Reasonable minds are going to disagree about the right way forward for U.S. immigration policy. But whatever the right answer is, letting individual states enforce their own immigration priorities, as Texas will now do under a new bill signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday, isn’t it.
The Texas bill is almost certainly pre-empted by federal law under a 2012 Supreme Court decision. It would also set a terrible precedent, where each of the 18 states that border foreign countries (if not all 50 states) could have different consequences for immigration status. You may prefer the approach of Texas versus California’s, but allowing both states to make and enforce their own rules is a recipe for chaos — regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans control the federal executive branch.
The Texas bill is not only almost certainly pre-empted by federal law under a 2012 Supreme Court decision.
Abbott’s new law, known as “SB4,” makes it a crime under Texas state law for noncitizens to enter or re-enter the United States without authorization; allows Texas law enforcement authorities to stop, arrest, and jail those suspected of having committed that offense; and it empowers state judges to issue de facto deportation orders against those convicted of violating the new law.
The law authorizes Texas law enforcement officers to transport noncitizens to a “port of entry,” at which point it is assumed federal authorities will kick the noncitizens out of the country. If not, the bill creates a third crime for individuals who remain in the U.S. despite a state removal order. Incredibly, SB4 also purports to indemnify officials who, while enforcing the new law, violate the Constitution or other federal laws.
As the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012, “The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled,” and “[f]ederal governance of immigration and alien status is extensive and complex.” In that 2012 decision, Arizona v. United…
Read the full article here