PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s Republican-controlled state legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to a proposal that would ask voters to criminalize the entry of noncitizens through Mexico at any location other than a port of entry, setting up a vote on the bill on Nov. 5.
The vote came after President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced plans to limit the number of asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border, saying “this action will help regain control of our border and restore order to the process.”
Arizona’s proposal, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 31 to 29, would allow state and local police to arrest people crossing the border without authorization. It would also give the state’s judges the power to order convicted people to return to their country of origin.
The proposal bypasses Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who vetoed a similar measure in early March and condemned efforts to put the issue before voters.
Hobbs spoke out against the passage of the bill, saying: “The extremists in Parliament have chosen to prioritize their political agendas over finding real solutions.”
She said the bill will “hurt Arizona businesses, send jobs overseas, make it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs, and break the state budget. It will not secure our border.”
House Republicans closed access to the chamber’s upper gallery before the session began on Tuesday, fearing security concerns and potential disruption. The move drew immediate criticism from Democrats, who called for the gallery to be reopened.
The members of the House of Representatives voted along party lines: all Republicans voted for the proposal and all Democrats voted against it.
Supporters of the bill said it was necessary to ensure security along the state’s southern border and that Arizona voters should be given the opportunity to decide the issue for themselves.
“When the federal government fails, the state must step in,” said Republican Rep. Timothy Dunn, who grew up in Yuma, Arizona, near the Mexican border.
Opponents called the law unconstitutional, saying it would lead to ethnic profiling and create millions of dollars in additional police costs that cities, counties and the state of Arizona could ill afford.
Democratic state Rep. Analise Ortiz, whose family has lived in the United States for generations, said that under the law, “my brown skin color could allow a police officer to stop me on suspicion in the state where I was born.”
The bill will go to voters in a state that is expected to play a crucial role in deciding which party controls the White House and the U.S. Senate – Arizona is expected to be a neck-and-neck race. Republicans hope the bill will draw attention to the border, which they accuse Biden of mismanaging, and will blunt the political gains Democrats hope to gain from an expected abortion rights initiative.
The unrest at the border is a key motivator for many Republican voters, whom former President Donald Trump hopes will turn out in enormous numbers. Immigration also worries highly educated suburban voters who abandoned Republicans under Trump and favored the rise of Democrats in Arizona.
The proposal is similar to a Texas law that was put on hold by a federal appeals court while it was being challenged.
Although federal law already prohibits migrants from entering the U.S. without authorization, supporters of the measure say it is necessary because the federal government has not done enough to stop people from entering illegally across Arizona’s extensive, porous border with Mexico. They also said some people who enter Arizona without authorization commit identity theft and utilize public benefits.
Opponents say the proposal would burden the state with modern costs from law enforcement agencies that have no experience with immigration law and would damage Arizona’s reputation in the business community.
Supporters 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 include geographic restrictions on enforcement.
The ballot proposal includes other provisions not in the Texas bill that are not directly related to immigration, including making the sale of fentanyl that results in a person’s death a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and requiring some government agencies to utilize a federal database to verify noncitizens’ eligibility for welfare benefits.
Opponents warned of potential legal costs, pointing to Arizona’s 2005 immigration smuggling ban, which then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio used to conduct 20 large-scale traffic stops that specifically targeted immigrants, leading to a 2013 racial discrimination verdict 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 violating border crossing rules would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. State judges could order those convicted to return to their country of origin after serving a prison sentence. However, courts would also have the ability to dismiss cases if those arrested agree to return.
This measure would require the State’s correctional authority to detain persons accused or convicted on this basis when local or regional law enforcement authorities do not have the necessary capacity to accommodate them.
The proposal provides for exceptions for people to whom the federal government has granted legal residence status or asylum.
This is not the first time Republican lawmakers in Arizona have tried to criminalize migration.
When the Arizona legislature passed its immigration bill in 2010, it considered expanding the trespassing law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the trespassing language was removed and replaced with a requirement that officials enforcing other laws must question the immigration status of people believed to be in the country illegally.
Despite critics’ concerns about racial discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the survey requirement. However, the courts barred enforcement of other parts of the law.
———
Associated Press writer Jonathan J. Cooper contributed to reporting.
