representative good to see you again uh Ken paxt and the attorney general and and the Department of Public Safety have had some conflicting remarks for a while here first saying that this sp4 is only going to be enforced along the border with what the Troopers can visually see then DPS comes out and says oh no no no it's going to be enforced Statewide like the law is written why is there so much confusion about how to enact this law if indeed the courts uphold it well I think DPS has recently co
me out and said what I have been saying all along and that I believe that 95% or more of the enforcement of s sp4 will will occur within 50 Mi of the border and I think what they came out recently was saying exactly that they want to rely on people that they actually observe visually see uh what we call an onview offence uh that that would that they would see them cross illegally and that would be on the border so I think that's consistent with what I've said all along but but it seems like DPS
originally said oh no no it's only going to be along the border but then they said oh but it's Statewide so we can do it anywhere I I I'm just trying to figure out well why isn't it a clear message I mean the law seems black and white in that regard yeah it's I can't answer that it's it's a Statewide uh law it applies everywhere but as I've said all along that I think that you're going to have less enforcement the farther you get from the scene of the crime or the cus of of where this occurs and
the nature of this for illegal entry is you're focusing on people actually Crossing into our state from from a foreign country it's very difficult if not sometimes impossible to prove that unless you actually see or otherwise know where they crossed when they crossed how they crossed who was with them and be able to prove that and so because of the nature of this again this is not this is not what Arizona dealt with years ago completely different but was this one written too broadly do you thin
k that that's and and the reason is you're going to have instances whether there be people involved in smuggling of persons or other things may happen around the state across the state that you're going to actually have that information and so we didn't want to tie law enforcement's hands we didn't want to limit the enforcement to just number one observation only because there are other surveillance techniques that uh that they're implementing in operation Lone Star and we didn't want to say it
only happens only on the counties uh or enforced only on the counties on the border so the the fifth circuit is famously conservative that's why Texas likes going to to the fifth circuit but we also in the fifth circuit but but why do you think that that the state is running into so many questions from these conservative judges about whether this law is constitutional well I think it's a landmark case it's it's a very big case and and it's a departure from what uh states have typically gotten in
to and I feel that we can as I've said before it's constitutional I believe that we can do that but I think it's it kind of a idea of we want to you know measure twice and cut once we want to make sure that we're on the right track here if we rule in favor of this and I and I respect that I understand that if the court say this is unconstitutional will you go back next session in January and try to do something else with this law well we're going to try to do whatever we can to protect Texans wh
atever that may be and there may be other areas um related to this that we that we get into the other thing that's kind of being ignored here what the what the uh District Court Judge did in Austin was just basically says it's all uh unconstitutional it's all preempted it's all fi preempted uh it's and so but there there's Federal precedent for that I mean there's plenty of Court precedent for that it's the federal government's job right well yes and no it doesn't say that in the Constitution an
d we're allowed things generally the the presumption of the law if you read the Arizona case is that the presumption is against preemption especially field preemption where it says that you get into one particular area and that's not what Arizona has said here but the other issue that people are forgetting about is that there's a severability provision in sp4 that says okay even if the court finds that part of it is unconstitutional the other remaining parts may be uh completely constitutional s
o we've uh but what the what the court did I think incorrectly uh said it's all improper and and I don't think that that's the correct interpretation of the law are you surprised the conservative fifth circuit is having so many questions over this law not really I mean I listened to the argument the other day um all valid questions uh all valid concerns but you have to understand some of the questions that they had had to do with the process and had to do with what came back from the Supreme Cou
rt and the limited scope of that particular hearing uh we have a hearing scheduled uh coming up next Wednesday uh on the 3 and that's a different process entirely because we're looking at the the injunction and the burden of proof on that is on the Department of Justice and the other uh plaintiffs in the case that the burden of proof on that is not on the state of Texas so it's it's a different if it's a different issue slightly some of the same related issues but it's slightly different process
and so you would have different questions and that's on the merits of the injunction a lot of people have have have related this to the 2010 law from Arizona to show me your papers law this one's different because it mimics federal law the Supreme Court though struck down what happened in Arizona 14 years ago it's a different Supreme Court now it's a more conservative Supreme Court as well we all know do you expect when this eventually gets settled by the courts and likely the Supreme Court tha
t the conservative majority there is going to rule in Texas's favor I think that I think that s sp4 is going to Prevail I think it will be held constitutional um and ultimately I think uh uh the US Supreme Court will make that ultimate decision uh at the end of it because even if the fifth circuit rules in that favor uh the doj is going to appeal so I think ultimately it's a Supreme Court decision but I I think it's it's going to be ruled that way not so much because we have a more conservative
Supreme Court but because we've stayed away from the problems and the issues that that uh were a problem in the Arizona case U again SP sp4 was drafted to to get away from those particular areas that were preempted we've we've stuck with the script we've stuck with existing law because what we have in sb4 is consistent uh with existing law it's not preempted uh by federal law and so I feel very good about it how long is this going to take legally to wind its way through the courts it it may take
a while but I I think the important thing is uh if we win the right to enforce it until there's ultimately a trial on the merits of the case uh so we may have something enforceable and I believe that we can for the based on the basis for legally for a temporary injunction the things that the Department of Justice and others the requirements that they had to meet then in my opinion they have not met and so I think that we'll have something temporarily enforceable until we have a final ruling cri
tics say that s sp4 one thing it does is it ignores the rights of migrants seeking political Asylum they don't have to enter through a Port of Entry as you know but if they if they seek uh political Asylum that s sp4 doesn't allow for that if you see someone coming across that Texas wouldn't consider political Asylum we don't have Asylum courts well we're saying we're not saying sb4 doesn't allow for it we're saying that s sp4 doesn't allow the defense of oh now I'm here now I've been arrested n
ow I want to claim Asylum doesn't work that way if people want to claim Asylum they can do so we're not stopping them from doing that it just says but don't you take them back until they can go through that legal process well right now they can be in Mexico and claim asylum on the cbp1 app and do that that's what they're doing right now when they want to claim that they don't have to physically be present in the United States to do that so anyone that wants to claim Asylum they can do that but t
hat's not what's happening we have people coming across at other places other than a port of entry and they're they're coming in mass and you you've seen the video even last week of of what's going on uh what happened in El Paso and more and more and more we're getting more violence uh more Force and and the problem is we're having more dangerous people coming across uh documented terrorists and other people that we just we don't know the way the the law is written is if if a police officer pick
s up somebody and a magistr decides that that they're not here lawfully the state magistrate can send someone back to Mexico Mexico doesn't want to accept these people it's already said that well I really don't quite frankly I don't really care what Mexico says or what they think we can't force someone across the border there I mean we're trying to do the same thing here keepy people from coming across right well I think we can do whatever we need to do and and I think that we will do whatever w
e need to do U and so we turn them back to a port of uh entry and order them back and again the magistrate doesn't just order them back that's only if they agree to go back so but Mexico that's somewhat disingenuous that's a that's a kind term to use it for them to say hey wait a minute we let all these people in from over a 100 different countries uh at some other port or some other place in Mexico Mexico had full knowledge of what's going on they've acquiesced in this they participated in this
they've allowed these people to come through their country knowing full well exactly what their intention is they've allowed that to happen allowed them to be processed allowed them to to get across our uh the border into our state uh for them to now come back and say well we don't we don't want to accept them I don't that's crazy I I don't agree with that and uh uh and I don't know what President Biden would do I know what president Trump would do and say well we don't we're not asking permiss
ion here we're sending them back period end of story I also would say this just because the president of Mexico or someone in interior Mexico says we're not going to do it doesn't mean it's not going to happen Governor Abbott has existing M memorandums of understanding with the four states that border Texas the Mexican states Texas and and we have a very good working relationship with them they've cooperated with us we have no reason to believe that they won't continue to cooperate with us in th
at respect and so he has every legal right to do that if those need to be tweaked or modified in some respect I have full faith and confidence that Governor abber will do that if the courts uphold asb4 you mentioned it's a landmark case wouldn't that open the door for other immigration functions for the state to pick up at taxpayer expense well a couple different questions there there are other functions that we could do I don't think that we want to get into immigration per se again we're not d
etermining immigration policy with s sp4 we're saying if you arrived here illegally there's nothing unfair about asking you to go back home the same way you came if you got here illegally and that's what sb4 does it says we're going to send people back we're not dictating to the United States how they need to process people what they need to do how we allow naturalization and people become citizens and so forth we're not getting into that as a state uh that's not what s sp4 does but do I think t
hat there are other things that we can do I think they can as long as they're constitutional and they're preempted by uh but they're not either feel preempted or otherwise preempted by federal law super Tuesday changed a lot in Texas uh I would say though some disagree that the the Republican party of Texas has shifted further to the right when do you expect the next legislative session to look like it'll be interesting uh I'm not really sure what to expect uh uh you know but I will say this uh
the Texas house is the most delivered body in our country uh it's it's very unique and and potentially of the world and we have a very unique it's a very unique place and it operates very differently much more so than what I realized before I got there and so uh people can express their views people can um Can promote their causes and I think that we're going to have have a very interesting session but hopefully we'll have people that come together and work respectfully disagree about certain po
licy issues but that we can get things done for the people of Texas and that's what I'm committed to uh to get good policy and good law for people in the state of Texas and for my district and so that's what I will work toward you have 150 members of the Texas house that want the same thing U and so hopefully we'll get that accomplished representative thank you for the time I appreciate it thank you for having me
Comments