A sweeping new immigration law goes into effect in Texas

The nation’s most aggressive state-level immigration law took effect in Texas on Tuesday after the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily sided with Gov. Greg Abbott in his increasingly bitter confrontation with the Biden administration over border policy.

The law makes it a crime for migrants to enter Texas from Mexico without permission, and creates a process for state courts to order migrants accused of violating the law to return to Mexico, regardless of their national origin.

The Supreme Court ruled that the law could take effect temporarily while a federal appeals court continues to consider whether to overrule a lower court ruling that found the Texas measure unconstitutional on several grounds.

“A huge victory,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. Mr. Abbott, the governor, sounded a more cautious note on the Supreme Court’s decision, describing it as “a positive development.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said it would hold oral arguments Wednesday morning on whether the lower court’s order blocking the law should remain in effect while the full appeal is underway.

The sudden authorization to put the law into effect seemed to catch Texas officials off guard. As of Tuesday evening, no date had been set for enforcement to begin. Two state officials said the timing was still being discussed and arrests could begin within days.

By allowing arrests in Texas, even temporarily, the Supreme Court has injected a new element of uncertainty into what was already a divisive national debate over immigration, leaving the issue at the center of the 2024 race between President Biden and former President Donald .J. Trump.

Now, the fate of a migrant arriving in Texas could be very different from that of someone arriving in New Mexico or Arizona.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said the Biden administration disagreed with the court ruling and that the new law would “sow chaos and confusion at our southern border.”

In a statement, the Mexican government said it “categorically” rejects any law that allows state or local authorities in the United States to “arrest and return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory” and that it would not accept deportations by Texas.

When the Supreme Court ruling came down, National Guard troops stationed in the border town of Eagle Pass, as part of Mr. Abbott’s border enforcement efforts, sat in Humvees in a city park taken over by Texas in an effort to prevent border crossings. over there. Other troops patrolled the waters of the Rio Grande near tall fences topped with razor wire.

Until now, they only had the authority to make arrests on private property, with the landowner’s permission. There were few signs along the border Tuesday that the legal landscape had changed.

In any case, there have been few migrant crossings in the area in recent days, officials said, reflecting a sharp overall decline in the number of migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico since a peak in December.

New arrests were expected to be made mainly by Texas Department of Public Safety officials assigned to the border as part of Mr. Abbott’s border program, known as Operation Lone Star.

Texas officials have said in lawsuits and interviews that they would focus their enforcement of the law on single men and women observed by officers crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico. Families would be turned over to U.S. Border Patrol agents, as is current practice.

“Our focus will be more on singles, not families,” said Lt. Christopher Olivarez, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, in an interview before the Supreme Court’s ruling. ‘Single men, single women.’

“That’s how we do it now with criminal violations,” he added.

For more than two years, state troopers in Texas have accused migrants found on private property of criminal trespassing. But the new law would allow them to make arrests anywhere in the state. And any official can enforce the new law, which gives sheriffs, county constables and local police officers far from the border the authority to handle immigration enforcement.

The expansiveness of the law, often called Senate Bill 4 or SB 4, drew sharp criticism from civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, as well as Texas Democrats. Tempers flared last year during debate over the bill in the state Legislature.

“This is a dangerous day for our democracy,” said Rep. Armando Walle, a Houston Democrat who strongly objected to the bill. “SB 4 will not make our border more secure. It will instead spread fear in our communities.”

Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which joined the Biden administration in suing Texas over the law, said the Supreme Court’s decision “destroys the integrity of our nation’s immigration laws and the fundamental principles of a fair process threatens.”

Some county leaders along the border and sheriffs who operate county jails had expressed concern that the new law could lead to their courts and jails being overrun with migrants. A first offense is a crime under the law. A second offense is a misdemeanor.

In a lawsuit filed by Texas as part of the federal case, Victor Escalon, a top leader in the state’s public safety department, said agents would concentrate enforcement in areas near state prisons, which have already been used as prisons for migrants awaiting trial. allegations of violation.

Mr. Olivarez said in the interview before the Supreme Court ruling that any initial rounds of arrests would likely be limited by the capacity of the processing centers in the city of Del Rio and in Jim Hogg County, which were set up to handle misdemeanor arrests. to act. He said each had room for about 100 migrants during the initial court hearing.

Mr. Olivarez pointed to a period last summer when large numbers of migrants crossed the border and state police officers had to limit the number of arrests they could make at any given time. “We made 30 to 40 arrests within the first hour, and then we had to wait the rest of the day because we were almost full,” he said.

Tensions between the federal government and Texas have played out in several lawsuits centered in and around a park in Eagle Pass known as Shelby Park, where state officials have concentrated much of their enforcement efforts.

In January, the state banned Border Patrol agents from accessing the riverfront along the park, although federal agents can still use the boat ramp there.

Federal agents have at times cut the concertina wire, placed by Texas National Guard troops along the riverbank at Eagle Pass, to help migrants trying to climb out of the river. The Supreme Court sided with the federal government in a separate case, saying officers could cut the sharp wire if necessary.

Those tensions were not clearly visible along the river Tuesday afternoon, as federal border agents stood on a pair of U.S. Customs and Border Protection airboats and two smaller Texas National Guard vessels stood nearby.

Farther north along the river, state troopers continued to install new razor wire and fencing to prevent migrants coming ashore, including those who may be seeking legal asylum, from reaching Border Patrol agents and turning themselves in.