State Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (D-McAllen) faces scrutiny for supporting three controversial measures—SJR 1, SJR 5, and SB 9. Critics argue these bills could expand immigrant detention, increase racial profiling, and heighten criminalization in Latino communities.
According to sources within the Rio Grande Valley (RGV), concerns are growing over how these policies may impact the region.
“For years, the Rio Grande Valley has been on the frontlines of the immigration fight, but instead of standing up for their communities, some of our most visible Latino leaders are playing politics with immigrant lives,” an anonymous source within the RGV community told RA News. “Senator Chuy Hinojosa has long positioned himself as a leader in the RGV, but when it comes to immigration and criminal justice, he has left our community behind.”
This sentiment is echoed by advocates who warn that this legislation will deepen the criminalization of Latino communities
“It’s a very trendy thing for South Texas legislators to stand on a more centrist position, and Mr. Hinojosa has kind of spearheaded that. He’s one of the oldest elected leaders we have down here, and I consider it pretty hypocritical. The region has a history of immigrants—immigrants have shaped our realities down here. And I think Mr. Hinojosa is remiss on this specific stance. He’s messed up because he’s forgotten about the people and the places that have shaped this entire community,” said Michelle Serrano, co-director for Voces Unidas.
RGV Leaders Face Crucial Decisions
Sen. Hinojosa, a long-time RGV State Senator, has publicly supported SJR 1. During a Senate floor debate, he stated that undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes pose a public safety concern.
“Thankfully, we as public officials and senators owe a duty to protect our citizens from violent criminals who are in this country illegally,” Hinojosa said. He also emphasized the importance of law enforcement collaboration with federal immigration authorities.
In a press release following the passage of the bill, Hinojosa said: “These bills are important to help keep dangerous and violent criminals from being released into our communities on improper bonds, where they could potentially commit more crimes.”
However, the legislation extends beyond denying bail to those accused of violent offenses. Under SJR1, also known as Jocelyn’s law, bail cannot be granted to individuals charged with any felony if they meet the state’s definition of an “illegal alien,” as determined by a judge. Critics argue this provision could result in the pretrial detention of nonviolent offenders and raises concerns about due process.
SJR 5 and SB 9 introduce additional restrictions. SJR 5 expands judicial discretion to deny bail for individuals accused of certain violent crimes, but critics argue that its broad definition of “violent offense” may disproportionately impact communities of color. SB 9 further limits judicial discretion by restricting the use of personal recognizance bonds, which could increase pretrial detention for individuals facing low-level offenses.
“I don’t think that South Texas, especially the Rio Grande Valley, supports that further villainization of our community members, and it’s just regretful that this bill is even being debated to begin with,” said Serrano when asked about SB9.
Senator Sarah Eckhardt (D-Austin) and other opponents of these measures have raised concerns about their impact on incarceration rates and costs to local taxpayers, who will now have to bear the cost of housing more people in their county jails that are generally meant to detain high-risk defendants.
While the Texas Senate has moved forward with SJR 1, members of the Texas House from the RGV have yet to take clear positions. Some community members are watching to see whether House members will follow Hinojosa’s lead or oppose the measures.
“We have leaders in the House who are all watching if they’re going to sell out or if they have the backbone to speak for us. You’re not just representing money interests, but also the people in our community,” an anonymous source told RA News.
These concerns aren’t limited to state legislation. Congressman Henry Cuellar, who recently voted in favor of the Laken Riley Act, is facing similar criticism for siding with policies that target immigrant communities. Just as Hinojosa’s support for this state legislation has sparked backlash, Cuellar’s vote has raised questions about whether he is prioritizing his constituents or monied interests.
Adding to these concerns, Rep. Cuellar is also under scrutiny following his recent indictment on bribery and money laundering charges. The U.S. Department of Justice alleges that Cuellar accepted $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities. While he has denied the charges, the case has raised additional questions about political accountability to the community in the region.
Historical Parallels and Policy Implications
A recent article by The Guardian has drawn comparisons between legislative efforts in the nation and past policies affecting Latino communities. The comparison is drawn with Operation Wetback, launched in 1954 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was a mass deportation campaign targeting undocumented Mexican laborers.
Using military-style tactics, border patrol agents raided farms and factories, expelling an estimated 300,000 to 1 million people. Historians note that while the program removed large numbers of immigrants, it also allowed some deportees to return legally through the Bracero program, creating a temporary labor pathway—something absent from Trump’s hardline immigration stance.
Mass deportations also had negative economic consequences. Rather than safeguarding jobs for white Americans, the removal of Mexican workers in the 1930s may have actually worsened unemployment and driven down wages, according to a 2017 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mae Ngai, a historian of immigration policy, told The Guardian that while Trump’s vision of expelling millions may be unrealistic, his rhetoric alone could instill widespread fear and destabilize immigrant communities.
What’s Next?
The fate of these bills now rests with the Texas House. If SJR 5 passes, it will be placed on the ballot for Texas voters in the November 4, 2025, statewide election. SJR 1 and SB 9 are also awaiting further action in the House following their Senate approval on February 20, 2025.
Community advocates continue to urge South Texas lawmakers to oppose these measures. Some argue that instead of stricter enforcement policies, leaders should consider alternatives such as the Migration Stabilization Act, which focuses on addressing immigration issues through a more community-centered approach.
Meanwhile, SB 4, a 2023 law allowing Texas police to arrest individuals suspected of crossing the border illegally, remains a point of contention. The law has faced legal challenges, with a federal appeals court temporarily blocking its enforcement. Advocates warn that SB 4 could lead to racial profiling and increased incarceration rates.
As legislative debates continue, Latino leaders in the RGV face increasing pressure to clarify their positions. Observers say their decisions in the coming weeks could have significant implications for public safety, immigration enforcement, and the broader political landscape in Texas.
