One year ago, a ripple was cast across the nation as Donald Trump was announced as the president-elect, sowing seeds of fear among the immigrant communities that called America their home.
One year later, the ripple is still felt among those communities as uncertainty looms in the hazy and ever changing immigration policies of the current administration.
Will They, Won’t They: Senate Bill 4
Senate Bill 4 allows local law enforcement to question the immigration status of people detained or arrested.
It also paves way for local government department heads and certain elected officials who don’t cooperate with federal detainers–such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)–to be punished with either jail time or penalties exceeding $25,000.
The bill, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May, was meant to be implemented in early September, but Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled against it in late August, saying it would erode public trust of local authorities, according to NPR.
Garcia’s rule against enacting the bill targeted three aspects of SB 4: the provision stating that jail officials had to honor all federal detainers; sections prohibiting local officials from pursuing a pattern that ‘materially limits’ enforcement of immigration laws; and the prohibition of local officials ‘assisting or cooperating’ with federal immigration officers as reasonable or necessary.
Garcia cited that the bill’s detainer provision violated the Fourth Amendment, but allowed the provision that lets officers question a detainee’s immigration status, explaining that officers were limited to what they could do with the information.
“If during a lawful detention or arrest an officer obtains information that a detained or arrested individual is undocumented he may not arrest the individual on this basis,” Garcia stated in his 94-page ruling. “In sum, SB 4 gives local officers discretion to inquire and share information, but it does not provide them with discretion to act upon the information that they may obtain.”
On Nov. 6, the bill’s implementation was debated in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals between Texas attorneys and those who sued to stop SB 4 from being put into effect.
One key issue raised during the debate was if SB 4 overstepped the Constitution due to immigration enforcement falling under the domain of the federal government.
Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told the Texas Tribune that although there’s federal guidance on what local law enforcement can do, SB 4 exceeds that particular set guidance by overstepping punishments.
“It’s written, it specifies the officers, it provides training, and of course, always federal control and oversight,” Perales said. “SB 4, through its very heavy penalties, compels local employees to enforce immigration law [without a written agreement].”
Among those suing included the counties of El Paso and Maverick, as well as cities such as Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and El Cenizo.
Activist group United Fort Worth urged the city of Fort Worth to join the lawsuit against SB 4 but was shut down 5-4 by city council members in August.
Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price told the Star-Telegram she believes the city is compassionate to the cause but a suit against the bill isn’t the solution.
“The city has nothing to gain by committing resources to joining the lawsuit,” she said. “I will work every day to bring Fort Worth together. Calling people names and threatening people will only divide people. We will work on this.”
Sanctuary Cities and Racial Profiling
The bill also bans sanctuary cities, which are places where cities can limit cooperation with federal immigration laws and agents.
State Reps. Ramon Romero Jr. and Lynn Stucky visited the University of North Texas in September to discuss their differing points of view about Senate Bill 4 outlawing sanctuary cities, but more specifically whether the bill itself would unintentionally pave the road for racial profiling.
Stucky, a Republican representative, said the law only applies to criminals. If someone has done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
“We are a society of laws,” Stucky said. “This includes immigration laws that allow individuals to become citizens of the United States. If we don’t follow and enforce those laws, what purpose do they serve?”
Romero, a representative for the Democratic party, rebutted Stucky’s statement by saying that with the way the bill was worded, it would be hard to prevent law abiding immigrants from falling into discrimination by local authorities in their communities.
“How do you separate that criminal from a law abiding citizen who might have been at the wrong place at the wrong time?” Romero asked the crowd of UNT students during Constitution Day. “The question is how and where the protections are for people who look like me–people who didn’t do anything wrong–but now I’m in a situation where an officer is asking for my immigration status?”
Hailey Freeman, a sophomore business major, said she feels the law will lead to harassment.
“I think it’s a way to create a loophole for law enforcements to detain people for no real reason other than to ask their immigration status,” she said. “Police abuse laws all the time and I think this will just make it easier for them to crack down on immigration even if they’re good law following people.”
According to the ACLU, if someone is on a student, work, or tourist visa, they do not have to answer questions about immigration status. The right to remain silent is also encouraged, as is not answering any questions until an immigration lawyer is contacted.
Denton resident Norma Perez said she believes the bill will only further marginalize minorities.
“There’s already so much documentation about racial profiling outside of immigration issues, such as strong bias in police brutality,” Perez said. “I think that there is an unfair and unjust criminalization of undocumented immigrants.”
DACA and the Dreamers
With sanctuary cities being deemed as causing ‘immeasurable harm’ to American people in an executive order, and SB 4 continuing to loom on the horizon, the future of immigrant students, sometimes dubbed as Dreamers, remains uncertain even more so now that the policy of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals stopped accepting renewal applications on Oct. 5.
DACA policies were designed to help eligible immigrant students by granting a limited immigration benefit by the Department of Homeland Security.
According to Pew Research, there are approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States.
And about 690,000 of the 800,000 young unauthorized immigrants who received permits five years ago are still enrolled in DACA, and come from all over the world. Nearly half of that group live in California (29 percent) and Texas (16 percent).
DACA was a privilege that could be revoked at any time and had strict qualifications that an applicant had to fall under to be considered, such as having no more than three misdemeanors of any kind and having entered the United States before the age of 16.
Applicants were also required to pay the $465 fee.
Despite such rigorous requirements, students would have the chance to work while attending school, and having the capability of applying for renewal against deportation every two years.
Sabino Fernandez, senior interdisciplinary studies major at UNT, said the immigration policies are all over the place, making it hard to gauge what the future holds for immigrant students.
“One of my current classmates said he believes the American Dream is turning into the American Nightmare,” he said. “Eliminating DACA policies is insensible. DACA beneficiaries are model citizens. They’ve received or planned to receive educational degrees and they don’t have criminal backgrounds.”
Trump expressed interest in working on a plan to replace DACA that would also include massive border security, according to The Washington Post.
It’s a sentiment some of his stricter followers don’t agree with.
Iowa Rep. Steve King tweeted if Trump’s possible immigration deal with Democrats is accurate, his “base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair. No promise is credible.”
With the phase out of DACA, the fate of nearly 700,000 immigrants is left up in the air.
Rep. Romero says the real human cost is the loss of hope millions of immigrants have in the nation’s policies.
“If you’re a part of an immigrant community right now, they’ve taken your heart,” he said. “They’ve taken your freedom, your right to in-state tuition, to travel on roads, to have any sort of upward mobility in your job, and taken away your ability to look at your child and know that you’re going to come back from an honest day’s work. That’s the real human cost to our state.”
Jackie Trujillo 