• Comments (3)
• Print

Share

• Digg
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Delicious

Subscribe

• RSS
• Atom
• Email

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, is launching a three-pronged attack on non-citizens this session. Prong 1: Hook ‘em at work with HB 48, which would suspend employers’ licenses for “knowingly” employing undocumented workers. Prong 2: Nail ‘em at school with HB 50, which would disqualify undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition.

And then there’s Prong 3, which would, it seems, get ‘em everywhere else. HB 49 would create a Class B misdemeanor (Criminal Trespass by Illegal Aliens) that would effectively authorize local law enforcement to enforce two sections of the federal code governing most immigration law.

Asked if there were a precedent for such a law in other states, Riddle said, “If not, I’m willing to be on the cutting edge and do what’s bold here in Texas.”

Riddle’s bill may not have an identical twin, but it has an enormous extended family. In 2008, state legislatures introduced 1,305 pieces of legislation having to do with immigration; 206 of those bills passed into law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Under HB 49, peace officers, acting on “reasonable suspicion,” could detain people for being undocumented – even if they have not committed another crime. If ICE confirms the detained person is in the U.S. illegally, the peace officer could then make an arrest.

Beyond the obvious potential for prompting racial and ethnic profiling, the law raises constitutional questions. “It creates a state criminal penalty for violating a federal law,” says Luis Figueroa, a legislative staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “It is probably the most classic example of preemption”—a state or local attempt to enforce federal immigration law. Activists say that violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that federal law is supreme.

Whether or not a law like HB 49 would be declared unconstitutional would depend on a court’s interpretation, says Denise Gilman, clinical professor at UT Law. “What’s really subject to interpretation is the extent to which the federal government has really preempted this area, and the flipside is the extent to which local and state government is really trying to regulate immigration,” Gilman says. “That issue is still being fought out in the courts.”

Constitutionality aside, leaving immigration to the feds has worked out for federal agents and local law enforcers alike, says El Paso Police Chief Gregory Allen. “It’s been pretty clear cut,” Allen says. “I don’t think it should be spread out. ICE doesn’t help us out with our robbery problems or our burglary problems. They’re not cruising our neighborhoods. We shouldn’t be required to help them.”

Riddle’s response? “I don’t think that we should have this hair-splitting of, oh, well, this isn’t my job,” she says. “Citizens don’t really care that much about who is making sure that their security is established in place.”

However, according to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, burdening local law enforcement with enforcing federal immigration law could negatively impact a police department’s capacity to fight crime, since city police departments already have their hands – and jails – full enforcing current criminal statutes. What’s more, allowing local law officers to arrest illegal immigrants might discourage victims of questionable status from coming forward and reporting crimes, particularly in cases of family violence.

“You’d lose a lot of witnesses. There’d be a lot of crime that would go unreported,” says Acevedo. “I’ll give you an example. We went to a call with domestic violence. Here, a young woman was beaten by a legal resident and his threat to her was, if you call the police, you’re going to get deported.”

Riddle knows her bill may be unpopular with local law-enforcers, but she is undeterred. “We can politically correct ourselves out of business,” she says. “If you don’t have secure borders, then we are no longer a sovereign nation.”