Corte & Patrick’s AG Opinion Requests Sets The Stage For Making Immigration An Issue In Legislative Races

When state legislators file two controversial requests for opinion from the Attorney General in one day less than 100 days before an election, you know something is up–and it isn’t good.

That appears to be the case with two requests for attorney general opinions filed today by State Rep. Frank Corte (R-San Antonio) and State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston). Corte and Patrick, right-wing Republicans, has asked Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to rule on the constitutionality of proposed legislation that would allow the suspension or revocation of the business licenses of businesses that employ undocumented workers and to answer the question of whether or not the Legislature has the authority to stop cities from serving as alleged “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens.

No doubt, the pair is hoping to stir a controversy in order to create an issue for Republican legislative candidates to campaign on this fall.

In their first request for an opinion, the pair asks Abbott to opine on whether a three-pronged state law allowing for the revocation of the business license of those who hire illegal aliens would be constitutional:

If Texas legislation (1) provided for the suspension or revocation of the business licensure of employers of unauthorized aliens; (2) relied solely upon a federal determination of immigration status; and (3) did not impose civil or criminal sanctions, would the law be permissible under the U.S. Constitution?

There are a couple of problems right off the bat with this one.

First, not every business in Texas requires a license. Businesses operated by an individual with an assumed name certificate may not even have a tax filing with the state comptroller’s office unless they are performing a service that isn’t taxed under Texas law. Thus, it would appear that the law would actually unfairly target a specific class of employers, i.e., those that are required to obtain trade-type licenses. Air conditioning installers, plumbers, contractors, builders, and electricians come to mind. In theory, realtor/brokers, dry cleaning establishments, doctors, lawyers, and a host of other white-collar professions may also come under the law because those professions require a license from the state. Thus, in theory, if a doctor hired an undocumented worker to empty the trash in his practice at the end of the night, he could lose his medical license. Much of this will depend upon how the law is drafted. But, drafting it too narrowly (i.e. excluding professional trades but not building trades) may well make it unconstitutional.

Second, how can losing one’s business license not be a civil penalty in and of itself? The law, by its very nature, is a civil penalty. Further, since the license suspension or revocation would be a penalty, the protections of the U.S. and state constitutions would require that due process be afforded those who are in danger of losing their licenses. Some type of hearing structure would have to be put in place to guarantee this due process, complete with an appeals process. Thus, Patrick and Corte, under the guise of dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, would actually create a giant maze of a bureaucracy that would cost millions of dollars a year for the state to administer–all in the name of having the state enforce what is essentially a federal law.

In their second request, the pair asks yet another loaded question:

Does the Texas Legislature, similar to Oklahoma, have the authority to deter local governments from adopting policies, or invalidate existing policies, which would hinder state enforcement of the federal immigration laws? Policies hindering state enforcement would include those that prevent local citizens, officials, or law enforcement agencies from, cooperating with the federal government regarding a person’s immigration status.

And, again, there are problems. This request for opinion addresses cities which Republicans like to call “sanctuary cities,” because their police officers don’t ask every soul they stop their immigration and citizenship status. Republicans want all law enforcement officers to ask, and lock up anyone who can’t immediately prove their citizenship to be turned over to immigration officials.

The problem here is that laws like this would cost cities and counties millions of dollars. Can you imagine how many county jails would be bursting out of the seams if every person who couldn’t prove their citizenship was arrested? Jail overcrowding would take on an entirely new meaning. Too, imagine how many law enforcement officers would be taken away from working violent crimes because they are stuck behind a desk filling out reports and contacting immigration because someone they stopped for going 75 in a 70 mph speed zone didn’t have a green card? This would take thousands of police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and DPS officers off the streets across the state and paralyze the normal functioning of our police agencies.

There are other costs to all of this immigrant hating, too. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts has already released a report that shows the loss of Texas’ illegal immigrants would have a negative impact on the state’s economy to the tune of billions of dollars.

All of this should, I suppose, come as no surprise. The Texas Legislature already has legislators who want to gut the 14th amendment, blame immigrants for diseases like the plague, Republicans who have thrown their own corrupt speaker under the bus and blame him for the fact that many anti-immigrant bills weren’t considered in the last session of the legislature, and legislators who have written anti-immigrant bills so controversial that they made the New York Times.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It