Sanctuary cities bill gets lengthy debate
House version expands police power to question immigrant status
AUSTIN — The Republican-led Texas House on Wednesday moved closer to approving a sweeping bill that would require local sheriffs and jailers to comply with federal requests to hold on to individuals in this country illegally or face a misdemeanor criminal charge.
The House began a marathon debate on Senate Bill 4, or “sanctuary cities” measure, around noon and added a major change late Wednesday that would allow police officers to inquire about someone’s immigration status during detainments, stripping earlier language that required an arrest.
The proposal by Rep. Matt Schaefer, R-Plano, approved on an 81-64 vote,
held up the chamber’s proceedings for hours and encountered fierce Democratic resistance.
The change means the House version more closely mirrors the Senate’s proposal, doing away with what was expected to be a major point of contention between both chambers as they try to negotiate an identical bill to pass and get to Gov. Greg Abbott.
At issue in the overall bill is whether local law enforcement should honor every request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold individuals in the country illegally until federal officials give further instructions or take them into custody. As noted by several of the bill’s opponents, the decision to honor ICE requests, known as detainers, is voluntary.
Efforts to stall
The issue of sanctuary cities increasingly has been in the eye of political storms across the nation. A federal judge on Tuesday placed a nationwide hold on President Donald Trump’s order to strip funds from municipal governments that refuse to cooperate fully with immigration agents.
In Texas, the Senate passed SB 4 in February, but its House sponsor, Republican Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, made several changes before it arrived on the House floor. The chambers’ differences colored much of the House’s debate on the legislation, which Abbott has named an emergency item, allowing lawmakers to vote on it faster and lessen the chance of resistance.
Before the vote on Schaefer’s proposal, Democrats tried several times to raise technical issues. When it became clear that they could no longer stall, they implored their GOP colleagues to reject the amendment. They said it amounted to a racist “show me your papers” provision that will be used to profile Latinos in daily interactions with police.
Democrats argued that a routine traffic stop or a minor offense like jaywalking could prompt a police officer to inquire about a person’s immigration status and potentially lead to deportation proceedings. It also would have a chilling effect on crime victims who are in the country illegally, making them afraid to report crimes to police, Democrats said.
In an emotional speech, Rep. Mary Gonzalez, D-Clint, said she was a victim of sexual assault and the amendment would push survivors like her into the shadows.
“If I have the bravery to stand up here and tell you things that I don’t like to share in hopes that you’ll change your mind … I’m asking you to be as brave as me who has survived it all and still made it,” she said, adding that she did not want to speak ever again to lawmakers who voted for the amendment.
Rep. Byron Cook, a senior Republican from Corsicana, urged his colleagues to oppose Schaefer’s amendment because it went far beyond the scope of the bill’s original intent.
“This is about getting dangerous criminals off the street,” Cook said. “That’s the mission. It shouldn’t be any less than that or any more than that.”
In the end, nine Republicans voted against Schaefer, including Gary Elkins of Houston. Every Democrat voted against it.
Punishing officers
Lawmakers filed nearly 200 other amendments to the bill, including a handful from far-right Republicans and others from Democrats who wanted to shield children from inquiries about their immigration status and to exempt college police departments from the bill.
The House and Senate versions include a provision that would charge a sheriff or other local officer overseeing a jail with a Class A misdemeanor for refusing to comply with detainer requests. A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both. Such a charge effectively would force the elected officials, if convicted, out of their jobs and bar them for life from working as a police officer or jailer in Texas.
It also would impose a civil penalty between $1,000 and $1,500 on a local entity or campus for the first violation. Each subsequent violation would cost the entity at least $25,000 each day that it continues.