BORDER SECURITY Abbott’s two new bills are likely to backfire
Gov. Greg Abbott has signed two major bills into law that will have farreaching ripple effects felt by immigrants and non-immigrants alike. Legislators expect these laws to discourage and prevent immigrants from coming to Texas, but the reality is that they will do little to stop migration.
As with anti-immigration laws passed in other states, the legislation is likely to backfire and result in a series of severe, unintended consequences. These bills will inevitably lead to civil rights violations, hurt our economy and may even affect foreign relations with Mexico. As Texans, we should be concerned.
The first, Senate Bill 4, makes it a state misdemeanor to enter the country between ports of entry, empowers Texas peace officers to arrest people suspected of being unlawfully present in the country and requires state judges to order that suspected undocumented migrants to return to the foreign nation from which they entered, Mexico or Canada. The second, Senate Bill 3, appropriates more than $1.5 billion for border wall construction.
These bills are only the latest in the state’s demands for more jurisdiction over immigration law enforcement, which is under the federal government’s purview. The Republican majority in the Texas House and Senate blame the inaction of the Biden administration. Depending on one’s perspective, they may be right. However, the Republican majority in the Legislature has historically failed to hold past White House administrations accountable, including Democrats and Republicans. Most importantly, Republicans continue to overlook the role of Congress, which is partially controlled by a slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
Through the “necessary and proper clause” in the Constitution, the Supreme Court recognizes that Congress has plenary power over immigration, giving it almost complete authority to decide who can enter and remain in the United States. However, the inability of Congress to produce immigration reform for the past several decades has led to a series of haphazard laws implemented at the state level. By failing to act, Congress has essentially devolved its power to the states. As a result, states dare to implement restrictive immigration policies that affect far more people than just immigrants. The patchwork affects all of us.
Though the Republican majority behind SB4 has argued it is not a “show me your papers” law, in practice, officers must ask residents about their immigration status. This means that peace officers may disproportionately target ordinary Americans based on the color of their skin and the presumption of their immigration status. Typically, Americans of color — especially Latinos — are profiled as immigrants, and in many instances, as undocumented. Research conducted on similar laws that encourage profiling based on physical characteristics, such as Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona and Stop and Frisk in New York City, illustrate this point. SB4 may result in severe civil rights violations against many ordinary, law-abiding Texans.
If SB4 and SB3 do drive immigrants away, as their proponents hope, the economy will be hurt. Immigrants significantly contribute to economic growth through retail sales, leases, rentals and taxable services. According to a 2006 report by former state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, if the 1.4 million undocumented migrants residing in Texas at the time were deported (today that number reaches an estimated 1.6 million, not so different from 2005), the state would have experienced a gross domestic product loss of nearly $18 billion that year. During this time, migrants generated $1.58 billion in in-state revenue, outweighing the $1.16 billion in incurred costs. Though some evidence shows that unskilled undocumented immigration has a slight negative impact on the wages of native-born individuals without a high school diploma, economists generally believe these costs are marginal. According to Alan Greenspan, the 13th chairman of the Federal Reserve and Ronald Reagan nominee, the overall economic benefits of undocumented immigration are significantly greater than the costs.
Legislators and constituents often support these restrictive state laws based on unfounded assumptions. The first of these myths is that immigration increases crime. Research on immigration and crime repeatedly refutes this point. In fact, some research reveals the opposite: immigration may, in fact, reduce crime by stimulating the local economy. The second popular myth is that migrants take jobs and depress wages for Americans. Decades of research shows that this is not the case. The current labor shortage in the U.S. belies this point.
If immigration ultimately benefits us, what purpose do SB4 and SB3 serve? The answer to this question is simple: politics. Immigration as a campaign issue, in an era of extreme partisan polarization, works well for both Republicans and Democrats.
We must be pragmatic. Both parties agree that immigration policy is broken; however, given the current polarized climate, we have to accept that comprehensive immigration reform is unattainable. We need to start with incremental legislative changes and outline a path forward. Governors, especially those of border states, play a unique role in this effort. Governors need to pressure Congress to work together to devise a solution to this patchwork of dysfunctional immigration laws — laws that ultimately waste taxpayer dollars.
Jeronimo Cortina is an associate professor of political science and the executive director of the Population Health Collaborative at the University of Houston. Samantha Chapa is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Houston and a National Science Foundation graduate research fellow.