Apprehensions at the southern border decreased in June, driven by a substantial drop in illegal border crossings between ports of entry.

According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figures, border officials encountered migrants 144,571 times at the border in June, down 30 percent from the 206,702 encounters a month prior.

While the overall number of encounters dropped, encounters with unauthorized migrants at ports of entry rose month-to-month, a sign that the Biden administration's efforts to funnel migrants toward ports of entry are working.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials reported 45,026 encounters at ports of entry in June, up more than 27 percent from 35,315 in May.

That rise stood in contrast with the drop in Border Patrol encounters between ports of entry: 99,545 in June, down 42 percent from 171,387 in May.

The drop in Border Patrol encounters is the second significant contraction in fiscal 2022, after encounters plummeted nearly 40 percent from December to January.

June's figures show the lowest number of border encounters since President Biden's first full month in office, with a number nearly identical to former President Trump's highest posted encounter figures.

In May of 2019, the Trump administration reported 144,116 total encounters, a number that quickly came down, first as a result of Mexico's crackdown on migrants at its southern border and later because of the coronavirus pandemic.

While the two administrations have differed drastically in style, immigrant advocates say they share substance in many of their border and immigration policies.

The Biden administration in February rolled out new asylum regulations that activists said mirrored Trump's asylum ban, a charge the White House and DHS vehemently denied.

Those asylum rules have been challenged, and a hearing is scheduled before a federal court Wednesday.

If the asylum rules are blocked, the administration could lose one piece of the puzzle that it's used to convince migrants to avoid entering the country between ports of entry, and to avail themselves of parole programs designed to help them avoid land crossings altogether.

Updated: 6:47 p.m.

Democrats and Latino organizations are lambasting Texas officials over a report this week that the state's troopers have been ordered to systematically violate the human rights of migrants, including by pushing children into the Rio Grande and denying water aid in extreme heat.

The Houston Chronicle report, based on an email written by a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) trooper, detailed a series of incidents where migrants were seriously injured or killed by measures set in place by Texas to deter them from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

"If true, this is atrocious, barbaric, and downright wrong," wrote White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a tweet responding to the report.

"It would also not be surprising coming from a Governor who abandoned migrant children on the side of the road in below freezing temperatures on Christmas Eve," she added.

Much of the criticism over the human rights violations alleged in the report has been directed at Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who launched Operation Lone Star, a state-run border crackdown, in 2021.

“Texas is deploying every tool and strategy to deter and repel illegal crossings between ports of entry as President Biden’s dangerous open border policies entice migrants from over 150 countries to risk their lives entering the country illegally," Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, told The Hill in an email.

"The absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry, while making the job of Texas National Guard soldiers and DPS troopers more dangerous and difficult. President Biden has unleashed a chaos on the border that’s unsustainable, and we have a constitutional duty to respond to this unprecedented crisis,” said Mahaleris.

But Texas Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday excoriated the governor, saying no amount of deterrence is worth the violations described in the trooper's email.

"We learned last night that a state trooper sent in what looks like an official email details about Operation Lone Star and directives by DPS leadership to not allow migrants — even those who may be struggling to survive in the water, perhaps on the verge of drowning — to not help them, to push them back towards Mexico in the water," said Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas).

The email detailed cases including one where a pregnant woman miscarried trapped in the razor wire set up by DPS, one where a 4-year-old girl passed out from heat exhaustion as she attempted to pass through the wire only to be pushed back by Texas National Guard soldiers, and a case where a teenage boy broke his leg in the razor wire and had to be carried out by his father.

The trooper who wrote the email also alluded to an order to deny water to heat-stricken migrants and to "traps" set up to catch migrants off guard in the wire.

According to the report, DPS spokesman Travis Considine denied that an order to deny water to migrants was ever issued, but didn't comment on other allegations in the email.

DPS did not respond to The Hill's request for further comment, but the agency announced Tuesday it is conducting an internal investigation into the allegations.

Under Operation Lone Star, DPS agents have set up razor wire installations along known crossing points, as well as chains of buoys in sections of the Rio Grande to make crossing more difficult.

The Democrats also took aim at Abbott for the buoy system, both on the grounds that they could trap migrants underwater and because they allegedly violate international boundary regulations.

"I believe that they're drowning devices. Those buoys are not only set up on the surface of the water but also have net well below them so that people can get trapped in them and also can't go around them at all, even to try to save themselves," said Castro.

Rep. Henry Cuéllar (D-Texas), who represents the border city of Laredo, said the buoys had the potential to change the boundary with Mexico, which has raised concerns about the system.

"The problem we have is that the state is not cooperating, or working, or coordinating at all with the federal government," Cuéllar said.

"They're going solo on it, and I certainly stand with my colleagues to make sure that we find out exactly what's happening. Again, we want to see border security but at the same time you've got to treat the migrants with respect and dignity."

While Abbott has said his government is acting to fill gaps where the Biden administration is not performing its duties, Democrats say the state's foray into immigration and border policy is out of constitutional bounds.

"Let me be very clear: The jurisdiction of immigration is a federal constitutional grounded responsibility. It is the responsibility of President Joe Biden and his administration, and he has taken that responsibility seriously," said Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas).

The Texas Democrats called on Biden to act more aggressively to impose federal authority at the border, and even called for international organizations to intervene.

"I call on the Department of Justice to investigate these cruel actions toward migrants. Razor wire and barrels in the river, pushing children back into the river and denying water during extreme heat are just deliberate acts of torture," said Rep. Sylvia García (D-Texas). 

"It goes against everything that we have ever been taught as Texans, and it goes beyond politics and crosses the line into human rights violations. I would call in the United Nations to look at this."

But the lawmakers recognized that Abbott is politically motivated to stay the course.

"He's not going to listen because it's working for him. It's working for his base. And I don't really think that he thinks about children. He doesn't think about what he's doing to people and how he's hurting them. He's looking at how it works for his base, and whatever he deems he's going to do next in terms of his race, whether it's for governor or something else," García said.

Still, the Democrats took the opportunity to slam Abbott, who has comfortably won three gubernatorial elections.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said he was reluctant to believe all the allegations in the letter but called for Abbott's impeachment if the email is accurate.

"If this is true, articles of impeachment ought to be brought against this governor. He is unfit to hold any office of public trust, especially one as high as being governor of the state of Texas. You don't do this. Children are at risk. Babies," said Green. 

"Governor, you have made a mistake. If this is true, you've crossed a line and you ought not continue to serve."

Domingo García, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the country's oldest Latino civil rights organization, called for Abbott to "answer" for Operation Lone Star.

"LULAC condemns the inhumane treatment of innocent people and denounces the use of razor wire, buoys, and any other barriers that jeopardize the safety of women and children seeking asylum. These are Christian refugees, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect," said García.

"Operation Lone Star is utterly barbaric, and Governor Abbott and all those supporting him must answer for their actions. What would Jesus say about such treatment of the most vulnerable in society?"

The lawsuit specifically targets Section 10 of the new bill, which makes it a felony to transport into Florida a foreign national who "entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry from another country."

"Criminalizing transportation without federal 'inspection' and subjecting individuals to vague definitions is both unconstitutional and unfair," said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council (AIC), one of the groups who filed the suit. 

"This ill-advised legislation not only singles out immigrants and their families but also poses a threat to the social and economic well-being of Florida's communities," added Melloy Goettel.

The Florida law, which went into effect July 1, also includes provisions to expand the use of E-Verify, a controversial federal program to check employees' immigration status; ban the use of certain out-of-state drivers' licenses granted to undocumented immigrants; and require hospitals to collect information on patients' immigration status.

But the lawsuit filed Monday focuses on the transportation chapter of the law, calling it "hopelessly vague and incoherent, because Floridians and travelers into Florida have no way to know which people fall within its terms."

According to the plaintiffs, the law's language does not match up with federal immigration statutes, leading to confusion about who the bill would consider to have been "inspected" for immigration purposes.

The law doesn't distinguish between undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers, immigration parolees or any other immigration status that could apply to people who initially entered the country without prior authorization.

AIC, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Florida, Americans for Immigrant Justice filed the suit on behalf of the Farmworker Association of Florida and nine unnamed plaintiffs who say they would face criminal charges under the law.

The plaintiffs range from U.S. citizens who provide transportation to immigrants for humanitarian or health reasons to a married couple of undocumented farmworkers who work seasonally in Florida and other states.

"Each year, to maximize the seasons that they work, they usually spend about six months of the year working in Florida and six months of the year working out of state. They travel together across states. This year, however, they did not leave Florida to work out-of-state because they were frightened that if they left Florida, they would not be able to return, due to Section 10," reads the lawsuit.

"Not only is this law detrimental to our members’ abilities to put food on their own tables, it is detrimental to our members’ ability to put food on everyone’s tables," said Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli, general coordinator of the Farmworker Association of Florida.

The complaint names as defendants Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), Attorney General Ashley Moody (R), Statewide Prosecutor Nicholas Cox, and the 20 Florida state attorneys.

Jeremy Redfern, the press secretary for DeSantis’s executive office, lashed out at the ACLU over the lawsuit and defended the law as a protection against human smuggling.

“The ACLU has for years drifted increasingly leftward and out of the American mainstream. Long are the days when the ACLU defended actual civil liberties, such as free speech and religious rights. But taking the side of human smugglers–something truly outrageous and abhorrent–wasn’t on our bingo card,” said Redfern in an email to The Hill.

“Nevertheless, in Florida, we will continue to fight illegal immigration and the evil predations of human smuggling. We look forward to defending Florida and its humane laws against attacks by the ACLU and its leftist cronies.”

DeSantis has made immigration a linchpin of his presidential campaign, seeking to present a more hawkish vision than former President Trump, the leading candidate for the GOP nomination.

One plaintiff identified as M.M. — a mother of five, including four U.S. citizens — who overstayed her visa and is seeking relief in immigration court, said she joined the suit "because this law harms our family and many others."

"We aren’t doing anything to hurt anyone. On the contrary, we’re here working, paying taxes and trying to provide a safe life for our families. Now we’re scared to even travel together as a family. I would never want my son to face a felony for traveling with his mother and his sister. It makes no sense. We’re family — how can this be?” said M.M. in a statement.

--Updated on July 18 at 9:04 a.m.

The group, made up of largely Venezuelan migrants, walked along a highway in southern Mexico, led by a Venezuela flag with the phrase “Peace, Freedom. SOS.” The men, women, children and teenagers were followed by Mexican National Guard patrols.

Migrants told The Associated Press they crossed into Mexico illegally through a river dividing the two countries. They said they decided to organize the group and start out because many had been sleeping on the street and had run out of money to buy food.

“We just want to move forward, to fulfill our American dream and work, because we're all workers here,” one Venezuelan, Roseli Gloria said while taking a brief rest along the highway.

She carried a backpack and a piece of rolled up foam for sleeping. She said she had been in Mexico for a week before joining the group.

Participants in the group said that they received little aid from Mexican immigration authorities and that they were given mixed and confusing instructions about how to move forward or seek asylum in the U.S.

The formation of the latest migrant group in southern Mexico comes amid a record migratory flow to the United States from countries across Latin America. In the 12 months through May 2023, U.S. authorities reported nearly 2.5 million encounters with migrants on its southern border, an uptick from the year before.

The journey is not an easy one, with migrants often targeted by kidnappings, extorsion and other violence from armed groups in the region. As a result, migrants often travel in groups of hundreds to stay safe.

Migrants from Venezuela previously sought refuge in other South American nations like Colombia and Peru, but increasingly they are making the perilous journey through the jungles of the Darien Gap between Colombia and Panama in an attempt to reach the U.S.

“Hispanic Americans overwhelmingly oppose the term ‘Latinx,’ and I want to make sure our government does not bow to woke activists in our federal departments or agencies by insisting on ridiculous terminology like this,” Cruz said in a release, adding that the term "has no place in official government communication."

The bill, called the Respect for Hispanic Americans Act, would prohibit federal agencies from using “Latinx” — a gender-inclusive variation of the Spanish terms Latino and Latina — in official communications or forms from agency heads or employees.

Though many Democrats and progressives picked up the gender-neutral term, some Spanish-speakers criticized the term’s -x ending, both because it replaces the Spanish grammar construction of the male -o and female -a endings and because the sound is difficult to pronounce in the language.

A Pew Research survey conducted in 2019 found less than one-quarter of U.S. adults who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino had heard of the term Latinx, and that just 3 percent said they use the term to describe themselves. A Gallup survey conducted in 2021 found that just 4 percent of Hispanic Americans use the "Latinx" term to describe their ethnic group.

“Hispanic Americans don’t need fabricated woke terminology imposed on us. The term ‘Latinx’ has no place in our federal agency’s official communication as it’s a degradation tossed around by progressive elites,” Rubio said in the release. 

Cruz also knocked the “made-up term” on Twitter.

In the House, Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) introduced a similar bill earlier this year, called the Reject Latinx Act.

Salazar at the time accused the Biden administration of "waging a woke crusade on Latino identity and the Spanish language," with her office labeling the term in a release as "a woke invention of the neo-Marxist left."

Bárcena, who last month was tapped as foreign minister by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, laid out her upcoming challenges in an op-ed in Mexican daily El Universal.

She said Mexico’s diplomats will have to “enhance efforts” to protect Mexican nationals amid incendiary election-year rhetoric in the United States.

“The historical vocation of Mexican diplomacy obliges us to enhance efforts to protect our citizens living abroad, especially in the coming months, when the electoral process in the United States will fuel the flames of xenophobia and racism,” wrote Bárcena, according to an unofficial translation distributed Monday by the Mexican embassy in Washington.

Mexican diplomacy is largely geared around services for its more than 10 million Mexico-born nationals present in the United States; Mexico's consular network in the United States is the world’s largest, with 52 local representations.

While the two countries have butted heads for decades over migration and the Mexican diaspora, those frictions have intensified over the past decade.

The 2016 presidential campaign in the United States marked a turning point, when former President Trump announced his candidacy in a speech remembered for the phrase, “when Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.”

Yet López Obrador, who came to power in 2018, established a cordial relationship with Trump and has become a fierce critic of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who is seen as Trump's most competitive rival for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Bárcena, as the outgoing Mexican ambassador to Chile and longtime executive secretary of the United Nations's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), has focused her diplomatic career on Mexico's relations with its southern neighbors.

Bárcena, who is awaiting Senate approval to formally take the top job, laid out a long list of Mexican diplomatic priorities beyond U.S.-based consular work.

“Our country is closely linked to the United States and Canada. With our northern neighbors, we share trade and engage in intense and constant dialogue on a variety of topics, but a rich tapestry of family and social relationships also binds us,” wrote Bárcena, in a nod to 30 years of free trade in North America.

Still, Bárcena subtly criticized Mexican governments of the past 30 years for turning their focus toward North America and away from the Caribbean and South and Central America.

“We have an undeniable cultural belonging and a shared future with our brothers and sisters in Latin America and the Caribbean,” she wrote.

“But more importantly, Mexico has committed to never turning its back again and looking more earnestly toward the South, which implies consolidating ourselves as a proactive, inclusive, and participatory force in regional affairs, leveraging our membership in the G20.”

That southward vision has earned Bárcena harsh criticism in the United States.

As López Obrador's candidate to run the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) in 2022, Bárcena was labeled a “communist sympathizer” by Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) in a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

“After the death of mass murderer Fidel Castro, she lamented the passing of a ‘giant’ who spent his life 'fighting for equality.’ Fidel Castro, in fact, dedicated his life to creating one of the most unequal and totalitarian states ever known to mankind,” wrote Salazar.

“Similarly, she claimed to have been witness to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s ‘indestructible commitment to the dispossessed, the most humble’ and stated he made equality both his ‘lodestar’ and the ‘permanent doctrine’ of his country. Hugo Chavez oversaw the impoverishment and starvation of millions while enriching a small clique of corrupt government insiders.”

Shortly before the IADB election, Bárcena dropped out, citing personal reasons, and López Obrador nominated the deputy governor of Mexico's central bank, Gerardo Esquivel, for the job, saying that his candidacy had the “possibility to triumph.”

Former Brazilian Central Bank President Ilan Goldfajn was elected as IADB president in 2022, replacing Trump-nominated Mauricio Claver-Carone, who was ousted amid allegations of wrongdoing.

Bárcena will take over the diplomatic portfolio replacing Marcelo Ebrard, who last month quit the job to pursue a presidential run.

This story was updated at 5:27 p.m.

"I think it's just absurd," DeSantis, who is running for president, told Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Varney & Co . "I mean California is a sanctuary state. They actually provide benefits for illegal aliens. And so they're serving really as a magnet for people to cross our border illegally." 

The governor went on to pledge to build a border wall if elected president and to "hold the Mexican drug cartels accountable for what they've done to poison tens of thousands of Americans every year."

"But, at the same time, if you do have people here illegally and a court says they can stay until there's some type of court date, I think that's a bad system," he said. "But if it is, the sanctuary jurisdiction should be the one to have to bear that burden. We're not a sanctuary state in Florida, and I think it's wrong that states that are doing it right would have to bear burden. And so they've asked for this, they've invited it, and they should step up."

DeSantis's comments are the latest in a war of words between him and his Democratic California counterpart, which began last year following the migrant flights to Sacramento.

Last week, Newsom called on the Justice Department to investigate Florida's migrant relocation effort. The letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland claims that it is “not uncommon for local jurisdictions and nongovernmental organizations to facilitate onward travel from the border” in some instances, but that “this scheme is different: according to news reports, recruiters deceived migrants into taking flights to these particular locations based on promises of jobs and shelter.”

“It is unconscionable to use people as political props by persuading them to travel to another state based on false or deceptive representations. We urge USDOJ to investigate potential violations of federal law by those involved in this scheme,” the letter reads. 

Last month, Florida confirmed it was behind recent migrant flights to Sacramento from Texas, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) vowed to investigate potential wrongdoing by Florida officials related to the flights. Last year, DeSantis sent dozens of migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard as part of the migrant relocation effort, as other Republican governors moved to bus or fly thousands of migrants north to cities controlled by Democrats as a way to protest the Biden administration's immigration policies. 

Two civil rights organizations are launching a campaign to pressure state governments to disqualify former President Trump from appearing on ballots in 2024.

The groups say secretaries of state are empowered by the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from running for office because of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

Starting Sunday, Mi Familia Vota and Free Speech for People will stage a week of rallies and banner drops outside the offices of the secretaries of state of California, Oregon, Colorado and Georgia.

The groups also penned a letter to Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar last month, calling on him to block Trump under what's known as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause.

"We're really focusing on Nevada and California and [Oregon, Colorado and Georgia] to make sure that they are taking a stand by disqualifying Trump in those spaces, which is something that the secretary of state can do," said Héctor Sánchez, executive director of Mi Familia Vota.

The groups are calling their campaign "Trump is Disqualified," and are timing it to coincide with the 155th anniversary of the 14th Amendment.

The Hill has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment.

Secretaries of state are charged with certifying eligibility of candidates and counting the votes in their state.

Though Trump has been indicted twice and is under investigation in other cases, the groups say those are not disqualifying facts under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

However, the groups believe Trump's role in the Jan. 6 insurrection — for which he is also under investigation — does fit the constitutional clause's definitions.

That clause bars from a series of public offices people who "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same."

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), it's unclear whether the clause bans people from being president — an office not explicitly mentioned in Section 3 — and whether the events of Jan. 6 rise to the level of "insurrection or rebellion against" the United States.

But at least one official in New Mexico, Couy Griffin, was removed from his position as elected county commissioner for his role in the attack.

Griffin was convicted for his role before losing his job, but the CRS notes that the Constitution "does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."

The groups leading the campaign believe they can convince at least some secretaries of state of their interpretation of the clause, disrupting Trump's electoral chances.

“Trump is responsible for the January 6th insurrection, plain and simple,” said Alexandra Flores-Quilty, campaign director for Free Speech For People. 

“Failing to hold him responsible not only violates the Constitution, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for permitting violent attacks on our democracy. That’s not a risk we can afford to take.”

The targeted states are mostly under Democratic control, but one, Georgia, holds a special significance in the events leading up to Jan. 6.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) was in 2020 pressured by Trump to reverse his state's presidential vote count, which favored President Biden.

Raffensperger was interviewed by federal investigators Wednesday as part of special counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump.

A disqualification for Trump from any secretary of state would be unprecedented and likely challenged in court, but the civil rights groups say they have a shot.

"We had a number of meetings with secretaries of state and we have had this discussion. So it's a real possibility," said Sánchez.

Patrick Crusius pleaded guilty in February to 90 federal charges, including hate crimes, and was awaiting sentencing.

“The 90 consecutive life sentences announced today guarantee that Patrick Crusius will spend the rest of his life in prison for his deadly, racist rampage in El Paso. We are grateful to the victims and their family members who have spent the last three days bravely sharing the devastation and pain they endured because of Crusius’s horrendous crimes. The Justice Department’s commitment to combating hate crimes is unwavering,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. 

The sentencing hearing began Wednesday, with survivors and victims' family and friends confronting Crusius and reading victim statements in court.

Crusius will now face trial in Texas courts, where prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty.

Among U.S. Hispanics and immigrants, the 2019 massacre has become a key symbol of the dangers of radicalized xenophobia.

Crusius explicitly laid out his intentions in a 2,300-word manifesto that intertwined racial, ethnic and political bigotry with broader economic and environmental concerns.

The manifesto directly targeted "Mexicans" and "Hispanics" and said his attack would remove the "incentives" for more migrants to come to the United States.

“Violent language that encourages and cultivates the climate for violence cannot be ignored. When hateful rhetoric comes from political leaders, it is a danger to democracy and people’s lives," said Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, a progressive immigration advocacy group.

"We’ve had to issue a disturbing volume of similar statements and reflections commemorating trial developments and anniversaries of horrific acts of white nationalist hate connected to the 'invasion' and 'replacement' rhetoric."

Immigrant advocates have grown increasingly concerned about a rising tone on immigration and mainstreaming of the Great Replacement Theory, which states that foreign immigrants are purposely being brought into the country to replace white Americans.

Crucius directly appealed to the theory, taking inspiration from the 2019 Christchurch, New Zealand, mosque shootings, where a gunman killed 51 people and injured 40 others.

“This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” Crucius wrote.

The term "invasion" became commonplace during the 2022 midterm elections, with GOP candidates from border and interior states alike used it as a centerpiece of their border security messaging.

It has also taken hold in the 2024 presidential race, as former President Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) compete to present the more hawkish vision on immigration.

The use of previously off-limits terminology — a staple of anti-woke politics — has advocates on edge.

"Despite the proven real world dangers, they’ve escalated their use of the ‘invasion’ and ‘replacement’ conspiracies in the last four years, seemingly not caring that this rhetoric comes with a body count," said Mario Carrillo, campaigns manager for America's Voice.

Over the two days of sentencing, survivors and victims' family members voiced their anger at Crucius, in some cases referencing his motivations.

“We are still here and we are not going anywhere. And for four years you have been stuck in a city full of Hispanics. ... So let that sink in,” said Amaris Vega, whose aunt was killed in the attack, according to an AP report.

In total, the friends and family of 12 victims made statements, according to the Texas Tribune, ranging from anger to sadness to forgiveness.

Crucius, 24, did not speak, but his attorney Joe Spencer told U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama that his client's "thinking is at odds with reality," reported the AP.

“Patrick acted with his broken brain cemented in delusions,” Spencer told the court.

This story was updated at 3:58 p.m.

On Tuesday, DeSantis rolled out his immigration proposal, titled “Mission Stop the Invasion No Excuses,” a clear jab at Trump’s handling of the issue during his administration. DeSantis's plan calls for an end to birthright citizenship, and he has endorsed the use of “deadly force” against migrants suspected of drug trafficking. 

The plan has drawn Trump’s ire, with the former president accusing DeSantis of ripping off his policy. 

“Well, his plan is my plan,” Trump told Semafor on Tuesday. “I mean, he’s basically copied everything I said — catch and release, finish the wall.”

On top of Trump’s response, his campaign spokesman Jason Miller tweeted side-by-side photos of Trump at the border wall and DeSantis building a wall with blocks with his children in a 2018 campaign ad, writing “Ron DeSantis is the Fisher Price version of President Trump.” 

The pro-Trump super PAC Maga Inc. echoed Trump, mockingly saying in a statement it was “flattering” that DeSantis was copying the former president.

The two campaigns have thrown increasingly acrimonious darts at each other since DeSantis's rollout.

On Tuesday, DeSantis traveled to the border community of Eagleton, Texas, where he unveiled the plan before taking it on the road to the early primary state of New Hampshire. 

"We're actually going to build the wall," DeSantis said, taking a swipe at Trump while speaking to voters in Hollis, N.H., on Wednesday. "A lot of politicians chirp. They make grandiose promises and then fail to deliver the actual results. The time for excuses is over. Now is the time to deliver results and finally get the job done."

FILE - Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at the Moms for Liberty meeting in Philadelphia, Friday, June 30, 2023. A prominent conservative group is slamming a video shared by Ron DeSantis' presidential campaign attacking GOP rival Donald Trump's past support for gay and transgender people. The video drew immediate criticism from prominent LGBTQ+ Republicans. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Although the early primary state is not a border state, the issue has proven to be salient among its voters. 

“Immigration is always right up there, and it’s not just Republicans; it does cross party lines as well,” said New Hampshire House Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R), who is supporting DeSantis. 

Osborne, who was present at DeSantis’s stop in the state earlier this week, noted the overlap between DeSantis’s and Trump’s plans. 

“There’s going to be overlap because some of it is just common sense,” Osborne said. “The real issue is that Gov. DeSantis actually has a real track record on delivering on things he says he’s going to do.” 

“We can elect a president and they can do a great job, but if they’re going to just leave and turn the reigns over to someone who’s not going to do a good job, then what is the lasting benefit of that?” Osborne said. 

The Trump campaign responded Thursday with a "comprehensive overview of the most groundbreaking reforms ushered in by the Trump Administration" — a 31-page document touting the Trump administration's immigration policies.

The Trump campaign's document depicts his policies as a unique success story, attacking former Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton, as well as the Biden administration.

"As President, Donald J. Trump mobilized every resource of the federal government to reverse the destructive open borders policies of his lawless predecessors and implement the first-ever immigration system that served the best interests of America and its workers," reads the document.

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a rally, Saturday, July 1, 2023, in Pickens, S.C. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)

Meanwhile, DeSantis is looking to put Trump on the defensive over his signature issue.

DeSantis is pushing the GOP envelope on attacking Trump, and he is going further than others in his party have gone by adopting "invasion" rhetoric, very clearly marked as off-bounds by immigrant advocates.

In doing so, DeSantis has accomplished two goals: setting a hawkish stance on immigration and publicly angering liberals.

In May, DeSantis previewed what his presidential campaign’s immigration plan would look like when he signed an immigration overhaul into law in Florida. The law hones in on the state’s migrant relocation program and limits immigrants without legal status from obtaining social services. The Florida governor's supporters say his campaign swagger is a sign he would outdo Trump on implementing hawkish immigration policies.

“Gov. DeSantis has a plan to do on his first day in office what the Trump admin couldn’t do after four years: secure the border. His plan calls for a declaration of a national emergency, the end of phony asylum claims and to finally finish the border wall — without excuses or empty rhetoric. His commitment to getting the job done is the reason why there is so much enthusiasm behind Gov. DeSantis,” said Dave Vasquez of Never Back Down, a super PAC promoting DeSantis.

More Ron DeSantis coverage from The Hill

• DeSantis earned over $1M from his book, significantly boosting his net worth
• Republican LGBTQ group blasts DeSantis over ‘homophobic’ campaign video
• DeSantis team shares Pride Month-inspired video in latest attack on Trump
• What 2024 Republicans are saying about the Supreme Court’s student debt ruling

Never Back Down is run by Ken Cuccinelli, who was among the top immigration ideologues in the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration.

The similarities between the two campaigns in tone, messaging and staffing are no coincidence, according to Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist.

​​"When it comes to policy in the Republican primary, the policy is already set, it's the 'America First' suite of policies. And that means being tough on illegal immigration," said O'Connell.

That puts DeSantis in a difficult position, O'Connell said, because the GOP base looks to Trump to set the standard.

"Donald Trump is seen as the gold standard within the Republican primary. And when Ron pushes back and says, 'Well, you didn't get this accomplished,' and Trump basically says, 'Yeah, because I'm being blocked by the Democrats and even some Republicans.'"

The tit-for-tat has immigration advocates on edge, in part because it's changing what's acceptable to publicly say about immigrants.

"There's just a continual level of escalation that they're feeling, so that they can show this very specific base, 'Well, actually, I'm the true nativist here. I am like the most extreme version of what you want,'" said Zachary Mueller, who monitors Republican rhetoric on immigration as the political director of America's Voice, a progressive immigration advocacy group.

"I don't think we've seen the end of it. I think what we're really going to see is a nativist arms race here, as they move further and further to the extremes over the next year as they compete for these primaries."

The escalating feud also raises questions about how either candidate would fare in a general election.

Republicans see an opportunity to translate the fire-and-brimstone language to a general electorate if it focuses on the border and treads carefully on the humanitarian aspect of immigration.

"The general election voters' mindset, particularly the independents, they're thoroughly unhappy with Biden and anyone who's pushing a change of course to [the border] is going to be in good standing," O'Connell said.

"Now the question is, Republicans are wiser to phrase it as 'border security' than say, 'illegal immigration' because remember, when we talk about the word migrant, when we talk about the word immigrant, it's a word that has different meanings depending on the audience who you're talking to."

But immigration advocates say DeSantis is stuck in a Catch-22, where he has no choice but to push to the right to appeal to primary voters, rolling out proposals that will hurt him in a general election.

"For somebody like Ron DeSantis, who is trying to oust and overcome the former president of the United States in a primary — which is always going to be a difficult thing — he's trying to convince that very activist, core, radicalized part of the base that he is actually the true spirit of what they actually want, and Donald Trump is just a reflection of them. I think DeSantis is trying to say, 'I'm one of you,'" Mueller said.

"There's probably some real concerns about a general election strategy," he added. "How much is it going to cost you if you were focused on what may generously be 30 percent of the population in [a primary], and then you have to go to a general election and, you know, win 50 percent?"

In a letter to President Biden, 126 business leaders and employers called for him to "expand a special category of immigration permits for individuals who can fill positions where labor shortages exist."

"Under the Department of Homeland Security, there is existing authority to expand work authorizations during [trying] times or situations, they call it significant public benefits," said Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC).

"What employers are arguing is that due to the acute labor shortage, we continue to have 10.5 million unfilled jobs, and that's driving up inflation for everyday Americans."

The business leaders, writing under the banner of the ABIC, also touted a proposal that would grant states some say in visa allocation.

"One plan advanced by Republican governors, Eric Holcomb of Indiana and Spencer Cox of Utah, would allow states to 'sponsor' immigrant workers. With that authority, states could decide how many visas are needed each year for specific jobs," reads the letter.

In a Washington Post op-ed in February, Holcomb and Cox came out in favor of the plan, which would require congressional action.

"To help us do our jobs as governors, we call on Congress to end its two-decade standoff on setting immigration policy — one of its most basic duties. And, as leaders of states, we pledge to share the accountability," they wrote.

The proposal, first introduced in 2019 by Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), has yet to make a dent in the broader conversation on immigration policy and reform, but it risks angering the right flank of the GOP.

Some industries, however, need immigration reform to operate without violating the law — and employers in those sectors are applauding Republicans who take that risk.

"The political reality is, there's this base of voters on the right-hand side of the slate that seems to weigh a lot of influence on the primary winners. And that plays heavily upon a lot of our Republican elected officials, and let's face it: We are in the Midwest, and Republican candidates dominate our elected positions," said Steve Obert, executive director of Indiana Dairy Producers.

"That's why I just really applaud Governor Holcomb as a Republican for his willingness to step out on this issue and have the courage and be a leader to say, 'Hey, you know, maybe states can do this better than our federal government.'"  

The ABIC letter included representatives from the construction, manufacturing, agriculture, landscaping, and restaurant industries, all of which rely heavily on immigrant labor.

“There’s no better feeling than keeping manufacturing in the U.S.,” Lisa Winton, CEO of Winton Machine Company in Suwanee, Ga., said in a statement. 

“But we simply don’t have enough labor to do that right now. Meanwhile, Georgia and many other states are home to countless immigrant workers, both newcomers and long term contributors, who want nothing more than to work hard, legally so, in their new homeland. Why wouldn’t we unlock this tremendous resource?"

Because of labor shortages, many employers are growing increasingly impatient with the immigration system's inflexibility.

"The thing that frustrates me too, is I hear a lot, 'Well, we've got to fix the border,'" Obert said.

"Well, it seems to me that creating a legal framework that creates these guardrails to bring people over here and in a proper manner could contribute to improving the situation on the border. So I always kind of reject that argument."

Livestock industries, such as dairy, are especially active in calls for immigration reform, because none of the work visas available to foreign laborers are suitable to their needs.

Livestock requires year-round labor that takes time and money to train, but agricultural visas are seasonal, and there are not enough U.S. citizen laborers seeking the lifestyle that comes with those jobs.

"To go out and work with cows — they're large. They're not aggressive, but it takes some knowledge and appreciation for how cattle react and respond. It's a decent job, the working conditions are not bad," Obert said. 

"But you know, you've got to have the sights and the smells and the sounds and all those things that people aren't used to. Therefore, they're just not drawn to that kind of work. And you know, a lot of young people are going to college, and they just have different career aspirations."

Obert added that training foreign workers comes with additional challenges, such as making certain applicants can read and write and follow safety instructions to operate machinery, but young immigrants come willing to learn.

"There's that openness, and then that appreciation to have a job and that sense of fulfillment and satisfaction to know that they're working for people or a family that really appreciates what they're doing," he said.

Because of the gap in visa categories, the dairy industry has become increasingly reliant on undocumented labor — a reality that transcends any legal considerations.

"Cows have to be milked. They have to be milked every day, they have to be fed, they have to be cared for. And that work is going to get done," Obert said.

"But if we can create a legal framework for that to happen, it'd be hugely beneficial to the family dairy farm, the dairy farm families of Indiana and really across the whole nation."

Trump, who is leading the race for the 2024 Republican nomination, launched his 2016 candidacy with a speech denigrating Mexican immigrants that at the time was panned as sorely out of touch with the party and the general electorate.

Yet in the 2024 race, GOP candidates are scrambling to outdo each other with statements and proposals ideologically aligned with Trump's golden escalator speech.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday launched his official immigration and border security platform titled "Stop the Invasion" — a term civil rights organizations associate with the Great Replacement Theory.

Trump's campaign quickly responded, accusing DeSantis of "copying and pasting" his proposals.

"What we've identified is that from Donald Trump, and I think even further after him, we're seeing a continued escalation that is a like nativist doom loop that Republicans seem to be on further and further escalating those tensions," said Zachary Mueller, who monitors Republican rhetoric on immigration for America’s Voice, where he serves as political director.

"Where the Republican Party is at now and what they're pushing isn't the same Republican Party that they were even in 2018, and the kind of ideas that they were pushing. The foregrounding of what I think are white nationalist slogans like 'stop the invasion,' is different even than it was several years ago, as Republicans compete with each other, specifically around that insular base."

The shift to the right in many ways mirrors the way Trump rattled GOP orthodoxy in 2016, though 2024 dynamics are different, because his immigration rhetoric has been thoroughly audience tested.

DeSantis and other contenders such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley have hardened their tone on immigration, aware that appealing to Trump's base is a necessary prerequisite to be competitive in a national Republican primary.

DeSantis on Monday advocated for the use of deadly force against people crossing the border "demonstrating hostile intent."

“If you drop a couple of these cartel operatives trying to do that, you’re not going to have to worry about that anymore,” he said.

That strategy comes with risks, as voters outside the GOP base tend to have more moderate positions on immigration and are rarely energized by the issue — only 8 percent of voters cited immigration as their top issue in a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll.

But the tough rhetoric is not about addressing policy issues, said Mario H. Lopez, president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a conservative advocacy group.

“Most of the politicians that tout anti-immigrant propaganda are not interested in solutions. They're not interested in a secure border. They're perpetuating the insecurity of the southern border for their own political benefit and so they can fundraise, scream on Twitter, and get on TV,” said López.

Experts on extremism say the rhetoric is nothing new, although it has grown in scope.

"It's important to point out that the word invasion has been used for many, many years by various political figures on the right who don't want undocumented immigrants coming into the country," said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that DeSantis is promoting the Great Replacement Theory. It does mean that he has some viewpoints that overlap with that theory," added Mayo, who described the term "invasion" as "extremely derogatory."

The Great Replacement Theory is the idea that white people are being systematically replaced by nonwhite immigrants — in its most extreme form, the theory states that Jews are purposely fostering that replacement to gain economic and political power.

"There's a third version, and this is where I think you have the most overlap … which is that it's a more subtle version of the Great Replacement Theory," said Mayo.

"And it claims that, for example, the Democrats or the liberals are purposely allowing for an open border so that immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean can enter the country, receive amnesty and then eventually vote Democratic."

Though neither Trump or DeSantis's campaign platforms directly accuse Democrats of purposefully inviting illegal immigration, the idea has become a mainstay of Republican rhetoric on border security.

Pushing for a GOP border bill last month, House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) panned the administration for opposing the legislation.

“So that tells you exactly where the Biden Administration is. They want an open border. They created an open border," he said.

Groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an advocacy organization that calls for drastic reductions in immigration, say "invasion" is fair game.

"I don't think that anything Governor DeSantis said was over any lines or even close to the line," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR.

"You know, when you have that many people coming across the border, invasion is not an unreasonable term. Other people might choose other terms, but it's certainly not unreasonable to say that the volume of people coming across the border illegally, that it could be termed an invasion," added Mehlman.

FAIR is part of a network of restrictionist groups that have worked since the late 1970s to mainstream policy platforms of hawkish immigration restrictions that were once mostly brushed aside, but now form the backbone of GOP immigration orthodoxy.

Until Trump’s 2016 win, the national Republican stance on immigration seemed to be shifting to the center.

Bruised by the 2012 election loss, the Republican National Committee conducted an “autopsy” that concluded the party wasn’t inclusive enough and, among other things, would have to back comprehensive immigration reform to win national elections.

The report convinced the party elite, but the populist Tea Party movement, a precursor to the Freedom Caucus, rejected its findings and played a key role in blocking immigration reform in 2013, backed by groups like FAIR.

And FAIR had other real world effects pre-Trump. For instance, Haley in 2011 signed an immigration bill into law in South Carolina modeled after Arizona's SB-1070, written by a lawyer working with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, FAIR's legal arm.

The broader network of restrictionist groups is known as the Tanton Network, after founder John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist who wrote about eugenics and the environmental case for population control.

The group has long been a lightning rod among immigration advocates, both for its ideology and origins and because of its political effectiveness.

In 2007 and 2013, for instance, advocates with connections to Tanton played quiet but key roles in scuttling promising immigration reform initiatives.

But the GOP's wholesale embrace of restrictionist ideology and rhetoric worries experts such as Mayo.

"There's definitely an ebb and flow of extremism. I think what's different now, what we sense in terms of those of us who do this work of looking at extremism, is that there is more mainstreaming of extremist ideas," said Mayo.

"And what do we mean by that? We mean that you have elected officials and public figures like media personalities promoting things like the Great Replacement Theory, or promoting conspiracy theories about all sorts of things that are current right now, whether it's the 2020 election, COVID or any one of a number of other things."

And Mueller said that rhetoric is "inexorably tied" to political violence such as racially motivated mass shootings at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018, an El Paso, Texas, Walmart in 2019 and a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket in 2022.

"First and foremost is, if you look at the white nationalists, especially the violent white nationalists who left manifestos, they talk about [invasion and Great Replacement] as the same thing," said Mueller.

Though Mayo warned against blaming public figures for the actions of violent extremists, she said large public platforms do carry inherent risks.

"People who speak about immigration have to be aware that the language or the rhetoric they use that demonize immigrants who come here for a variety of reasons, that those words will have an impact. And sometimes you can't predict who might take it further, but it does have an impact."

In a letter led by Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Reps. Joaquín Castro (Texas) and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), the Democrats asked Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to speed up implementation of a proposed rule to that effect that the Biden administration rolled out in April.

"Despite living in the United States for most of their lives and meeting strict and extensive requirements to obtain deferred action, DACA recipients, who meet other program eligibility criteria, remain ineligible for federally funded health coverage," wrote the lawmakers.

"As a result, DACA recipients are uninsured at three to five times the rate of the general population." 

Castro and Booker have previously led similar efforts, including a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in November asking for Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) access for DACA recipients.

Both Becerra and Brooks-LaSure lauded the proposal when it was introduced in April.

“Every day, nearly 580,000 DACA recipients wake up and serve their communities, often working in essential roles and making tremendous contributions to our country. They deserve access to health care, which will provide them with peace of mind and security,” Becerra said at the time.

The proposed rule would allow DACA beneficiaries to be considered as "lawfully present" in the United States to access some Medicaid and CHIP, Health Insurance Marketplaces and the Basic Health Program, both benefits created by the ACA.

To access ACA benefits, foreign nationals in the United States must be considered lawfully present in the country; other deferred action programs such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) qualify for such health care effects.

DACA beneficiaries, also known as Dreamers, are undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors and registered for the program, receiving work permits, deferral from deportation and in some cases advanced parole to travel abroad.

In that sense, DACA offers benefits equivalent to the other programs, with the exception of access to key health care programs.

DACA beneficiaries are also excluded from CHIP and most aspects of Medicaid, unlike recipients of TPS and DED.

"In defining eligibility for these populations, HHS appropriately included recipients of deferred action, consistent with longstanding federal policies for Social Security benefits and driver’s licenses under the REAL ID Act. However, when the DACA program was created, HHS excluded its recipients from health coverage. It is long past time to reverse this exclusive, and harmful policy," wrote the lawmakers.

Those disparities spill over into other aspects of DACA recipients' lives, according to the lawmakers.

"As eighty percent of the DACA recipients who do have health care coverage receive it through their employer, DACA recipients are vulnerable to losing their health insurance, as health care access is largely based on their ability to access job opportunities," they wrote.

"Consequently, DACA recipients often do not have the flexibility to pursue different career opportunities, including starting new businesses or participating in continuing education."

And the lawmakers said that excluding DACA beneficiaries from those health care programs also carries broader societal costs, in part because "a large portion of DACA recipients are medical and health professional students."

"Their access to health care during their education is vital to growing the health care workforce," they said.

The lawmakers' letter, which was included as a public comment to the proposed rule, calls for DACA beneficiaries to be able to enroll in the health programs as of November 1, 2023.

If the rule is implemented, DACA recipients will have a 60-day special enrollment period starting on the effective date of the final rule.

—Updated at 5:44 p.m.

Bold PAC is releasing the platform periodically, focusing on different topics of interest to Latinos.

The platform, Bold Translate, has launched a limited test with messaging about jobs and went online Friday with a module focused on reproductive rights and abortion in commemoration of the first anniversary of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal right to an abortion.

"The economy and certainly reproductive health care and choice are two incredibly important things. One of the reasons we have rolled this out so early is our intention is to be able to cover lots of incredibly important political topics throughout the cycle," said Victoria McGroary, the executive director of Bold PAC.

Each online module of Bold Translate includes a glossary of commonly used terms for any one campaign issue and examples of the best Spanish-language translations to use in Democratic messaging.

The section on jobs, for instance, directs campaigns on how best to refer to the terms "jobs," "wages," "unemployment," "decreased," and "leisure & hospitality."

Each term has examples of phrasing Bold PAC suggests campaigns should use — and others to avoid. Generally speaking, the suggestions to avoid include commonly used erroneous translations, regional slang terms and jargon.

The goal, according to McGroary, is to avoid the sorts of translations that result from bad use of online tools or bilingual dictionaries.

"When people are translating, often, they try one-to-one, 'Let's take this word, and what does it mean?" McGroary said.

"That's not how we need to do this. And so here we're just trying to make sure that everyone can understand what is trying to be communicated."

Because it's a national toolkit aimed at messaging clarity, Bold Translate is a deviation from Bold PAC's usual practice of aggressively adopting regionalisms to microtarget bilingual and Spanish-speaking voters of different national origins.

"We wanted to take a little bit more of a of a wider lens in that respect, but of course, we would always advocate for … microtargeting," McGroary said.

Beyond the glossary, the toolkit includes topical messaging guidance in English and relevant data points.

The abortion package, for instance, tells campaigns to explain the impact the Supreme Court decision that overturned the federal right to abortion has on Latinas and to "emphasize that Latinas already face several barriers to accessing safe, free abortion and reproductive health care."

Bold PAC plans to periodically release guidance on other relevant issues, and it has not set a ceiling on how expansive the toolkit could become, according to McGroary.

"The goal here is at the end of this cycle, we will have a series of issues, the sort of top issues that matter to people that affect them in their daily lives," McGroary said.

"This will be sort of a communication one-on-one and anyone could take these toolkits and know generally what are the issues that matter here, but also, more specifically, then how do we speak with Latinos about those?"

McGroary added she's not concerned that Republicans will also have access to this publicly available information.

“We aren't worried about Republicans using the right words to communicate their bad ideas," she said.

"We are focused on making sure our people can communicate all the good we're doing."

In an 8-1 decision, the court determined the two states lacked the standing to sue over one of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) earliest directives.

“The States essentially want the Federal Judiciary to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

“But this Court has long held ‘that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’”

The suit from Texas and Louisiana challenged the DHS’s immigration enforcement policies, which includes guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to prioritize certain immigrants for detention and deportation. The policy urges agents to focus on the most serious and violent crimes.

“We applaud the Supreme Court’s ruling. DHS looks forward to reinstituting these Guidelines, which had been effectively applied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to focus limited resources and enforcement actions on those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security. The Guidelines enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in response.

The policy, designed to diminish the collateral damage of heavy policing on immigrant communities, was met with ire on the right.

In their lawsuit, Texas and Louisiana claimed the Biden administration policy caused direct harm because of increased costs for social services, including health care and education.

The states also accused the administration of failing to enforce immigration laws Congress had enacted designed to “deal with increasing rates of criminal activity” by immigrants.

But Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices, wrote that granting the states' demands would have far-reaching consequences beyond immigration law.

"If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws—whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like," wrote Kavanaugh. 

"We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path."

Lower courts had ruled in favor of Texas and Louisiana, endorsing their claims of undue costs related to the administration's selective enforcement policy.

In a solo dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito excoriated the majority's reasoning and sided with the lower courts.

"The District Court’s factual findings, which must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, quantified the cost of criminal supervision of aliens who should have been held in DHS custody and also identified other burdens that Texas had borne and would continue to bear going forward," wrote Alito.

"These findings sufficed to establish a concrete injury that was specific to Texas."

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Amy Coney-Barrett and Clarence Thomas, agreed that the states proved the administration's immigration policies increased costs to them, but argued that the lower courts' remedy wouldn't fix that problem.

"The States proved that the Guidelines increase the number of aliens with criminal convictions and final orders of removal released into the States. They also proved that, as a result, they spend more money on everything from law enforcement to healthcare," Gorsuch wrote.

He added that the states faced a problem of redressability, meaning a ruling favorable to Texas and Louisiana would not remedy those injuries.

An injunction directing federal officials to detain immigrants according to the states' interpretation of the statute would stand a better chance, Gorsuch wrote, but lower courts are barred by law from issuing such injunctions.

"Put simply, the remedy that would ordinarily have the best chance of redressing the states’ harms is a forbidden one in this case," he wrote.

Barrett also wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch, in which she agreed the states lacked standing because of redressability, and questioned the majority's legal reasoning.

Updated at 1:17 p.m.