During the 88th Texas Legislature last year, migration and border security quickly became focal points for potential legislation. By the time state lawmakers returned to the Texas Capitol in early-2023, Operation Lone Star — Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) aggressive border security initiative meant to deter irregular migration — had already been in effect for nearly two years. Now, the state’s leadership had plans to pass bills that would try to wrest more power from the federal government, while rendering Texas one of the most dangerous places in the United States to be a recently-arrived immigrant or asylum seeker.
And where Texas goes, the nation follows — a sentiment that rings especially true for Republican-controlled state legislatures and their efforts to pass increasingly severe laws meant to disrupt the status quo on immigration. As part of a legal vanguard for extreme policies, Texas’s leadership – all Republican – regularly challenges the bounds of legal and constitutional precedents in an attempt to reshape the country’s political realities. And, when Abbott or members of his administration demand new legislation to achieve those ends, state lawmakers ultimately tend to comply.
As a result, the immigration- and border-related laws enacted during the 88th Texas Legislature are some of the most restrictionist in the U.S., while copycat legislation across the country has confirmed that Texas’s example has already become a template for other states. At the same time, one of the new laws has opened the door to a potential change in Supreme Court precedent, threatening to upset the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement in a move that would likely cause widespread chaos and disorder.
This paper considers the legacy of last year’s legislature in Texas, from far-reaching new practices that mean further surveillance and criminalization for newcomers, long-time Texans, and U.S. citizens alike, to more hostile, anti-immigrant laws in states nowhere near the U.S.-Mexico border.
From Regular to Special Sessions
During Texas’s four-and-a-half-month-long regular legislative session in 2023, legislators passed new laws predictably fortifying the state’s efforts to seal off its international border with Mexico. Taken together, the legislation allowed the Texas military to use surveillance drones as part of Operation Lone Star, permitted certain federal Border Patrol agents to arrest or search people for state felonies, compensated agricultural landowners for property damage related to border crime, and gave the Texas governor the authority to pursue an interstate compact with other states to address border security. It also established a new training program around border operations for local law enforcement officers and designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.[1]
Yet, Texas’s political leaders were not done, despite enacting these border-focused measures that the governor’s office called “sweeping.” After the state legislature concluded its regularly scheduled session, Abbott called a series of special legislative sessions throughout the remainder of 2023. During these shorter special sessions, state lawmakers had to return to the Texas State Capitol in Austin and consider a specific agenda set by Abbott, with a focus on increasing criminal offenses under Operation Lone Star and challenging long-standing precedent around federal immigration enforcement authority.
While immigration policy was not the sole focus of the four special sessions that ultimately took place, it was a primary area of interest. Initially, passage of more aggressive immigration-related bills was not a foregone conclusion, as intra-party squabbles plaguing the state’s GOP leadership and other complications blocked action during the two earliest special sessions.[2] But by mid-November 2023, state legislators had fallen in line and eventually sent multiple far-reaching immigration enforcement bills to Abbott’s desk for signature.[3]
In total, three consequential immigration-related laws emerged from the Texas legislature’s 2023 special sessions. These laws represent some of the most extreme border-related restrictions in the nation, with serious ramifications for local law enforcement, the federal government, Texans, and migrants and asylum seekers themselves.
The new immigration enforcement laws – two of which share the same bill number but are distinct, passed during separate special sessions — increased criminal penalties for immigration-related violations, allocated more funding and resources to carry out Texas’s anti-immigrant crackdown, and provided further legal authority to Texas officials for Operation Lone Star or related immigration enforcement actions.[4] As expected, and perhaps even as hoped by Texas’s leaders, the legislation also reinforced the state’s ongoing effort to tee up a constitutional fight against the federal government in the courts to relitigate who can control immigration enforcement.
a. Immigration Enforcement Legislation Passed in the Third Special Session of 2023
The first high-profile immigration-related bill to pass during the four special sessions last year was one of two pieces of immigration-related legislation called Senate Bill 4 (“first SB 4”), approved during the third special session and implemented on February 6, 2024.[5] The new law imposes a 10-year mandatory minimum for the smuggling of persons, a penalty in Texas against someone who:
1) uses a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other means of conveyance to transport an individual with the intent to:
(A) conceal the individual from a peace officer or special investigator; or
(B) flee from a person the actor knows is a peace officer or special investigator attempting to lawfully arrest or detain the actor;
(2) encourages or induces a person to enter or remain in this country in violation of federal law by concealing, harboring, or shielding that person from detection; or
(3) assists, guides, or directs two or more individuals to enter or remain on agricultural land without the effective consent of the owner.[6]
Although for many Americans, the word “smuggling” conjures a stereotype of professional coyotes running people across the U.S.-Mexico border, Texas’s legal definition of “smuggling” is much broader than this, potentially encompassing relatively innocent conduct.
Thus, under the first SB 4, “smuggling” does not require someone to bring unauthorized migrants into the U.S. at all — theoretically, transporting an undocumented family member to church within a local Texas community many miles from the international border could suffice as “smuggling.” Nor does the legal definition mandate a person’s criminal intent, and an intent to conceal another person under the law is often presumed if a passenger is in the country without permission. This means someone could reasonably not know the ride they are giving is illegal, take no practical steps to hide their passengers from law enforcement, and still be subject to a mandatory minimum criminal sentence of 10 years.[7]
The first SB 4 also enhances the charge for operating a “stash house” — where smugglers or traffickers unlawfully hide people — from a misdemeanor to a felony and imposes a five-year mandatory minimum criminal sentence.[8] That said, the law includes exceptions that would either raise or lower the severity of punishments based on relevant circumstances, such as if the offense took place during a state of disaster, if the smuggled person was a child, if they experienced or were at risk of serious injury or death, if they were a family member of the person accused of smuggling, or if the person accused of smuggling cooperated with state officials.[9]
The bill passed both chambers of the Texas legislature with widespread support: 29-2 in the state Senate, as well as 92-54 in the state House.[10] Since then, the legislation has garnered less attention than other recent immigration-related developments in Texas, even though advocates and experts have warned of potentially sweeping ramifications from its overly vague language. The provisions of the first SB 4 are “so broadly written that anyone taking someone to work, a doctor’s appointment, or even an Uber driver picking up passengers could be arrested for violating [it],” said Jennefer Canales-Pelaez, policy attorney and specialist with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.[11]
i. Who Will Be Convicted?
Reports have also spotlighted who exactly is most implicated by the first SB 4. Contrary to the supposed rationale behind the legislation, those facing prosecution for smuggling in Texas are usually not the masterminds behind these criminal operations, but instead often oblivious young people hoping to make some cash.[12] They are not true public safety threats like the cartel kingpins orchestrating the action, and sometimes these youths do not even realize the seriousness of what they have done. The vast majority are U.S. citizens, and most are teenagers or adults aged 30 or younger. In fact, Human Rights Watch discovered that at least 12 children between 14 and 17 years old had faced smuggling charges from August 2021 to March 2023. [13]
In 2021, when Texas had smuggling laws in place but no mandatory 10-year minimum criminal sentence, Nathan Perrow, a recent high school graduate with dreams of joining the National Guard, accepted an offer over Snapchat from someone who would give him $1,200 to drive “me and some friends… from one place to the next.” Perrow never actually picked up any passengers, but he was still arrested by a state trooper and charged with six counts of human smuggling, for which he spent three months in state prison. “It’s unfortunate because there’s a lot of people ending up with felony convictions for something that sounds really bad on paper, but when you look at it, it’s just giving somebody a ride from point A to point B, not knowing that what they were doing was wrong,” said criminal defense attorney Addy Miro.[14]
As smuggling has increasingly become a focus of law enforcement under Operation Lone Star, local officials have warned that heightened smuggling mandatory minimums like those in the first SB 4 may exacerbate overcrowding in Texas jails.[15] At the same time, attorneys and advocates have seen how laws such as SB 4 incentivize vehicular searches and chases, sometimes based on profiling or other questionable policing tactics. In one affidavit obtained by the Austin Chronicle, a state trooper wrote that undocumented immigrants “emit a distinct odor,” which he said he smelled and used to justify a K-9 search of a car. On another occasion, a Cuban man and his friend — both in the country legally — were stopped while driving south from Austin. The Cuban man was jailed for suspected car theft and smuggling, neither of which he had committed, while his friend was sent to immigration enforcement. “They were both here legally, they weren’t transporting anybody. They weren’t hiding from law enforcement. They just were Black and didn’t speak English,” said attorney Angelica Cogliano.[16]
ii. Consequences for Immigrant-Serving Organizations
The passage of the first SB 4 has coincided with a state-led crackdown against certain organizations that provide long-standing, lawful services to migrants. Since the law took effect in February, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office has targeted the Catholic-affiliated group, Annunciation House, for allegedly harboring unauthorized migrants and operating a stash house — actions implicated under the legislation. Annunciation House is a religiously motivated network of migrant-serving shelters providing volunteer-coordinated help to migrants, which has not been controversial over the organization’s nearly five decades of existence. During that time, Annunciation House has effectively cared for thousands of immigrants in the El Paso community, working directly with the federal government to shelter people and supplying much-needed services to new arrivals.[17] Still, Paxton’s office sought a temporary injunction forcing the El Paso aid group to shut down, despite widespread outcry from community, state, federal, and religious leaders who have defended Annunciation House’s humanitarian efforts.[18]
In a July order siding with the charity, a judge considering the case wrote that Paxton’s actions amounted to “harassment of Annunciation House employees and the persons seeking refuge.”[19] Even so, Paxton sought to appeal the decision directly to the Texas Supreme Court, circumventing a lower appeals court and doubling down on his commitment to “continue to vigorously enforce the law against any NGO engaging in criminal conduct.”[20] The Texas Supreme Court has since granted Paxton’s request for review.[21]
Simultaneously, Paxton has begun to target other immigrant-serving organizations, prompting more court battles. His office leveled specious accusations against Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in a failed attempt to depose its executive director, allegedly as part of an investigation into whether the organization was harboring or illegally encouraging migrants to come to the U.S. — language from Texas’s “smuggling” definition.[22] Similarly, Paxton went after Team Brownsville, which provides migrants with basic necessities, for allegedly facilitating their entry into the U.S.[23] Notably, Paxton’s aggressive and ongoing campaign against immigrant-serving charities in Texas has earned strong backlash from critics near and far, including Pope Francis, who called the efforts “sheer madness.”[24]
b. Immigration Enforcement Legislation Passed in the Fourth Special Session of 2023
i. Senate Bill 3
Subsequently, during the fourth special session of 2023, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 3, which took effect on March 5, 2024. SB 3 appropriated $1.54 billion for immigration enforcement costs. In part, the bill provided for grants to support local governments and law enforcement agencies facing funding pressures as they implement new state-based immigration- and border-related enforcement activities, such as those covered under the first SB 4 and in the subsequent Senate Bill 4 (“second SB 4”) that passed during the fourth special session.
SB 3 also pays for “the construction, operation, and maintenance of border barrier infrastructure.”[25] In Texas, Abbott has been building a border wall comprised of towering steel bollards, at the cost of roughly $25 million per mile. He has boasted that Texas is on its way to becoming “the first — and ONLY — state in U.S. history to build our own border wall.”[26] Abbott has also promised to use state funds to eventually place more buoys in the Rio Grande. The controversial bright orange floating barriers made of saw blades, rotating barrels, and stainless steel nets are currently the subject of ongoing litigation.[27]
Notably, SB 3 also singles out a particular suburban real estate development far from the U.S.’s southern border for more surveillance, allotting $40 million “for additional overtime expenses and costs due to an increased law enforcement presence to preserve public safety and security in the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County, Texas.”[28]
A community outside of Houston marketed to potential immigrant homeowners, Colony Ridge became a short-term fixation for Fox News and other conservative-leaning media outlets.[29] Amid baseless allegations of higher crime rates and general lawlessness in the community, lawmakers used SB 3 as a vehicle to fund the Texas Department of Public Safety to specifically increase law enforcement presence in the area.[[30]
ii. Senate Bill 4 (Redux)
Of the immigration-related legislation that was enacted during the 88th Texas Legislature, the second SB 4 from the fourth special session is by far the most well-known and the most controversial. The new law – again, distinct from the first SB 4 that passed in the third special session – is in many ways a direct challenge to the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement. The second SB 4 establishes “prohibitions on the illegal entry into or illegal presence” in Texas by noncitizens, while “authorizing or requiring under certain circumstances the removal of persons who violate those prohibitions.”[31]
The second SB 4 appears to be aimed in part at supporting new legal challenges to federal supremacy over immigration policy, including a showdown over Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court precedent that struck down much of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 law while re-asserting that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility — and that states are generally preempted from enacting their own parallel immigration systems.[32]
The second SB 4 provides grounds for such litigation, establishing state-based criminal penalties around “illegal entry,” “illegal reentry,” and a “refusal to comply with [an] order to return to [a] foreign nation.” The illegal entry and reentry offenses largely mirror similar federal crimes for improper entry into the U.S. or reentry after being barred from the country. The new state penalties target noncitizens who enter Texas from abroad between official ports of entry or who return to Texas after being disallowed from the U.S.
In the most direct challenge to federal supremacy over immigration, the second SB 4 also creates a parallel, state-run deportation/expulsion system, under which a state magistrate or judge is provided authority to order someone to return to the foreign country from where they entered. Should a noncitizen refuse to do so, even if their country of return was not their home country, SB 4 says they could be charged with a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in state prison.[33] In practice, this means that asylum seekers from countries as far-flung as China, Afghanistan, or India could be forced to choose between two decades in a Texas prison or self-expulsion to Mexico, where they likely would not have any family or support system and might be targeted for kidnapping, extortion, or other violence.
These provisions have limited exceptions. Law enforcement officers cannot make arrests related to the new immigration-focused criminal penalties at primary or secondary schools, places of religious worship, health care facilities where a noncitizen is receiving treatment, or a facility where an immigrant is getting a forensic medical examination or treatment for sexual assault.
The second SB 4 also lays out a number of narrow affirmative defenses to prosecution, including being lawfully present in the U.S., receiving a grant of asylum, or possessing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections. But these exceptions are limited. They do not protect undocumented Dreamers who were too young to apply for DACA before the processing of new applications was halted by the courts, nor do they safeguard asylum seekers with meritorious claims whose cases have not yet been adjudicated. In fact, the legislation explicitly rejects an affirmative defense “on the basis that a federal determination regarding the immigration status of the defendant is pending or will be initiated.”[34] This could have devastating consequences for people fleeing serious threats of persecution in their home countries, who may be removed by Texas before they ever see the inside of a federal immigration courtroom. Such a risk is only amplified by the federal government’s current yearslong backlogs for both defensive and affirmative asylum applications.[35]
A. Operational Issues Presented by the Second SB 4
By effectively creating a border and immigration apparatus unique to Texas and meaningfully distinct from federal laws, the second SB 4 poses a host of logistical and practical concerns. It opens the door to a reality where every state along the international boundary and beyond could decide on a distinct set of rules governing its territory, rendering federal border policy incoherent and disordered.
The second SB 4 also generates issues around international relations, creating confusion over whether or how Mexico and other national governments are supposed to engage with a subnational state government with distinct positions from the U.S. federal government. Specifically, it raises unanswered questions around its operation if – or more likely, when — Mexico declines to accept state-ordered removals of not only its nationals, but of nationalities from around the world.
Moving to such a byzantine and fragmented approach to border security would send ripples across the roughly 2,000-mile line that divides the U.S. from Mexico, as migrants, smugglers, local and state officials, federal border agents, and humanitarians would need to navigate — and in the case of smugglers, find ways to exploit — a regional patchwork of different realities.
B. Court Challenges
The second SB 4 was initially set to take effect on March 5, 2024, but is currently on hold, pending litigation.[36] As was likely anticipated by the state’s leaders, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on January 3 because the legislation “is preempted by federal law and violates the U.S. Constitution.”[37] A separate lawsuit challenging the second SB 4 was filed by advocacy groups and El Paso County.[38] Both legal disputes were consolidated into a single case, and a flurry of court activity has ensued. Since March 5, the second SB 4 has seemingly gone into effect twice: once for a matter of minutes, and later for several hours. But as of publication of this paper, the law remains blocked while the legal challenge proceeds.[39]
Even though the second SB 4 has yet to take effect for any significant stretch of time, it is already having an impact. Undocumented Texans and naturalized Americans alike have expressed growing unease about the law.[40] Residents fear racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement.[41] Local and national law enforcement leaders are concerned about the erosion of community trust.[42] And advocates have warned that Texas legislators are endangering children and gender-based violence survivors, misusing taxpayer dollars, undermining American values, and denying due process, all for a law that appears to be unconstitutional.[43]
C. Copycat Laws
Despite the national spotlight around the second SB 4’s controversies, the legislation has become a model for other Republican-controlled states, which have considered or adopted bills patterned after it in 2024.
Far from the U.S.-Mexico border, Iowa has enacted Senate File 2340 (“Iowa SF 2340”), a law creating penalties around “illegal reentry” and “refusal to comply with [an] order to return to [a] foreign nation,” replicating Texas’s legislation almost verbatim. Notably, however, Iowa lawmakers omitted any mention of affirmative defenses for asylees, DACA recipients, and others with lawful status to remain in the U.S., meaning that the legislation could expose asylees or lawful permanent residents to arrest and state-ordered expulsion based on past removals or denials of entry, even if they now have permission to legally remain in the country. [44]Iowa SF 2340 was set to take effect earlier this year, but lawsuits filed by the federal government and the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice resulted in a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement.[45] That decision is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which heard oral arguments in September.[46]
Oklahoma’s legislature has gone even further, adopting a law, Oklahoma House Bill No. 4156 (“ Oklahoma HB 4156”), creating a crime that requires implicated noncitizens to leave the state within 72 hours after conviction or release from custody for “impermissible occupation” — or willfully entering and staying in Oklahoma without legal authorization to come into the U.S.[47] And, if a noncitizen has been denied entry or removed in the past, or has left the U.S. with a pending order of removal, they face felony charges if they try to enter or are found in Oklahoma, with narrow exceptions.[48] Like the Texas and Iowa laws, Oklahoma HB 4156 is currently enjoined amid pending litigation. It is likely that one or more of these three lawsuits will eventually make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a direct challenge to the Arizona v. U.S. precedent.[49]
Louisiana lawmakers also advanced a Texas copycat bill, Senate Bill No. 388, focused on “unlawful entry or reentry,” which was signed into law on June 18, 2024.[50] But unlike the legislation from the other three states, Louisiana’s unlawful entry and reentry provisions only take effect if U.S. Supreme Court precedent changes because of the litigation around Texas’s second SB 4, or if the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow states to engage in immigration enforcement.[51]
In Arizona, state legislators referred Proposition 314, the “Secure the Border Act,” to voters, who will consider whether to approve it as part of the November 2024 ballot.[52] Proposition 314 would provide for increased penalties for selling lethal fentanyl, submitting false documents for public benefits, and giving false information to avoid detection under the E-Verify program, while also creating a state-level criminal immigration enforcement system like the one envisioned by Texas’s second SB 4. That said, Arizona’s proposed border crossing crimes and expulsions would only take effect if a similar law had already been enforced in another state (Texas or otherwise) for 60 consecutive days.[53]
Conclusion
When it comes to extreme immigration enforcement policies, what starts in Texas often spreads across the nation. As one of the most populous states in the union — not to mention a border state and a hub for industry— Texas exerts an outsized influence nationally. And, given the political bent of its elected leadership, Texas also takes on major significance among other state governments controlled by Republican officials looking for a model to follow.
For all these reasons, on immigration specifically, there is perhaps no more consequential state than Texas. Its politicians are now writing the book on how to challenge long-standing constitutional and court precedents, while other state leaders are following along. Amid a shifting legal playing field and a U.S. Supreme Court that appears to be more skeptical of federal authority over a host of matters, Texas may be on the precipice of creating a new state-led immigration system, with significant and largely detrimental impacts. If permitted by the courts, the Texas model could lead to a scenario where each state crafts their own piecemeal immigration laws, undercutting more than a century of federal leadership over immigration while fostering confusion, instability, and fear.
[1] “Governor Abbott Signs Sweeping Package of Border Security Legislation,” Office of the Governor, June 8, 2023, https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-sweeping-package-of-border-security-legislation.
[2] Julián Aguilar, “Texas Lawmakers Put the Brakes on Sweeping Immigration Enforcement Bill. for Now,” KERA News, November 5, 2023, https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/2023-11-05/texas-lawmakers-put-the-brakes-on-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-bill-for-now.
[3]Julián Aguilar, “Controversial Legislation Making Unauthorized Entry into Texas a State Crime Heads to Governor,” KERA News, November 14, 2023, https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/2023-11-14/texas-house-passes-controversial-and-costly-immigration-enforcement-bills.
[4] To make matters more confusing, another immigration-related law in Texas with the bill number, SB 4, passed in 2017. That law is separate from the legislation considered in this explainer. See “Five Things to Know about Texas’ SB 4 Bill,” ImmigrationForum.org, accessed October 21, 2024, https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SB-4-five-questions.pdf.
[5] “88(3) History for SB 4,” Texas Legislature Online, accessed May 22, 2024, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=883&Bill=SB4.
[6] “Penal Code Chapter 20. Kidnapping, Unlawful Restraint, And Smuggling of Persons,” Texas Constitution and Statutes, accessed May 22, 2024, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm#20.05.
[7] “Operation Lone Star: Driver Prosecutions, Immigrants, and ‘Smuggling’ in Texas,” Human Rights Watch, July 23, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/23/operation-lone-star-driver-prosecutions-immigrants-and-smuggling-texas.
[8] Julián Aguilar, “A New Texas Law Will Increase the Penalties for Operators of Stash Houses and Human Smugglers,” TPR, November 22, 2023, https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2023-11-22/a-new-texas-law-will-increase-the-penalties-for-operators-of-stash-houses-and-human-smugglers.
[9] Pete Flores, “88(3) SB 4 – Enrolled Version,” accessed May 22, 2024, https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/883/billtext/pdf/SB00004F.pdf.
[10] “Committee Substitute Senate Bill 4 on Third Reading,” Texas Senate, October 12, 2023, https://journals.senate.texas.gov/sjrnl/883/pdf/88S3SJ10-12-F1.PDF, 35; “SB 4 on Third Reading,” Texas House, October 26, 2023, https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/PDF/88RDAY15FINAL.PDF, 101.
[11] “Know Your Rights, Travel Advisory Map Available for All Texans as Texas’ SB 4 Immigration Law on Human Smuggling Goes into Effect,” Immigrant Legal Resource Center, February 8, 2024, https://www.ilrc.org/know-your-rights-travel-advisory-map-available-all-texans-texas%E2%80%99-sb-4-immigration-law-human.
[12] “Blog Post: Cartels Exploiting Young Americans and Migrants,” Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, October 3, 2023, https://leitf.org/2023/10/cartels-exploiting-young-americans-and-migrants/.
[13] Human Rights Watch, “Operation Lone Star.”
[14] Benton Graham, “Rides from Hell, Thanks to Texas’ Immigration Law,” The Austin Chronicle, February 2, 2024, https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2024-02-02/how-driving-somebody-from-one-texas-city-to-another-can-turn-into-a-prison-sentence/.
[15] Uriel J. García, “New State Law Increasing Sentences for Human Smuggling Takes Effect,” The Texas Tribune, February 6, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/06/texas-human-smuggling-law-minimum-sentence/.
[16] Graham, “Rides from Hell.”
[17] Berenice Garcia et al., “One Day Along the Texas-Mexico Border Shows That Realities Shift More Rapidly than Rhetoric,” AP News, September 25, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-texas-migrants-a378073ed4e565570b4d4aa20f3a9ff8.
[18] Ken Paxton, “The Office of the Attorney General and the State of Texas’ Application for Temporary Injunction and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition and Counterclaim in the Nature of Quo Warranto,” accessed May 22, 2024, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Annunciation%20House%20Answer%20and%20Counterclaim%20Filed.pdf; “Attorney General Ken Paxton Seeks Injunction Halting Border NGO’s Systemic Criminal Conduct in Texas,” Texas Attorney General, May 8, 2024, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-seeks-injunction-halting-border-ngos-systemic-criminal-conduct-texas; Julian Resendiz and Andra Litton, “Texas AG Says Migrant Nonprofit Not Complying with Records Requests,” Border Report, May 8, 2024, https://www.borderreport.com/immigration/border-crime/texas-ag-says-migrant-nonprofit-not-complying-with-records-requests/.
[19] “Order Granting Plaintiff Annunciation House, Inc.’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Final Summary Judgment,” El Paso Matters, July 1, 2024, https://elpasomatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024DCV0616-Order-1.pdf, 2.
[20] Robert Moore, “Ken Paxton Seeks Direct Appeal of Annunciation House Ruling to Texas Supreme Court,” El Paso Matters, July 16, 2024, https://elpasomatters.org/2024/07/16/attorney-general-ken-paxton-appeals-annunciation-house-decision/#:~:text=Francisco%20Dominguez%2C%20the%20judge%20of,to%20shut%20down%20Annunciation%20House.
[21] “Orders Pronounced August 23, 2024,” Texas Judicial Branch, August 23, 2024, https://www.txcourts.gov/supreme/orders-opinions/2024/august/august-23-2024/.
[22] Berenice Garcia, “Texas Attorney General Can’t Question Catholic Charities Director over Migrant Services, Court Says,” The Texas Tribune, July 24, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/24/texas-border-charities-migrants-attorney-general-investigation-court-r/.
[23] Alejandro Serrano, “Judge Rejects Ken Paxton’s Bid to Question Leader of Brownsville Migrant Aid Organization,” The Texas Tribune, August 29, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/29/texas-attorney-general-deposition-migrant-aid-group-brownsville/.
[24] Aaron Martinez, “Pope Francis Calls Texas AG Ken Paxton’s Attacks on El Paso’s Annunciation House ‘Madness,’” El Paso Times, June 2, 2024, https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/immigration/2024/06/02/pope-francis-calls-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-attacks-on-annunciation-house-madness/73817381007/.
[25] Joan Huffman, “88(4) History for SB 3,” Texas Legislature Online, accessed August 15, 2024, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=884&Bill=SB3, 1; Uriel J. García, “Texas Legislature Sends $1.54 Billion Bill for Border Barriers to Gov. Abbott,” The Texas Tribune, December 1, 2023, https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/01/texas-legislature-border-wall-bill-barriers/.
[26] Greg Abbott, “Texas Is the First – and Only – State in U.S. History to Build Our Own Border Wall. PIC.TWITTER.COM/5O4PWBW2JB,” Twitter, October 18, 2023, https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1714730944999874831; Jasper Scherer, “At Half a Mile a Week, Gov. Greg Abbott’s Border Wall Will Take around 30 Years and $20 Billion to Build,” The Texas Tribune, July 3, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/03/texas-mexico-border-wall-greg-abbott-progress-cost/.
[27] Safia Samee Ali, “Gov. Abbott Planning to Expand Buoy Border Barriers in Rio Grande,” KXAN Austin, August 27, 2024, https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-planning-to-expand-buoy-border-barriers-in-rio-grande/.
[28] Huffman, “88(4) SB 3,” 1-2.
[29] Huffman, “88(4) SB 3,” 1-2.
[30] When state legislators visited in October 2023, they found little out of the ordinary. See J. David Goodman and Danielle Villasana, “A Texas Community Attracts Migrant Home Buyers, and Republican Ire,” The New York Times, October 8, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/us/texas-migrants-housing-colony-ridge.html; Paul Cobler, “Years Before Texas Conservatives Painted Them as Criminals, Colony Ridge Residents Sought Help from State Agencies,” The Texas Tribune, February 27, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/27/texas-conservatives-immigrants-federal-lawsuit-colony-ridge/. See also Lucio Vasquez, “Texas Lawmakers Tour Colony Ridge amid Calls for State Takeover to ‘Clean Out’ the Development,” KERA News, October 6, 2023, https://www.keranews.org/immigration/2023-10-06/texas-lawmakers-tour-colony-ridge-amid-calls-for-state-takeover-to-clean-out-the-development. (“From what we’ve seen, it looks a lot like places you might see in East Texas,” Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain said.)
[31] Charles Perry, “88(4) SB 4 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text,” accessed May 23, 2024, https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/html/SB00004F.htm.
[32] According to reports, Texas Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster urged a group of state Senators to pass similar legislation in 2022, telling them “to consider laws that might enable us to go and challenge” the Arizona v. U.S. precedent because “the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed.” See Uriel J. García, “Trump Appointees Are Helping Texas Derail Biden’s Immigration Agenda,” The Texas Tribune, March 15, 2022, https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/15/texas-paxton-immigration-biden-trump/.
[33] “Penal Code Chapter 12. Punishments,” Texas Constitution and Statutes, accessed May 23, 2024, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm#:~:text=SECOND%20DEGREE%20FELONY%20PUNISHMENT.,or%20less%20than%202%20years; Perry, “88(4) SB 4.”
[34] Perry, “88(4) SB 4,” 4.
[35] “Explainer: Asylum Backlogs,” National Immigration Forum, January 23, 2024, https://immigrationforum.org/article/explainer-asylum-backlogs/.
[36] “Texas Legislature Online – 88(4) History for SB 4,” Texas Legislature Online , accessed May 23, 2024, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=884&Bill=SB4.
[37] “Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the State of Texas Regarding Unconstitutional SB 4 Immigration Law,” Office of Public Affairs, January 3, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-state-texas-regarding-unconstitutional-sb-4.
[38] “Civil Rights Organizations Sue to Block Texas from Enacting Extremist Immigration Law,” American Civil Liberties Union, December 19, 2023, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-civil-rights-orgs-sue-texas-over-sb-4. In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed suit on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and El Paso County.
[39] Anna-Catherine Brigida, “A Lot Has Swirled Around Senate Bill 4. Here’s Where It Stands Currently.” Houston Landing, March 21, 2024, https://houstonlanding.org/a-lot-has-swirled-around-senate-bill-4-heres-where-it-stands-currently/.
[40] Carlos Nogueras Ramos, “Immigrant Families on Edge amid Uncertainty over New Texas Law,” The Texas Tribune, March 21, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/21/texas-immigration-law-senate-bill-4-court-rulings-odessa/.
[41] Nogueras Ramos, “Immigrant Families on Edge.”
[42] “‘It Opens the Door to Inhumanity:’ How Anti-Immigrant Policies in Arizona, Texas Affect Local Law Enforcement,” Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, December 20, 2023, https://leitf.org/2023/12/it-opens-the-door-to-inhumanity-how-anti-immigrant-policies-in-arizona-texas-affect-local-law-enforcement/; Josh Peck, “Bexar County Sheriff’s Office and SAPD Outline How Their Officers Will Handle SB4,” TPR, March 19, 2024, https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2024-03-19/bexar-county-sheriffs-office-and-sapd-outline-how-their-officers-will-handle-sb4.
[43] “Texas Shamefully Doubling Down on Operation Lone Star With New Bills,” November 16, 2023, https://www.immdef.org/blog/texas-shamefully-doubling-down-on-operation-lone-star-with-new-bills.
[44] Iowa Legislative Services Agency, “Senate File 2340,” Iowa Legislature, April 10, 2024, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF+2340; Emma Winger, “Iowa’s Texas Copycat Immigration Law Challenged in Court,” Immigration Impact, May 17, 2024, https://immigrationimpact.com/2024/05/17/iowa-immigration-law-challenged-in-court/.
[45] William Morris, “Federal Judge Calls Iowa’s New Immigration Law ‘Not Defensible,’ Grants Injunction,” The Des Moines Register, June 17, 2024, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2024/06/17/iowa-immigration-law-enforcement-blocked-by-federal-court/74130393007/.
[46] Katarina Sostaric, “Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments over Iowa’s Blocked Immigration Law,” Iowa Public Radio, September 27, 2024, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/state-government-news/2024-09-27/federal-appeals-court-hears-arguments-over-iowas-blocked-immigration-law.
[47] “Bill No. 4156,” accessed May 23, 2024, http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2023-24%20ENR/hB/HB4156%20ENR.PDF.
[48] “Bill No. 4156,” 3-4.
[49] M. Scott Carter, “Oklahoma Asks Federal Appeals Court to Let It Enforce Controversial Immigration Law,” The Oklahoman, September 23, 2024, https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/government/2024/09/23/oklahoma-immigration-law-hb-4156-appeal/75353865007/.
[50] Sara Cline, “Louisiana Lawmakers Approve Bill Similar to Texas’ Embattled Migrant Enforcement Law,” AP News, May 22, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-migrant-law-enforcement-3c169003ddfe1289392a0bcd066c5728.
[51] Valarie Hodges, “La – SB388,” BillTrack50, accessed October 7, 2024, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1724217#:~:text=It%20defines%20key%20terms%20like,in%20fines%20for%20subsequent%20offenses.
[52] “Arizona Proposition 314, Secure the Border Act: Summary,” National Immigration Forum, October 7, 2024, https://immigrationforum.org/article/arizona-proposition-314-secure-the-border-act-summary/; Rafael Carranza, “Border Security Measure Proposition 314 Getting Lost on a Long Ballot,” The Arizona Republic, October 3, 2024, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/03/what-to-know-about-proposition-314-the-border-security-ballot-measure/75463410007/.
[53] “House Concurrent Resolution 2060,” Arizona State Legislature, June 4, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/HCR2060-56th2ndR.pdf.