Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states are seeking to adopt laws empowering state and local police officers to arrest undocumented migrants, similar to the law passed in Texas nearly a year ago. Six of these proposals have been enacted or are under consideration, with Louisiana expected to sign its measure into law soon. In response to a case before a federal appeals court defending the Texas law as a means of protecting its borders from illegal immigration as a form of invasion, legal scholars have pointed out that the term invasion has been historically limited to military attacks.
With the 2024 presidential election approaching, more Republicans are echoing former President Donald J. Trump’s rhetoric around immigration, referring to the rise of migration at the southern border as an “invasion.” President Biden recently signed an executive order to curb asylum, and may have more actions planned for next week. The push for state-level immigration enforcement laws is accompanied by a public-relations campaign, with Republicans arguing that the federal government has failed to enforce immigration laws, necessitating state measures.
In Arizona and Michigan, battleground states with deeply energized Trump bases, Republican lawmakers are introducing similar immigration enforcement measures. While some of these efforts may face hurdles in Democratic-controlled legislatures, proponents argue that the southern border situation has become an invasion, leading to strains on housing, police resources, and crime rates. Critics, however, warn that these proposals could devastate state economies, promote racial profiling, and perpetuate harmful stereotypes of undocumented immigrants as hostile invaders.
The push for broader state powers over immigration enforcement comes amidst broader experiments in pushing the limits of state authority on hot-button issues like abortion and gender-transition restrictions. Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s decision to bus migrants to cities like New York and Chicago initially drew condemnation but later sparked concern about the ability of local and state governments to handle record levels of migration under the Biden administration. Proponents of the state measures argue that a 1996 federal law bolstered states’ abilities to assist with immigration enforcement, despite the power to regulate immigration lying with Congress.
In committee hearings and floor debates, Republicans supporting these measures highlight concerns around the flow of fentanyl across the border, human trafficking, and crime committed by undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges to these proposals have historically seen courts curbing efforts to expand law enforcement’s immigration enforcement powers. Critics argue that broadening the definition of invasion to include illegal immigration sets a dangerous precedent with far-reaching consequences, enabling states to unilaterally declare war and detain individuals without due process, regardless of citizenship.
Overall, the debate over state-level immigration enforcement measures reflects broader ideological divides and differing perspectives on immigration policy in the United States. While proponents argue that such measures are necessary to address border security and enforce immigration laws in the absence of federal action, critics warn of potential economic, social, and legal consequences, including racial profiling and violations of due process rights for all individuals, regardless of immigration status. The outcome of these state-level efforts will likely be closely watched as the country grapples with ongoing challenges at the southern border and broader questions of immigration policy and enforcement.
