Show us your papers
The legal battle over Texas S.B. 4, the state’s attempt to steal immigration powers from the federal government
In Texas, a new state immigration law — S.B.4 — went into effect Tuesday, but only for a few hours before a federal court put a stop to it. Why? The law — which gives the state the power to arrest people and deport them for immigration violations — steals away immigration powers the Constitution very clearly gives to the U.S. government (since it is, understandably, the authority on policing the national borders). Texas’ argument? Its right to self-defense (the state claims it is being invaded by asylum seekers and the federal government can’t deal with the problem) means it has no choice but to take control. While the Supreme Court shot down a similar case in Arizona a decade ago, nothing is really ever settled with the current court, which is considering today whether to let the law go back into effect. As we wait for some clarity on the issue, we look at two very different perspectives on the border question — from Congressman Joaquin Castro and journalist Dexter Filkins.
I don't think the government has lost control. I think it doesn't have all of the resources that it needs, and that's why the president came forward asking for $14 billion extra in supplemental spending that Republicans in Congress have been unwilling to provide, unless it's conditioned on other things.
And so we have the capacity to handle everything effectively if the resources are there, but if you have a Congress that's broken down and unwilling to commit those resources, then, yeah, it's going to create a real problem, and that's what we've seen.
Part of the situation can be explained by real challenges with increased numbers, but also: there’s an intentional reluctance, a refusal by Congress to provide the resources necessary to handle the situation. And then on top of that, the very derogatory and heated rhetoric by people like Donald Trump and Governor Greg Abbott and others, who've labeled this an invasion or part of a replacement strategy.
And that used to be the middle of the Democratic Party. It's not anymore, it's moved to the left. And so now when I went to the White House to talk about this stuff, they're all very defensive about it. But I remember I heard this phrase many, many times. They said, "We're here to manage the flow of migrants." They didn't say illegal immigrants. But they said, "We're here to manage the flow." It wasn't to stop the flow, it was to manage it. And so that represents a pretty profound shift from Obama as deporter-in-chief. And so what you have is a very extreme Republican Party now, basically saying build a wall, close doors, close the borders, and then the Democrats, who are saying, There are millions of people coming in the United States, you can't stop it, so we just have to set up a kind of orderly process for that to happen.
And there is no middle ground on this at all. That's what we saw the other day when the Senate bill collapsed in the House.