Immigration Policy in Texas

The background of Senate Bill 4 or Texas SB4 is an arm or tentacle of the federal 287 G program that authorizes the Director of the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to sign agreements with agencies State and local law enforcement agencies, allowing designated officials to perform immigration compliance functions, provided that local law enforcement officers receive adequate training and function under the supervision of ICE officers. The purpose of the law is to eliminate sanctuary cities. In addition, the program is considered another form of the executive order of President Donald Trump that requests that more contracts be signed 287 (g) for local agencies to perform functions of immigration officers.

This program aims to take the necessary measures so that state and local authorities sign more 287 (g) agreements with the Immigration and Citizenship Service (ICE)(Armenta, Amada; page 193). In this objective, this law seeks to prevent undocumented criminals from being released. So it could be called an anti-immigrant policy of President Trump that aims to eradicate sumptuary cities in the United States.

A sanctuary means cities that in some ways help the immigrants. All Americans, who are human beings, including religious leaders, politicians, and people in general at some time in their lives, have violated some traffic law, moral, religious, professional, and political. But many people are acting as if they have never violated any law, and point to others for violating and condemning them. However, many politicians have done their things and have gone unpunished because they have the economic power to move justice in their favor. That is injustice and in the name of justice or in the name of political power many injustices are committed. SB4 arose when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick mentioned the jurisdictions to end sanctuary cities as one of the top ten priorities for the 2017 legislative session. While Republican Senator Charles Perry introduced the initial text of Senate Bill 4 and who is the author of the proposal. The Texas House of Representatives passed the bill, and Governor Abbott signed the bill. Governor Abbott asked the Legislature to approve such legislation during his State of the Union address. Gov. Rick Perry urged the Texas Legislature to end sanctuary policies. During the drafting of the bill, Texas Governor Greg Abbott explained the purpose of the bill as “putting the hammer down” in the sanctuary cities. It is a measure that binds immigration and customs control agencies (ICE). “Providing Sanctuary to the Rule of Law: Sanctuary Policies, Lawlessness, and Texas Senate Bill 4.” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol 55, no 2, page 245, PAXTON, KEN”

For this, the initiative is proposed by police officers, documents, persons, authorities, prison agencies and immigration services, data writing, research, exchange of funds. State of universities, police departments, municipalities, and counties in the case are not complying with the established measures. Several cities and larger counties in the state of Texas, such as Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, as well as El Paso, filed a lawsuit against SB4 alleging that it was unconstitutional. “Providing Sanctuary to the Rule of Law: Sanctuary Policies, Lawlessness, and Texas Senate Bill 4, Paxton Ken)” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 55, no. 2, page 253) A panel of judges from the US Court of Appeals to the 5th Circuit which can keep the law in force. Some politicians think that they approved Senate Bill 4 to protect our communities and that the courts ultimately affirmed that this law is constitutional. But it is really constitutional when it is addressed to a group of people in a community. More matter of parties and policies than of real interest for the security of the country. A judge from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas stopped several parts of the bill, including the provision requiring jail officials to honor all detainees. The policy is not limited to the application of immigration laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also praised the ruling and said in a statement that SB 4 is constitutional and protects the safety of law enforcement officials and all Texans. San Antonio City Attorney Andy Segovia, in a statement by a Spanish news network, stated that SB4 will try to eliminate any discretion of the local police on how to better serve the residents of San Antonio and other cities.

While Former police chief Art Acevedo made statements by the same newsletter indicating that he opposed the involvement of local police in the application of the immigration law of SB4. One of the main problems is that immigration is a federal issue, and not for state or local authorities to get involved. State and local authorities have other issues to worry about in different cities and this will recharge the work they are doing. As a popular saying says that covers little squeezes. In addition, state and local authorities are prepared for state and local issues, but not federal ones. On the other hand, the determination of the immigration status and the prosecution of those who do not have their immigration documentation in order should be the exclusive competence of the federal officials, and should not be a matter of concern in a routine traffic stop. This of stopping a person for the simple fact of passing light in red or a stop sign, I think it really does not combine with the end of the SB4 law since even residents and US citizens have violated the law of traffic. The law has also created harsh penalties for those who attempt to materially limit the application of immigration law, including the removal of their office (elected or appointed), people who interfere with the work of immigration officials. The application of the law has included the presence of United States Immigration and Control (ICE) agents in the state and local courts to allow undocumented immigrants to be deported, which has created a problem of insecurity and dis confidence among people who have their documents in order. This hinders the ability of the state and municipalities to enforce their domestic violence laws. This gives more room for people to be more vulnerable to their rights as human beings being violated. Above all, it will hinder the ability of the state and municipalities to enforce their domestic violence laws.

The direct effect of the presence of federal ICE agents in the state and the courts extends beyond the victims of violence (Bach, George page 324). This interference, in turn, undermines the sovereignty of the state, and the exercise of state police.“The Department of Justice issued a press release stating that” the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws in the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and not the state and local police.(Amanda Armenta, Who Immigration, page 25). This interference, in turn, undermines the sovereignty of the state, and the exercise of state police an ICE initiative for undocumented immigrants in the courts and premises in the constitutional limits to federal action, as established by United v. Lopez. (Bach, George, Federalism and the power of the state police, page 325)

One reason could be that the sovereignty of the State is at stake as the capacity of States to exercise their police powers without federal interference. In addition, the Court found that these principles of sovereignty were incorporated into the Tenth Amendment. (BACH, GEORGE. “Federalism and the State Police Power: Why Immigration and Customs Enforcement Must Stay Away from State Courthouses.” Willamette Law Review, vol. 54, No. 2, pg324). The direct effect of the presence of federal ICE agents in the state, and the local courts extend beyond the victims of violence. It also hinders the ability of States and municipalities to enforce their domestic violence laws. This interference, in turn, undermines the sovereignty of the State and the exercise of police Power, which are critical in our federalist system. ( Bach, George page. 1-2). It is necessary to recognize that several of the policies of application of ICE has resulted in the reduction of the reports or allegations of aggression and domestic violence, particularly in Spanish-speaking, Latino communities. (George Bach page. 328). Coercion is being used in Texas to apply the SB4 to pressure and force legislators and officials to comply with a vague law that is unconstitutional and supported by racism.

The other situation that must be understood is that the state would be giving up its sovereignty by allowing it to report to the federal government. In addition, the application of the immigration law will make the relationship between the local police and the various communities more burdensome, such as mistrust in the police. There will be less cooperation from community members in reporting crimes or witnessing a legal issue which encourages the belief that they cannot ask for help from the police for fear of being subjected to an immigration investigation, Stopping someone based on appearance and without cause is illegal. While Trump and his people want to address people of color, this law establishes a precedent for the police to get to whoever they want, without foundation. Texas has the second largest number of illegal residents abroad in the country. The concerns of racial profiling, victims and witnesses who refuse to appear due to fear of deportation and without a doubt the reputation of the police in doing this task is at stake. The most devastating result is that by inviting the police to enforce the immigration law would undermine the ability of the police to protect and serve. For example, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said: “It’s dangerous to put immigration authority in these local laws so that they cannot do their real work, which is to protect these communities and to protect the larger communities and to build confidence in the community so that they can get the work done “(Amada Armenta, “Who Polices Immigration” page. 29). In compliance with the law that make mistakes and injustices then there would also be much abuse that has happened in Grand Prairie, Texas, where a policeman arrested and detained a U.S. citizen of Latin descent in immigration for three days. 

Members of Bexar County along with the sheriff wrote a letter on February 1 explaining one of the problems they were dealing with SB4 policy and with 287 (g). The problem they stated was that one of the main priorities they have is to have a relationship with the community they serve, this includes the immigrant community where they will possibly find some of them will be undocumented. The detention center for adults in that county is almost at its maximum capacity level and they are short staffed, which means that law enforcement personnel have to work long hours to maintain order and control not only the detention center but also the community and would need more personnel to be able to perform this task. The other situation mentioned in the letter is that these programs are unfunded and are bringing more expenses to the county in a way that causes an increased burden on the Bexar County sheriff’s office. (Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar, Letter to Bexar County Delegation).

There are many disadvantages that we can find in this application of the SB4 law in Texas.One of the many disadvantages that will make us less safe because of the hands of police chiefs and sheriffs is by preventing them from requiring their officers to focus on local law enforcement priorities. The work will be overloaded too much in the officers and sheriffs. He also puts law enforcement between the sword and the wall by requiring local jails to choose between potentially violating the rights of US citizens by honoring all of the detainer requests from ICE and violating this proposed state law. Undoubtedly, this application of the law will create fear on our college campuses and will definitely undermine the Texas economy. Our state will become an unwelcome and unattractive place and will discourage business from moving to Texas. The tremendous thing is that the line of division between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities becomes very thin which drives victims and witnesses into the shadows. It is also important to recognize that through the application of the law prevents cities, counties, and other local government from setting up policies and practices that prevent racial profiling or discrimination. Because something must be recognized that many states have racial problems among the communities. This bill makes officers that racially profile and inclination to racism less accountable for their actions.

Forcing state and local police to act as immigration agents imposes a burden on local authorities that do not have the training or resources to administer. If federal or state governments want local authorities to stop, prosecute and jail illegal immigrants, they must provide the funds. More local expenses are incurred by maintaining more undocumented time in prisons. Concern about racial profiles, victims and witnesses who refuse to get up for fear of being deported and damage to the police. The most terrible thing in this is the commercial and political interests that have perverse incentives on the part of some leaders who promote the law. They do not care about anything other than their interests and move in the direction of that, “their interests” which can be political, economic, the most common. It is very valid to recognize that the consumption of immigrants has decreased due to the fear of being stopped by the police on the street, so many undocumented people limit their outings to the street and make their purchases daily. It is also important to understand that there is a lack of personnel, resources, and experience to enforce immigration laws and that doing so could distract departments from their main public safety missions.

Local law enforcement receives virtually no training on immigration law and enforcement. SB 4 encourages these officers to attempt to enforce immigration law despite this lack of training. There is a risk, therefore, of not carrying out a good job, and rather mistakes and equivocations will be made in the compliance process and invite frivolous lawsuits against a local government. The biggest and most complicated problem arises when there is no well defined or delineated line between suspicion of a violation of immigration law and current immigration violations or a truly criminal matter. This is definitely very delicate and is what is commonly happening. They are deporting people who have never had a history of any kind and are separating families, spouses separating them from the wife orphaned children because one of the parents was deported which is creating a psychological and emotional trauma in the lives of children, who are also growing up and living in insecurity. Truly this is unfortunate to see these creatures being violated their rights to have their parents with them. The revocation of state funds in cities whose leaders decide not to comply with SB4 will end up hurting local citizens who benefit from such funding, such as assistance to families in need of housing or other assistance. There is a real threat to the well-being of a community by reducing state funds that are essential to address the real needs of the constituents and interrupt the function of services to citizens who are in need.

Immigrant protection policies are an important way of preserving local sovereignty, defining local priorities and improving the community’s trust in the application of the law. Protect fundamental rights, such as the right to live free of racial profiling, illegal searches and detentions, and arrests without probable cause. Many laws and policies of sanctuary cities are designed to embrace a diverse and inclusive vision of the community. Ensure that the federal-state balance is not destroyed but can always be well defined, without doubt, or ambiguity. The 287 (g) program provides voluntary associations in which local officials are delegates to perform certain immigration processes in which local officials are responsible for performing certain immigration control functions under federal supervision. At the same time, the immigration system expanded its dependence on detention and other tools that had traditionally been associated with the application of criminal law.

In conclusion, Historically, it is not the first occasion that laws against a minority group are lifted not only in the nation but in many states of the nation. We also recognize the need to remain vigilant against external threats such as the one that occurred on September 11, 2001, but not at the cost of looking for a scapegoat that in this case is the Latino immigrant community because it is the only target of the law. Also, you can not sacrifice or undermine our Texas heritage, which was formed by the constant application of justice, the unwavering protection of self-government and the promise of opportunities for those who seek a better life for themselves and their families. Without forgetting that Texas and how it manifested our mayor is a city of immigrants. Although immigrants are branded as criminals, we have a large majority of immigrants, either with documents or without documents, we are not criminals. We must admire our ancestors who came as migrants and admire at the same time the courage of the migrants of today when they leave the poverty of their homeland to forge a new and better life in Texas. I also consider that the SB4 law has simply been elaborated to be well with the federal government that this case would be with the President of our nation for political and other interests. As indicated at the beginning is SB4 as a tentacle of the executive order of the president with relation and connection to 287 (g).

Did you like this example?

477

25