In the past year, Texas enacted a law allowing state and local police officers to arrest undocumented migrants crossing into its territory. Following this, Republican lawmakers in 11 states have attempted to adopt similar measures, seizing on immigration as a key issue in the 2024 presidential election. At least six of these measures are under consideration, with Louisiana expected to sign its version into law soon. The argument made by Texas in defense of its law is that illegal immigration constitutes an invasion, giving the state the authority to protect its borders. However, legal experts note that courts have historically defined invasion as limited to military attacks.
This year’s push by Republican lawmakers for stricter immigration measures has been accompanied by a public-relations campaign echoing former President Donald J. Trump’s rhetoric. More Republicans are using terms like “invasion” to describe the situation at the southern border, urging action to address the issue. President Biden recently signed an executive order to curb asylum claims, and further actions may be forthcoming. Individual states are taking action to address what they see as a lack of enforcement of immigration laws by the federal government, leading to measures like the one expected to be signed into law in Louisiana.
Proponents of these stricter immigration measures argue that the federal government has failed to enforce existing laws, necessitating state-level action. Measures similar to Texas’ law are being considered in states like Arizona and Michigan, where lawmakers believe the situation at the southern border constitutes an invasion. Critics, however, warn that such laws could have negative economic impacts, lead to racial profiling, and perpetuate harmful stereotypes of undocumented immigrants as hostile invaders. Young Latino and immigrant rights activists are mobilizing against these measures, drawing on past successes in pushing back against similar laws.
In the case of Texas’ law, the state is pushing the limits of its authority on immigration, much like it has done with other controversial issues such as abortion and gender-transition restrictions. The state’s efforts have gained significant attention, with Governor Abbott even busing migrants to cities like New York and Chicago. Supporters of the state measures argue that a 1996 federal law gives states a role in immigration enforcement, despite the fact that Congress has the power to regulate immigration. Past attempts by states to expand enforcement powers have been blocked by the courts, including provisions in Arizona and South Carolina laws requiring immigration checks during routine stops.
Legal experts like Ilya Somin and Jennifer M. Chacón have weighed in on the Texas case, warning of the dangerous precedent that could be set by expanding the definition of invasion to include illegal immigration. Such a move could allow states to declare war with foreign powers at will and lead to the detention of individuals without due process, regardless of citizenship status. Chacón notes that historically, rhetoric around immigrant invasions has played into harmful racial and ethnic stereotypes. As the debate over immigration enforcement continues, both supporters and opponents of these state measures are gearing up for what promises to be a protracted legal battle.
