By Mario Carrillo
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has long claimed that Texas is under “invasion” by immigrants seeking safety to justify his open defiance and disregard for long-standing federal supremacy over control of immigration into our country.
Many of his fellow Republicans across the country have embraced that same language, but the courts and scholars disagree. Abbott’s signature law to address what he calls an “invasion” was struck down by U.S. District Judge David Ezra in February. In his ruling finding Texas Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional, Ezra wrote, “Surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution, nor is Texas engaging in war by enforcing SB 4.”
That view was also laid out by law professor Frank Bowman, who recently wrote, “The bottom line is that nothing now occurring at the U.S. southern border remotely amounts to an ‘invasion’ as that term is used in any portion of the Constitution. However, the claim by a distressing number of Republicans in federal and state government that there is such an ‘invasion’ is profoundly dangerous.”
That is an understatement.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently stayed the Texas law and did not accept the “invasion” arguments, held its latest hearing on the merits of the law in New Orleans last week. During the hearing, Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson defended SB 4 but also seemed to suggest that Texas maybe went “too far” in crafting SB 4 and that it would be up to the court to decide that.
Outside of the courts, advocates, including from El Paso, made it clear what would be at stake if SB 4 goes into effect.
“We hope that the judges will listen to the legal precedent that no state, no governor can usurp federal powers, and in this case, enforce immigration laws. Not only is SB 4 racist, it is illegal and unconstitutional,” Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, outside of the courtroom.
At America’s Voice, we have tracked the increasingly dangerous language used by elected officials and candidates, particularly around the term “invasion.” It is vitally important to understand that the term “invasion” is directly tied to the great replacement theory.
This white nationalist conspiracy theory espouses a belief that “elites” or “globalists” are intentionally facilitating an invasion of non-white immigrants into the United States to reduce white Americans’ cultural, demographic, and electoral power. These days, the attacks mostly come from Republicans who falsely assert that Democrats are trying to let undocumented immigrants rig elections for them.
This incendiary language has become common among Republican leaders, including Donald Trump, Abbott, and many more. But it’s extremely dangerous. It’s not hard to see why. The logical response to a military-style invasion is violence.
Unfortunately, these Republicans choose to ignore the real-life violence their rhetoric inspires. In August 2019, a gunman drove 10 hours to commit a massacre at a Walmart in El Paso, killing 23 people as, according to his screed, a “response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” We’ve seen similar incidents in Pittsburgh and Buffalo.
And SB 4 also presents other dangers as well. Through SB 4, Texas is seeking to usher in a new and dangerous era of state anti-immigrant policy-making. As a result, multiple states including Iowa, Florida, Louisiana, and Alabama, have now crafted their versions of the bill, with similar language around “invasion.”
All of these bills undercut the federal government’s supremacy on immigration law and invite chaos by essentially allowing 50 states to implement their immigration systems, with impact and damage far beyond the immigrant communities in their states.
The Texas SB 4 law and the “invasion” justification violate the Constitution, would sow chaos throughout the state, and, as El Paso knows too well, rely on a conspiracy theory that is flat-out dangerous.
Mario Carrillo, who is from El Paso, is campaigns director at America’s Voice, based in Austin.
