Democrats' strong language is no match for Republican majority on issue of immigration

AUSTIN — With reporters assembled and news cameras rolling, state Rep. Armando Walle measured his words Wednesday morning to express his anger at a package of border-related legislation that he and his House Democratic colleagues thought was extreme.

The eight-term lawmaker from Houston called the three-bill package scheduled for a floor debate later in the Republican-dominated House "a political bag of flaming horse manure" aimed more at scoring partisan points heading into the 2024 election cycle than at protecting Texas from fentanyl smugglers and immigrants crossing into the state without legal authorization.

"We wouldn't have these issues if there wasn't a salacious appetite for those drugs," Walle argued in the matter-of-fact cadence of a lawyer, which he is. "We wouldn't have these issues if there were not jobs here. So we're all complicit. Everybody is complicit in this issue."

Neither Walle nor the other members of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus with him at the Capitol news conference were under any illusion that they could derail any of the bills that were named priorities by Gov. Greg Abbott when he called lawmakers into a special session earlier this month.

But they were planning for a robust debate where they could offer countless amendments — most of them doomed from the outset — to brighten the spotlight on the legislation and perhaps score political points of their own among like-minded voters back in their home districts.

House Republicans, however, outmaneuvered the Democrats by using a parliamentary tactic to limit how many amendments could be considered on one measure, House Bill 4, that would broaden the authority of non-federal law enforcement officers to arrest, detain, and even return suspected undocumented immigrants to the border without a court hearing where they might produce proof of legal residency, or even proof of American citizenship.

And that's when Walle dropped his lawyerly demeanor and discarded the polite euphemisms. Near the center of the House floor, not at the lecterns with microphones that feed the chamber's livestream, Walle let loose a string of F-bombs, MF-bombs, S-bombs and BS bombs at a handful of nearby Republican members.

More: Texas House OKs bills to fund border wall, arrest people thought to be in U.S. illegally

Reporters in the House floor press section several feet away could make out most of it, even if the House mics could not. But they were able to verify any usable quotes because most of the two-minute speech was captured on smartphone video by one or more members and posted on social media.

"Y'all don't understand. You don't live in our f****** skin," Walle told the nearby Republican members who did not appear to interrupt him or respond. "You don't. And that's what pisses me off."

The raw emotion displayed by Walle was perhaps more coarse than the usual Democratic responses to past bills,, but it was by no means a one-off in the Legislature when it comes to the Democrats' response to Republican efforts over the past six years or more to give the state a heavier hand over the fractious issue of illegal immigration. If the earlier legislation sought to nibble away at the federal government's authority, House Bill 4, which awaits the Senate's consideration, would chomp off more than a mouthful.

Its critics have argued that Abbott and other Texas Republicans are itching for an opportunity to force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 2012 ruling that knocked down Arizona's efforts to play a more proactive role to control its border with Mexico.

In striking down much of the state's law, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-3 majority ruling that Arizona had unconstitutionally stuck its nose into the federal government's business.

More: Texas Republican Party using Colony Ridge controversy as a tool for fundraising

“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration ..." Kennedy wrote. "(B)ut the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

Democrats, who in the past year or so have increasingly vented frustration over Democratic President Joe Biden's inability to either slow the pace of unlawful border crossings or to effectively counter Abbott's highly effective messaging on the issue, often make the argument that what Texas is doing is just as unconstitutional as the Arizona effort of more than a decade ago.

But they cannot afford to sit back and wait for the high court to yank the leash on Texas just as it did on Grand Canyon State. Kennedy, considered one of the court's moderates, retired in 2018, which allowed immigration hardliner Donald Trump to replace him with conservative Brett Kavanaugh.

Voting with Kennedy in 2012 was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps the court's most liberal member at the time. Ginsberg died during the waning months of Trump's administration in 2020, but Trump still had time to name Amy Coney Barrett to replace her. Presumably, both would have voted with the three justices in the minority had they been sitting when the Arizona case was heard.

The now-solidified high court's conservative majority likely further emboldens the efforts in Texas and other Republican-leaning states to enact immigration laws they know fully well will be challenged through litigation.

And if the Republicans' confidence is borne out by the Supreme Court as it is presently constructed, and if the Texas Republican dominance continues unchallenged, there will be no news conferences, no House floor debates and no amount of off-color language that can stop even more hardline immigration bills that surely will follow.

John C. Moritz covers Texas government and politics for the USA Today Network in Austin. Contact him at jmoritz@gannett.com and follow him on X, formerly called Twitter, @JohnnieMo.

This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Texas Democrats might have the passion, but GOP still has the majority