Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s new border law is a direct challenge to federal authorities regarding the control of Texas’s border. However, legal scholars overwhelmingly agree that the authority lies with the federal government, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2012. It seems Governor Abbott is either unaware of this precedent or intentionally disregarding it.
El Paso County and the American Civil Liberties Union are using a Supreme Court decision to challenge the constitutionality of the Texas law. They argue that immigration is solely under federal jurisdiction. However, Texas Republicans claim that they alone can address the crisis at the border, citing an increase in undocumented crossings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
By passing this new law, they have ignited yet another power struggle over who has authority on the issue. Abbott, in his usual style, claims that Texas has what it takes to come out on top. In a statement, he blames President Biden for neglecting the border and taking no action. According to Abbott, he is taking matters into his own hands by signing three laws aimed at protecting Texas and America from this supposed neglect.
According to the governor, these new laws are meant to address illegal entry into Texas, provide funding for more border walls, and tackle human smuggling.
Senate Bill 4 has been implemented in Texas with the intention of addressing migration, but it has sparked debate due to its strict measures that some perceive as criminalizing migration. The bill imposes severe penalties, including up to 20 years in prison for individuals who cross the border outside designated entry points.
These measures, combined with the arrest of over 30, 000 migrants on criminal trespassing charges through border interdictions, have raised concerns about the fairness and integrity of Texas’ criminal justice system. Critics argue that these actions may warrant a closer examination of the state’s approach to immigration enforcement and its impact on human rights.
The new law grants state police officers the power to arrest migrants and allows state judges to sentence them. This represents a potential encroachment on the federal government’s authority over immigration policy, which has traditionally been responsible for regulating the nation’s borders.
In the case of Arizona v. U. S., the Supreme Court ruled that federal law takes precedence over state authority regarding border-related laws. This decision, made in 2012, invalidated an Arizona law that criminalized unlawful presence in the country by migrants, as it was deemed unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy outlined a strong perspective on federal authority in border policy, which is now being challenged by Abbott.
According to Kennedy, the US government has clear and extensive authority over immigration and the status of aliens. This power is crucial for foreign countries to have a single point of contact with one national sovereign, rather than dealing with individual states.
Texas Governor Abbott believes that the new law is constitutional and welcomes a challenge. He argues that Texas has the right to implement this law and hopes for a Supreme Court decision that overturns the precedent set in the Arizona case.
Conservatives believe he has a chance, as the Supreme Court ruling in U. S. v. Arizona opens up an opportunity for states to play a role in immigration policy, according to law professor John Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston.
Under the new law, migrants who are apprehended by state police and charged with illegal entry have an option to leave the country if they agree before a state magistrate. By doing so, their charges can be dropped. However, if they choose not to leave or if Mexico refuses to take them back, they may face felony charges that carry a potential prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The new Texas law, signed into law by Governor Abbott, goes beyond previous measures and raises concerns about its legality. By driving migrants out of the county, it encroaches on the federal government’s exclusive authority over deportation decisions. This law is part of a larger package of legislation that may also impede on areas traditionally governed by federal authority.
Texas has received a significant amount of funding, amounting to $1. 54 billion, for running its own border patrol and constructing a border wall. Additionally, Senate Bill 4 was passed during a special session, which imposes strict penalties on smugglers. These penalties include a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for those involved in human trafficking and drug-related crimes such as fentanyl transportation. These measures reinforce previous bills passed by Texas state Republicans during the regular legislative session in 2023.
The laws in Texas grant state police the authority to search, arrest, and coordinate with other law enforcement agencies along the border without needing congressional approval. However, there are concerns about the constitutionality of these laws as well as their potential impact on human rights and unintended consequences.
Civil society groups like the Border Network for Human Rights strongly criticized a bill that they believe will unfairly target families living along the border. They argue that this legislation will lead to more human and civil rights violations and push vulnerable communities further into the shadows. The executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, Fernando Garcia, stated that they are left with no option but to resist this bill due to these concerns.
