PHOENIX — Arizona would step directly into immigration enforcement, making it a state crime to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere but a port of entry, under a proposal that will be voted on for final by lawmakers on Tuesday. If approved, voters will decide in November whether the measure will become law.
The measure, set for a vote in the Arizona House, 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 was suspended by a federal appeals court while it was challenged. O Arizona Senate approved the proposal on a party-line vote of 16-13. If passed in the House, the proposal would bypass Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who vetoed a similar proposal in early March and will instead be sent to a vote on November 5th.
Although federal law already prohibits unauthorized entry of migrants into the U.S., supporters of the measure say it is necessary because the federal government has not done enough to stop people from illegally crossing Arizona’s vast and porous border with Mexico. They also said 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 law, and harm Arizona’s reputation in the business world.
Supporters of the proposed ballot measure dismissed concerns about racial profiling, saying local authorities would still have to develop probable cause to arrest people entering Arizona outside ports of entry.
Supporters also say the measure focuses only on the state’s border region and — unlike Arizona’s landmark 2010 immigration law — does not target people across the state. Opponents point out that the proposal does not contain any geographic limitations on where it can be applied within the state.
The ballot proposal 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 leads to a person’s death, and a requirement that government agencies that administer benefit programs use a federal database to verify a person’s eligibility. non-citizen for benefits.
Warning about potential legal costs, opponents pointed to Arizona’s 2005 ban on immigrant smuggling, which was used by then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to conduct 20 large-scale traffic patrols that targeted immigrants. This led to a racial discrimination ruling in 2013 and taxpayer-funded legal and compliance costs that now total $265 million and are expected to reach US$314 million until July 2025.
Under the current proposal, a first-time conviction under the border crossing clause would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. State judges could order people to return to their home countries after completing a period of incarceration, although courts had the power to dismiss cases if detainees agreed to return home.
The measure would require the state corrections department to take into custody 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 legal presence or asylum status by the federal government.
The provision allowing the detention of people crossing the border between ports will not take effect until the Texas law or similar laws in other states take effect for 60 days.
This is not the first time that Republican lawmakers in Arizona have attempted to criminalize migrants who are not authorized to remain in the United States.
In passing its 2010 immigration bill, the Arizona Legislature considered expanding the state’s trespassing law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the infringing language was removed and replaced with a requirement that officials, 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 the courts prohibited the application of other sections of the law.
