Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4) aims to extend racial profiling and immigration policing of persons suspected of being undocumented to local law enforcement. The bill, which was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbot in 2023 and set to take effect in March 2024, has been navigating through legal challenges and federal litigation. Before the law could take effect, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order pausing its enforcement on an administrative basis. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans is hearing arguments from Texas, the Department of Justice, and immigrant rights organizations regarding the bill and will determine if the law will ultimately go into effect.
The first thing that SB4 aims to do is to allow local law enforcement to question, arrest, and detain individuals who are suspected of being in the country illegally, a task that has been reserved under the jurisdiction of federal immigration officers. The law would also extend powers to state judges to issue orders of deportation, a task reserved for federal judges. It would criminalize illegal entry into the United States in Texas, ranking it as a Class B misdemeanor with a penalty of six months in jail for those entering for the first time. Repeat offenders would be charged with a second-degree felony, with a maximum prison sentence of up to 20 years. Newly empowered judges would be able to grant individuals charged, the option of serving jail time, or the option of having the charges dropped in exchange for being deported to Mexico, regardless of their country of origin.
Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Government sent out a press release stating that “[…] Mexico categorically rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to exercise immigration control, and to arrest and return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory”. According to CBS News, the government further stated that “[…] Mexico will not accept, under any circumstances, repatriations by the State of Texas.” The Mexican Ministry also expressed concerns that SB4 will lead to increased separation of families and racial profiling of Hispanic individuals.
Advocacy groups have raised these same concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit against SB4, claiming that the law goes against the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Others worry about the precedent that would be established if SB4 is allowed to be actively enforced. In early April 2024, Senate Bill 388 was introduced and approved in Louisiana’s Senate, moving on to debate in the Louisiana House of Representatives. This bill parallels SB4, aiming to allow local law enforcement to arrest individuals who are suspected of being in the country illegally and criminalize illegal entry into the country with a penalty of prison time for both first-time and repeat offenders.
In Texas, Juan Martinez-Guevera from United We Dream Action emphasizes the difference between SB4 and other immigration-related laws. “There have been other anti-immigrant laws in Texas and other states across the country, but SB4 is very unashamed in the way that it completely goes against the Constitution and federal law on immigration […] but that is the intent, to cause chaos, disorder and to cause conflict in the system for the benefit of a few politicians who are trying to scapegoat and target immigrants,” Guevera said.
Executive Director of Immigration Law and Justice New York, Rev. Paul Fleck, emphasizes the potential national impact of SB4. “It’s going to be kind of like the abortion ruling, in the sense that it’s going to be up to the states if the U.S. Supreme Court allows this to stand. It’s going to be a state-by-state solution to immigration and I don’t believe that is what the founders intended” Fleck said. He echoes Juan Martinez-Guevera’s sentiment in regards to using immigrants as scapegoats. “I’ve been disappointed that certain politicians have used it as a wedge issue in black and brown communities. Pitting black, low-income communities against the migrant communities that are coming in and saying ‘this is taking away from your resources’ when really it is not […] we should be providing housing to people both who are coming into the United States and who have been here from before. The social safety net should be strengthened for everyone” Fleck said.
Speculations also arise regarding SB4’s impact on asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are allowed a one-year window to submit their asylum paperwork, but if SB4 is enforced, they could be detained by police, deported, or jailed before they can have their paperwork submitted, returning them to dangerous situations that they are attempting to escape. Immigrants from Latin America face an increased vulnerability to SB4 due to the racial undertones in discussions surrounding immigration. New York Councilman, Jorge Guadrón (Town of Islip), arrived in the United States in 1980, fleeing from political violence in El Salvador after his father was killed. “ When we use the word immigrant, the image I have in my mind is someone who looks like me, somebody who speaks like me. Therefore, the implication is that an immigrant is somebody from Latin America… although we have immigrants from all over the world, especially from Ukraine and all those countries that are being oppressed by other countries” Guadrón said.
Proponents of the law argue that it is a necessary step to improve the border crisis. Texas Republicans blame President Biden for the situation, believing that his immigration enforcement policy is weak. In his argument in defense of SB4 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas asserts that the bill does not overstep legal bounds. Paxton claims that Texas followed the legal precedent set by Arizona v. United States, where the state uses local and state law enforcement to parallel federal law, rather than clash with it.
The debate regarding SB4 demonstrates an intersection between immigration policy, constitutional principles, and human rights. The outcome will hold important implications for immigrant communities in Texas and the broader discourse on immigration policy in the United States for years to come.