This week, Texas is currently engaged in a legal battle to enforce its recently enacted immigration law, SB 4. This groundbreaking legislation seeks to override federal immigration policies, granting the state the authority to issue orders for immigrants to depart.
Iowa and several other states are currently pushing forward with copycat bills, claiming that it is a matter of “state sovereignty.” However, in reality, these bills are only adding to the already chaotic situation faced by immigrants in America, who are already dealing with the most complex immigration system in the world.
SB 4 grants the state the power to prosecute immigrants who unlawfully enter the United States under a misdemeanor charge. In such cases, judges will issue orders for these individuals to depart from the country, and state police will be responsible for transporting them to the Mexican border. If the immigrants fail to comply with the order or attempt to re-enter the country, they may face felony charges. This approach is deeply flawed from both a legal and practical perspective.
Texas argues that the law is a reflection of federal immigration law, however, this claim is unfounded. In reality, the bill poses a direct threat to immigrants who are legally entitled to be in the United States under federal law, including naturalized U.S. citizens.
Federal law allows for immigrants who enter the country illegally to face criminal charges and be ordered to leave. However, it also provides them with the opportunity to apply for different forms of legal status or relief from deportation before being removed. These options include seeking asylum, requesting withholding of removal, seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture, applying for U visas for crime victims, pursuing T visas for trafficking victims, or applying for cancellation of removal.
Texas goes beyond targeting individuals who are applying for status. SB 4 criminalizes those who have already received asylum, a green card, or U.S. citizenship. Even if these individuals have re-entered the country after being deported previously, they can be charged with a felony under this law.
People who are deported have the surprising ability to come back, either legally or illegally, and subsequently obtain a green card through family sponsorship, Congress-approved legalization programs, or other similar programs. As a result, they can eventually become naturalized citizens.
Every single day, legal immigrants who have been denied admission or excluded at airports or land ports of entry into the U.S. could potentially face felony prosecution, even if they never entered the country illegally or were never deported. It is an outrageous situation where individuals who have followed the proper legal channels can be subjected to such consequences. Fortunately, these legal immigrants have the option to go back and reapply for entry through the appropriate legal means.
During a recent interview, I had the opportunity to speak with a U.S. citizen and veteran who faced a difficult situation when his fiancé was denied entry into the country. The reason for the denial was the assumption that they would get married while in the U.S., which was seen as problematic. Surprisingly, his fiancé had been traveling between the United States and her home country for years as his girlfriend under the Visa Waiver Program. It never crossed their minds that her status as a fiancée would be considered a threat. As a result, they were forced to live in exile in Europe for several years. However, they are now legally living in Louisiana, a state that has recently introduced a bill similar to SB 4.
It’s not only spouses who are affected. The impact extends to guest workers, skilled workers, business travelers, and various other individuals. SB 4 and similar bills go beyond targeting illegal immigrants; they pose a direct threat to the lives of hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants. Among these immigrants are those who have acquired U.S. citizenship. While some U.S. citizens may find relief due to the relatively short statute of limitations in Texas, residents of states with longer periods may not be as fortunate.
Texas responds to the courts by assuring them, “Trust us! We won’t overstep.”
Texas has been repeatedly crossing boundaries in its border war. They have been unlawfully instructing immigrants to trespass on private property and later arresting them for the same. Additionally, they have been engaging in unconstitutional discrimination against fathers and implementing illegal bans on migrant transportation. Furthermore, they have been unlawfully detaining immigrants without providing them with attorneys or filing charges. Texas has even gone as far as shutting down trade with Mexico and charging a Catholic charity with “human smuggling.” These are just a few examples of their numerous transgressions.
Legal immigrants are not the intended focus of the legislation, but they serve as a prime example of why it is problematic for each of the 50 states to create their own immigration laws.
The chaos is bound to occur, even in cases where someone has crossed the border illegally. Texas intends to mandate these individuals to depart the country and is making arrangements to transport them to the Mexico border in order to expel them. However, the government of Mexico has stated that it will not allow this to happen, and the federal government is not offering any assistance.
So, what happens next when the police lead the immigrants to the border? If the immigrants comply with Mexico’s laws, will the police detain them again for committing felonies? And what about the scenario where Iowa transports immigrants to the Texas border and leaves them there? At least in Texas, it is possible to witness someone crossing the border illegally. On what legal basis will Iowa and other states justify their “deportations”?
There are a lot of complicated issues here. You can avoid charges or arrests as long as you have a “lawful presence” permit from the federal government. However, states can’t directly check this.
This law assumes that people will break it, but Texas wants that to happen.
There is also the possibility that Texas never really thought this mess would be put into place, so they didn’t try to think it through. This week, Gov. Greg Abbott said that he still needs to talk to the Department of Public Safety, the State National Guard, and local police about how they plan to enforce this law. It’s clear that they were just as surprised as everyone else when the Supreme Court quickly let it go into effect.
It is false to say that the federal government is causing chaos by not enforcing immigration laws, so states should take over. That is the real political point of this law. The states aren’t the answer to chaos, though, as shown by SB 4. They’ll make it worse.
