A controversial Texas immigration law allowing state police to arrest and deport people suspected of unlawfully crossing from the Mexican border awaits constitutional review — but that hasn’t stopped other states like Oklahoma, Iowa and Arizona from proposing similar rules.

Texas’ SB 4, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in December, received vehement opposition from civil rights groups, who sued to stop the legislation from becoming effective in March. Civil rights advocates have long opposed laws like these, calling them unconstitutional and contradictory to and an attempt to bypass federal immigration policy.

In May, the ACLU of Oklahoma, the National Immigration Law Center and the law firm Rivas & Associates filed a lawsuit on behalf of Padres Unidos, a grassroots community support system based in Tulsa, opposing House Bill 4156. Modeled after the Texas law, it was set to take effect on July 1 but a court ordered a pause.

“This is a … testament to the resilience of the Oklahoma immigrant community, who stood up against one of the most anti-immigrant laws ever passed in the state,” said Nicholas Espíritu, the deputy legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, in a statement. “The federal courts have been clear that HB 4156, like similar laws in Texas and Iowa, is unconstitutional.”

In early June, Arizona legislators passed a ballot referral immigration bill for voters to decide in November whether it should be a state crime to cross from Mexico without authorization and allow local law enforcement to arrest people they believe are in the country illegally.

Arizona’s proposed law, HCR 2060, would grant immunity to local government and police officials during its enforcement. The bill doesn’t specify any age restrictions or exempt locations like schools, hospitals and places of worship. Civil rights advocates worry that it and similar laws would lead to racial profiling of marginalized people.

Migrant advocates said the new rules “could be easily weaponized against communities of color” and are reminiscent of Arizona’s infamous “show your papers” law enacted in 2010. According to the ACLU, it would disrupt the asylum process for people escaping persecution in their countries and would require state officials to detain immigrants in county jails.

“If approved at the ballot in November, HCR 2060 would pose similar risks of racial profiling, harassment, and arrest of long-time Arizona residents,” Noah Schramm, the border policy strategist for the ACLU of Arizona, said early June.

“If the goal of HCR 2060′s proponents was to frighten communities of color across the state, threaten the separation and incarceration of families at the border and otherwise cast Arizona as a deeply unwelcoming place for immigrants, they may well have succeeded,” he added.

Days later, the ACLU and immigrants rights groups in Arizona announced a lawsuit against the “sweeping unconstitutional, anti-immigrant measure.”

A federal court issued an injunction on a similar immigration law in Iowa later that month. Senate File 2340 – which the ACLU described as “one of the worst immigration laws ever passed in Iowa history” – allowed police to arrest people based on their status and judges to jail or deport residents believed to be non-citizens. The legislation was signed into law in April and would have gone into effect on July 1.

“Sadly, we are still seeing copycat laws and proposed measures that would cause irreparable harm for immigrant families, including in Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma,” said Emma Winger, the deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, in a statement. “These types of laws create absolute chaos and human suffering and have no place in our legal system.”