Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) recently met with House Speaker Mike Johnson to discuss President Joe Biden’s (D) border policies and the impact they have had on the state of Texas.
According to Abbott’s statement, he urged Johnson to pass stricter border legislation to combat the migrant crossings taking place at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Abbott highlighted the various border tactics his administration has used in attempt to stop border crossings. Abbott’s tactics include “Operation Lone Star, including deploying thousands of Texas National Guard soldiers and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers, installing razor wire and building the Texas border wall.”
The governor has been an ardent opponent of the president and encouraged Johnson to fight against his policies. However, the president is not the only one who has pushed back against Abbott’s policies.
A federal appeals court refused to put the controversial immigration bill, SB 4, law back in effect.
Texas Republicans have repeatedly pushed for Abbott’s bill. However, the recent 2-1 ruling that came at the hands of a conservative appeals court makes it seem extra unlikely that the law will ever go into effect—a major blow for the Texas governor.
“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration—the entry, admission and removal of noncitizens—is exclusively a federal power,” wrote Chief Judge Priscilla Richman.
Richman continued, “Despite this fundamental axiom, SB 4 creates separate, distinct state criminal offenses and related procedures regarding unauthorized entry of noncitizens into Texas from outside the country and their removal.”
SB 4 has been criticized for its harsh and “inhumane” treatment of migrants. The bill allows police officers to search those they deem to be illegally in the U.S. and arrest them. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has spent time addressing the questions about the bill’s constitutionality.
Critics and legal experts have challenged SB 4 for its potential to cause racial profiling. Some have questioned if the bill oversteps state powers, as some argue deportations are to be administered by the federal government.
