Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities; providing a civil penalty.
If enacted, HB 113 would enforce stricter compliance with immigration laws at the local level. Notably, local entities that fail to comply with the law by adopting non-enforcement policies would face civil penalties of $10,000 per day. Moreover, such entities would lose access to state grant funds if they adopt policies seen as noncompliant with the enforcement of immigration laws. This change emphasizes the role of state authority in regulating immigration enforcement and could significantly alter how local governments manage immigration-related issues.
House Bill 113 is a piece of legislation that aims to enforce state and federal immigration laws by prohibiting local governments from adopting policies that would restrict such enforcement. The bill specifically amends the Local Government Code, creating a framework where local governmental entities, including municipalities and counties, must fully enforce state and federal immigration laws. It addresses concerns that some local policies may hinder the enforcement of immigration laws, thereby potentially allowing illegal immigration to go unchecked in certain jurisdictions.
The sentiment surrounding HB 113 is expected to be contentious. Proponents, primarily from the Republican party, argue that the bill reinforces the rule of law and ensures that local governments do not undermine state and federal immigration efforts. They believe it will promote public safety and order. Conversely, opponents contend that the bill represents an overreach, restricting local governments' rights to define their own policies in matters of public safety. They worry that such stringent enforcement measures may lead to community distrust and could complicate relationships between local law enforcement and immigrant communities.
Significant points of contention include the potential for civil penalties to be imposed on local governments and the loss of state grant funding. Critics argue that these provisions could lead to fear-based compliance rather than genuine public safety, as fear of penalties may lead local entities to prioritize enforcement over community service. Additionally, the debate raises broader questions about local autonomy, as communities may find themselves compelled to enforce state or federal policies that do not align with their local values or needs.