Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, recently ratified three legal documents aimed at escalating the consequences for unlawful immigration transgressions. These legislative acts sparked debate between the governor and other leaders within the Republican party, but eventually an agreement was settled upon. The opposition party, the Democrats, put forward claims that these bills were not rooted in constitutional law, suggesting they were driven purely by political motives. Ron DeSantis, following his formal acceptance of a group of legislation designed to toughen the repercussions of unauthorized immigration, expressed his commitment to seizing opportunities provided by the executive declarations issued by former President Donald Trump last month.
DeSantis, unabashedly committed to combating unlawful immigration, alleged that Florida leads the initiative in quelling the crisis. He proudly claimed not to have idly stood by as events unfolded. One of the newly signed measures not only intensifies penalties directed toward undocumented immigrants guilty of criminal activities, but also criminalizes the act of entering the state without proper documentation. The latter faux pas now carries a required nine-month imprisonment penalty.
One of the approved acts, SB 4C, stipulates a compulsory death penalty for any unauthorized immigrant found guilty of capital offenses. Capital crimes are described as instances such as first-degree murder or sexual assault of a minor below the age of twelve. Another bill, SM 6C, seeks regulatory instruction from the federal government on incorporating local law enforcement agencies into schemes that would equip them with additional training to enforce national immigration laws.
The final bill of the trio, SB 2C, initiates novel enforcement structures, chief among them the establishment of the State Board of Immigration Enforcement. The board will comprise the governor himself and his cabinet officials which includes the attorney general, chief financial officer, and agriculture commissioner. These measures concluded exhaustive negotiations between Governor DeSantis and his political counterparts, the House Speaker, and Senate President within the Republican party.
A previous period of disagreement amongst the Republicans resulted in a compromise. The signed bills, however, have excluded a few provisions that were initially advocated by DeSantis. Among these are the curbs on unauthorized immigrants transferring funds or ‘remittances’ to relatives in their native countries and the governor’s own authority to deport individuals to foreign lands. Despite these, the governor and the legislative heads consider the compromise a victory for their cause.
Governor DeSantis, although content with the current progress, revealed future intentions to push for more stringent remittance policies. However, he was insistent in avoiding the addition of unnecessary red tape along with any novel enactment. DeSantis also voiced expectations that the Congress will address these concerns, while retaining strong inclination toward strengthening policies for E-verify. He indicated potential consideration of broadening the mandatory adherence of less than 25-employee businesses to the program in the subsequent legislative session.
However, the proposed modifications to the program were deemed unfit for voting by Senate Republicans. Instead, they opined that the revisions fell beyond the scope of the special session and deemed it unorderly. A number of objections were raised by the Democrats on the legislative set. One significantly disputed part of the bill was a directive to abolish in-state tertiary education rates for undocumented youngsters who immigrated to the US during their childhood.
They also expressed concern over legislation endorsing the death penalty for unlawful immigrants convicted of any capital crimes. The Democratic party attempted to introduce several amendments to either entirely remove or lessen the severity of these legal elements but were unsuccessful. This was primarily due to Republican dominance, with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of legislation.
While the Republicans did support and subsequently adopt the bills, they nevertheless conveyed displeasure with the clause that proposed to annul in-state tuition for approximately 6,500 permanently residing students without official immigration clearance. These pupils, often dubbed ‘Dreamers’, are young immigrants who were involuntarily brought to the US during their formative years. Most of these immigrants are lacking proper legal status.
This term, ‘Dreamers,’ has its origins in the 2001 congressional bill, the DREAM Act – an abbreviation for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. The act aimed at providing these youth immigrants with a clear route to obtain US citizenship. Despite the failure of the DREAM Act to pass into law, the appellation ‘Dreamers’ continues to be used.
Differing views do exist, with some opining that recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program are immigrants who have unlawfully entered the country and hence, do not warrant leniency. The legislative set passed, though predominantly among party lines, with the Republicans being the majority supporters and Democrats in opposition.
There was, however, one exception. One legislator voted against the SB 4C bill pertaining to the compulsory death penalty. Ultimately, the trio of bills aimed at cracking down on unlawful immigration were signed into law, resulting from contentious debate and negotiations between the Republicans and Democrats, and within the Republican party itself.