illegal pathway. Ensuring legal immigration channels while maintaining a well-regulated immigration system is important.
Post a Comment