PHOENIX (KeynoteUSA) — Arizona would directly intervene in immigration enforcement by making it a state crime to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere except a port of entry, under a proposal that will be put to a final vote by the lawmakers on Tuesday. If approved, voters would decide in November whether the measure becomes law.
The measure, scheduled for a vote in the Arizona House of Representatives, would allow state and local police to arrest people who cross the border without authorization. It would also empower state judges to order people convicted of the crime to return to their home country.
The proposal is similar to a Texas law that a federal appeals court has put on hold while it is challenged. The Arizona Senate approved the proposal on a 16-13 party vote. If passed by the House, the proposal would bypass Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who vetoed a similar proposal in early March, and instead be sent to the Nov. 5 vote.
While federal law already prohibits unauthorized entry of immigrants into the United States, advocates of the measure say it is necessary because the federal government has not done enough to stop people from illegally crossing Arizona’s vast, porous border with Mexico. They also said that some people who enter Arizona without authorization commit identity theft and take advantage of public benefits.
Opponents say the proposal would inevitably lead to racial profiling by police and burden the state with new costs from law enforcement agencies that have no experience with immigration laws, in addition to damaging Arizona’s reputation in the business world. .
Supporters of the proposed ballot measure dismissed concerns about racial profiling, saying local officers would still have to develop probable cause to arrest people entering Arizona outside of ports of entry.
Supporters also say the measure focuses solely on the state’s border region and, unlike Arizona’s landmark 2010 immigration law, does not target people statewide. Opponents point out that the proposal does not contain any geographic limitations on where it can apply within the state.
The ballot measure contains other provisions that are not included in the Texas measure and are not directly related to immigration. These include making it a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison for selling fentanyl that causes the death of a person, and requiring government agencies that administer benefit programs to use a federal database to verify eligibility. of a noncitizen to receive benefits.
Warning of potential legal costs, opponents pointed to Arizona’s 2005 immigrant smuggling ban used by then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to conduct 20 large-scale traffic patrols targeting immigrants. That led to a racial discrimination verdict in 2013 and taxpayer-funded legal and compliance costs that now total $265 million and are expected to reach $314 million by July 2025.
Under the current proposal, a first-time conviction for the border crossing provision would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. State judges could order people to return to their home countries after completing a period of incarceration, although courts would have the power to dismiss cases if those arrested agree to return home.
The measure would require the state corrections department to detain people charged or convicted under the measure if local or county law enforcement agencies do not have enough space to house them.
The proposal includes exceptions for people who have been granted lawful presence status or asylum by the federal government.
The provision allowing arrests of border crossers between ports would not take effect until the Texas law or similar laws in other states have been in effect for 60 days.
This is not the first time that Republican lawmakers in Arizona have attempted to criminalize immigrants who are not authorized to be in the United States.
In passing its 2010 immigration bill, the Arizona Legislature considered expanding the state’s trespass law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the trespassing language was removed and replaced with a requirement that agents, while enforcing other laws, question people’s immigration status if they are believed to be in the country illegally.
The interrogation requirement was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court despite critics’ concerns about racial profiling, but courts barred application of other sections of the law.
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.