Texas Immigration Enforcement Law: What’s Happening with Senate Bill 4

 

Abogado Aly Senate

There’s major buzz throughout the state of Texas due to recent news on Texas passing an immigration enforcement law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4). This bill allows law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone who gets arrested or looks suspicious. It also threatens officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents and the implementation of the new law. Over the 2016 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump brought high attention to immigration and its controversy.

 

Now San Antonio and Austin, both major Texas cities, filed a lawsuit against the federal court to challenge the constitutionality of SB 4. MALDEF, a civil rights legal voice for Latinos in America, stated that this bill will only increase racial profiling against Latinos. This is by no means the first lawsuit against the federal court. When Trump administration tried to withhold fundings from sanctuary cities, San Francisco then sued Trump administration just recently.

 

San Antonio, Austin and non-profit organizations in Texas are working towards blocking SB 4 from being implemented by the state of Texas. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defence and Education Fund) was sued just weeks ago by Texas governor, Greg Abbott for denouncing the sanctuary city law in back and forth law suits over immigration disputes.

 

With steep fines and criminal prosecution, the bill will try to force cities, counties and officials to comply with cracking down on the immigration law. Due to several factors of the bill, there are numerous non-profits and cities speaking up. With great controversy, many believe that SB 4 violates the Constitution. Federal immigration law enforcement takes training, knowledge and practice. It can’t simply be implemented by any officer or government official, creating a major concern of racial profiling and the safety of immigrants after acknowledging the history of racism against Mexican-Americans in Texas.

 

Texas federal government as well as the immigration enforcement law supporters will try to enact SB 4 on September 1, 2017. If this law is indeed enacted, many fear the racial profiling and cultural challenges that Latinos, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans face going forward.

 

Instead of immigrants moving to the United States and being treated like U.S. Citizens, Texas law will view them as foreigners. Anti-discrimination and non-profits will continue to push hard in order to fight for the civil rights of Mexican-Americans and their citizenship in the months to come as all eyes in Texas are on the SB 4 immigration enforcement law.

Boarder Patrol: The Government’s Permission to Enter for Citizen’s Below the Gate

Abogado Aly Boarder Patrol

The United States has been struggling with the border control crisis for many years. Border control floods the news with updates, statistics of how many illegal immigrants are still passing into the states, and the hassle of affording “the wall” as President Donald Trump plans. Amidst the disputes regarding immigration law and border control, U.S. citizens living their normal lives in Texas are having their world turned upside. Is the government in over their heads when it comes to affording a physical border? What happens to Texans that live closest to the border? The government is implementing new strategies, and the lives of some Texans will be under the government’s permission.

Affording the Border

The U.S. government’s priority with border control is eliminating, to the best of their ability, the amount of drugs, drug dealers and violence from the Mexican drug war crossing over from Mexico to the United States. For the protection of every U.S. citizen, this isn’t at all negative. However, financially, Trump plans to place high value on funding the plan to build a physical wall between Mexico and the United States.

Per mile, building the border costs approximately $17,280,000 with a total of $21.6 billion spent in a recent 1,250 mile long wall. This brings the question “Is the wall worth how much it will cost” to the forefront. With the amount of immigrants that the wall must keep out, in order for the wall to “pay for itself”, the border crisis will only create a higher national debt crisis.

Access-Keyed Gates

In addition to affording the border, there are more than just finances as stake. Texans that live furthest south of the border are dealing with the consequences of “the wall”. Along the northern bank of Rio Grande, U.S. landowners that fall below where the border wall will be built are now forced to live under the permission of the government.

Due to the floodplains, building directly on the borderline is restricted. This makes some properties fall on the wrong side of the wall. One landowner in Brownsville, Tx, Tim Loop, is affected with this issue.

The border control of Homeland Security plans to install monitored gates with keypads for U.S. citizens living behind the gates. A special passcode will be issued, and required for anyone who lives on U.S. land below the gate to enter when leaving their home to re-enter the country’s borders.

Although the gates will open for a time each day, Homeland Security will have final control over this. While this seems like a benefit to the rest of the United States, what happens to the protection of U.S. citizens who have owned their land for years? If they fall behind the gate, we could pose danger. There is fear of anyone holding the passcode to the gates becoming targets. The government failed to put its citizens first. There is an ethical question that remains about forcing U.S. landowners below a border and entering a passcode to gain access to the rest of the country.

 

Immigration Raids to Continue in US

100203houston_lg

 

In a political climate rife with contentious and emotional immigration debate, with coverage from everyone from NPR, to USA Today, to BuzzFeed covering the presidential election and the centralized issue of immigrating, U.S. Immigration has announced earlier this month that officials plan sweeping raids throughout May and June in an effort to deport immigrant families who have entered the country illegally.

 

According to statements from the Homeland Department the raids are part of a plan implemented in January of removals and targeting “convicted criminals and others who constitute threats to public safety and national security, as well as recent border crossers.” The department described the recent border crossers as those who were caught at the border after Jan. 1, 2014, “have been ordered removed by an immigration court, and have no pending appeal or pending claim for asylum or other humanitarian relief” under U.S. laws.

 

They have said that in all but emergency cases the Department of Homeland Security would avoid arresting migrants at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship. They are removing families that the administration says did not show up for their court appearances or those who have refused to comply with orders to leave the country. They also said that the raids are in response to a surge of undocumented immigrants from Central America. From CBS News: “Apprehensions at the southwest border are up, with 32,117 family units (a child with an adult family member) for fiscal 2016 through March, compared to 13,913 for the same time period in 2015. Similarly, in fiscal 2016 through March, 27,754 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the border, compared with 15,616 last year in the same period.”

 

However, all of this is ignoring the fact that the focus here is undocumented mothers and children. The Department of Homeland Security is is making targets out of women and children who should be protected rather than deported. These mothers and children from Central America are not coming here to work, they are coming here to flee the brutal and violent situation in their home countries. Instead of seeing these Central American immigrants as refugees or asylum seekers, we are currently treating them as undocumented workers smuggling themselves over the border. In fact, there are more and more cases of women walking across the border openly and appealing a case to stay to the Border Patrol agents.
From CNN: “Defending the raids, on Friday White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “If this serves to discourage people from considering to make this journey, that would be a good thing.” Still, nothing can change people’s minds when they are literally fleeing for their lives. The women and children targeted by the Obama administration are from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, three countries that regularly rank among the world’s most dangerous nations. In these countries, forced gang conscription, sexual violence and homicides are a fact of daily life; one El Salvadoran dies every hour due to violence.”

Obama Fights For Immigration Reform

Despite the fact that our country was founded by immigrants, America has always had a complex and tumultuous relationship with its newcomers. Yes, Emma Lazarus’s poem, “The New Colossus,” and its famous promise to take in the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” may be engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, but the truth is, over the past few hundred years, we’ve consistently taken measures to ensure that we are doing the exact opposite. These measures have made it very difficult for people who were not born in the USA to become naturalized citizens. From the Act of 1875, which banned convicts and prostitutes from entering the country, to a multitude of federal laws that have prevented various races and nationalities from obtaining American citizenship over the past few hundred years, the messaging of America’s personal brand has always been directly at odds with the actions of our federal government when it has come to taking in people from other countries who want to become naturalized Americans.

Unfortunately, we are still experiencing this phenomenon today. Even though President Obama unveiled his proposal for immigration reform – a proposal that sought to protect the rights and interests of the over 5 million law-abiding immigrants who reside in the US – 14 months ago, we are still awaiting the Supreme Court’s verdict on whether or not it will be put into practice. Thankfully, it was announced this week that the Supreme Court is finally ready to discuss President Obama’s plans for reform, and that the future of his proposal will be decided upon this term. The anticipated timeline of this decision is that it will be reached by summer of 2016, and, if the Court decides to move forward with Obama’s policy, then it will be implemented before he leaves office next year.

One component of the proposal, Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), would allow included residents – most commonly the parents of naturalized citizens who do not have American citizenship themselves – to apply for, and receive, “temporary residency,” which would come with the ability to apply for work authorization and some benefits. The other component would be an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which protects children and teenagers who were born outside of America but raised within its limits.

Since the President’s initial announcement, his proposal has been widely challenged by House Republicans and vocal opponents, who believe that with this suggestion for reform, President Obama has behaved unconstitutionally and with blatant disregard for the governmental checks and balances meant to limit a sitting President’s regulatory power. Still,  the Supreme Court’s announcement about bringing this immigration reform proposal to the floor and giving it the due diligence it should receive is good news for the millions of hardworking, honest residents of the US who contribute to America’s economy and well-being but are not being adequately recognized or compensated for their contributions today.

Texas Denying Birth Certificates to U.S. Born Children

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Based on a federal judge’s ruling earlier this month, Texas can continue denying undocumented immigrants the ability to obtain birth certificates for their children born in the United States. There is no immediate relief while the legal issue is sorted out. In a complex case, the District Judge behind this current decision has gone on to explain the tough predicament he found himself in.

The US District Judge Robert Pitman did not give a preliminary injunction for the civil rights lawsuit which was filed back in May against the state of Texas. The suit began when the state decided to not adhere with the 14th Amendment which grants citizenship to anyone who is born on U.S soil irrespective of their parentage.

Citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants was raised as an issue during the primary debates and primary campaigns in November 2016, where the Republican candidate Donald Trump questioned how citizenship can be automatically granted and Jeb Bush was criticized heavily on his comments about the matter.

Two non-profit organizations, the Texas Civil Rights Project and the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. filed a lawsuit on behalf of the 6 children & their parents who were immigrants. They were denied birth certificates because the parents did not have what the state considered proper identification. In some cases, parents attempted to present an official ID card, a matricula, which is issued through Mexican consulates as well as Mexican passport. But the lack of a U.S. visa makes it so that the state refuses to accept those forms of ID.

The groups which filed the lawsuit argued that the entitlement for birth certificates was one of the constitutional rights, which was being violated in Texas. In this case, Judge Pitman had to weigh whether or not to force the state to accept those forms of identification.

While the legal procedure is taking its course in the court, the group had asked the judge to give a preliminary injunction that will make the state take two forms of identification that the mother can easily provide to issue birth certificate to her children.

Judge Pitman acknowledged that the evidence that has been raised points to extremely grave concerns on how children who were born in the United States to immigrant parents are treated. But he also said that a preliminary injunction is a very extreme relief and he could not issue it without further exploring the case. Furthermore, the Judge has upheld that the State does have a right to ensure that the forms of identification that it accepts are reliable and valid.