Republican-led states across the country are copying Texas’ radical anti-immigration law – Mother Jones

Governors Greg Abbott of Texas, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and Kim Reynolds of Iowa.Bob Daemmrich/ZUMA

On April the 30th Republican Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma signed HB 4156, which allowed law enforcement to arrest undocumented immigrants. The measure was radical in many respects. For more than a century, immigration enforcement has been almost exclusively the domain of the federal government. But across the country, Republicans at the state level are trying to overturn established laws to take control of immigration policy and deportations.

The most infamous example is in Texas. In 2023, lawmakers passed SB 4, making it a state crime to cross the border into Texas between ports of entry. The law allows police officers to arrest people suspected of entering the state illegally and gives state judges the authority to order deportations. (The initial penalty for a felony would carry prison time, and repeat offenders could face felony charges and up to 20 years in prison.) Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), has called for the measure “the most extreme anti-immigrant state law in the last 50 years, bar none.”

And this extreme law is spreading, with counterfeit anti-immigration laws popping up across the country in Republican-led states. So far, at least nine states have considered bills that mirror SB 4, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In March, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds passed legislation that will take effect in July and criminalize “illegal reentry.” Just last month, Louisiana lawmakers passed a bill that would allow local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws.

These anti-immigration laws broaden the spectrum of an infamous measure Arizona passed in the not-so-distant past. In 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070, a “show me your papers” law that, among other things, required state law enforcement to determine the immigration status of people under “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country without legal permission. were country. Following legal challenges, the United States Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the discriminatory law — except for the mandate that authorities routinely request proof of legal status.

Crucially, the judges concluded Arizona vs. United States that “the federal power to determine immigration policy is well established.” But Texas and other states hope to challenge the current legal framework and, if it topples, have laws in place to control immigration.

Oklahoma law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $500 “if the person is an alien and intentionally and without authorization enters and remains in the State of Oklahoma without first obtaining legal authorization obtained to enter the United States. States.” (It also requires them to leave the state within 72 hours of being convicted or released.)

Stitt said at the bill’s signing that the measure “would not give law enforcement agencies the authority to profile individuals.” But opponents say the new legislation is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant bills in the United States, weaponizing state authorities against communities of color and potentially leading to racial profiling. “Local law enforcement lacks the expertise and constitutional authority to interpret and enforce immigration law,” the ACLU of Oklahoma said in a news release criticizing the legislation.

In both Texas and Oklahoma, Republican governors have deemed the laws necessary, while the Democratic administration took no action at the federal level. But the bills pose a challenge to both established laws and constitutional provisions.

SB 4 is embroiled in a back-and-forth legal battle. The U.S. Department of Justice, the County of El Paso and two nonprofits have sued the state of Texas, challenging SB 4 as unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal laws take precedence over state actions that conflict with the exercise of federal power. SB 4, the Biden administration argued, also ignores U.S. Supreme Court precedents reaffirming federal authority to regulate immigration. “SB 4 hinders the federal government’s ability to enforce the provisions of federal entry and deportation law and interferes with its foreign relations conduct,” the DOJ said.

In February, a federal judge blocked SB 4 from taking effect, ruling that the law “threatens the fundamental idea that the United States should regulate immigration with one voice.” Texas appealed and the conservative Fifth Circuit reversed the decision. The Supreme Court later allowed Texas to enforce the law pending pending litigation over its legality. But then a Fifth Circuit panel temporarily put the implementation of SB 4 on hold. “For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens — is solely a federal power,” the court wrote.

If SB 4 prevails, immigrant rights advocates worry it could give the conservative supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its own previous ruling. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, whose aspirations to seize power know few bounds, suggested the same to CNN, saying the state would “welcome a Supreme Court decision that would overturn the precedent set in the Arizona case.” He has argued that the enforcement of SB 4 is supported by Scalia’s dissent in the 2012 case, in which the late justice wrote that Arizona was entitled to “its own immigration policy” as long as it did not conflict with federal law and did not found reason why the state could not make it a state crime to deport people. (Both Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented in part from the majority, with Thomas’ opinion indicating that he would have upheld all provisions of SB 1070.)

SB 4, Kate Melloy Goettel, senior legal director at the American Immigration Council, stated: “sets up a disastrous case