SEARCH RESULTS.

Critics of the House Concurrent Resolution aimed at stopping illegal border crossings say it will encourage police to rely on racial profiling to make arrests. By Joe Duhownik, Courthouse News PHOENIX (CN) — Arizona’s House of Representatives gave the final push to a controversial voter resolution that would establish illegal border entry as a state crime. Critics say the concurrent resolution, if supported by voters in November, would violate the U.S. Constitution and encourage local police to rely on racial profiling to enforce. The resolution passed on a party-line vote, 31-29, with Republicans in favor. Rather than go to the governor, who would most likely veto the measure, the resolution will be sent to the general election ballot in November for a vote. House Speaker Ben Toma said after the vote that he’s unsure what the campaign to encourage voters to support the measure will look like, but “there will be an effort.” “It’s a very divided year given all the partisanship that happens, but when you’re talking to average voters, they understand this is actually a border security issue first and foremost and a border security bill more than it is an immigration bill,” Toma said. In addition to making federal border crossing laws legal at the state level, House Concurrent Resolution 2060, sponsored by Toma, would make it a state crime to submit false citizenship or employment documents to a state agency or employer, and establish “lethal sale of fentanyl” as a state felony. Democrats say the broad range of actions the provision proposes violates the single-subject provision of the state constitution, but Toma, a Republican from Peoria, said that won’t be an issue. Republicans in both the House and the Senate repeatedly link the state’s fentanyl crisis to immigration, even though most fentanyl in the U.S. is trafficked by U.S. citizens, not immigrants. Opponents say the resolution will encourage police to rely on racial profiling because, aside from witnessing a crossing firsthand, an officer wouldn’t have probable cause to assume one crossed the border outside a legal port of entry. They also say it would violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution by enforcing federal laws at the state level. The resolution language is based on a bill recently passed by the Texas Legislature, which is now caught up in federal court fighting the same claims. If passed by voters, Arizona’s resolution will only take effect if Texas’ bill survives federal court. Democrats said Tuesday that the job of policing the border should be left to the federal government. Republican state Representative John Gillette agreed that the federal government should be doing more. “But is the federal government doing its job?” he asked. “Absolutely not.” He chided Democrats for downplaying the humanitarian crisis on the border while not going down to visit themselves. Republican state Representative Teresa Martinez of Casa Grande described the violence and exploitation those crossing the border often face, calling it “a dangerous place.” State Representative Matt Gress, a Republican from Phoenix, added that in the last year, 194 people apprehended at the border were found to be on the U.S. terrorist watch list. "How many more women and children must be sex trafficked?” Gress asked. “House Concurrent Resolution 2060 gives us the opportunity to make a change.” House Democrats repeatedly called the measure an “unfunded mandate” that would require a huge increase in resources that most sheriff’s departments and city police agencies don’t have. “I stand with local police asking where is the funding for this?” Democratic state Representative Judy Schwiebert said. Republicans dismissed the concern, saying any amount of money is enough to end the violence they say stems from permissive border policy. While explaining their votes, Republicans rattled off violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to drive their point home. Yet most research suggests that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than U.S. citizens. Activists with the nonprofit Living United for Change in Arizona were noticeably absent from Tuesday’s floor session — they have been present for each action taken on the resolution so far, but House Republicans decided to close the gallery to the public in response to a loud interruption in the Senate two weeks ago protesting the vote on this same resolution. “Due to security concerns prompted by the shameful and illegally disruptive conduct by Democrats and their leftist allies, the House gallery is not open today,” House Republicans posted on X, formerly Twitter, as the floor session was called into order. Democrats unsuccessfully motioned to overturn the ruling and open the gallery. “This is the people’s House,” Democratic state Representative Analise Ortiz said in protest. “It’s hypocritical to start each day with ‘welcome to your House’ and then not allow people in.” Members of the public were allowed to watch the floor session on televisions in various committee hearing rooms. Link to original article: https://www.courthousenews.com/controversial-immigration-resolution-to-go-to-arizona-voters/

A controversial proposal to give local and state police the power to enforce immigration law will appear on Arizona ballots this fall after Republicans at the state legislature voted in favor of the proposal against opposition from Democrats, Latino rights groups and the business community. By Wayne Schutsky & Camryn Sanchez, Fronteras Desk Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives approved HCR 2060 Tuesday, two weeks after the Senate approved the measure on a party-line vote. If approved by voters, it would make it a state crime to enter Arizona from Mexico outside of a designated port of entry, something that’s already illegal under federal law, but can’t be locally enforced. House Republicans closed the public gallery prior to the vote, instead requiring members of the public to watch the debate on televisions in separate rooms. Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert) pointed to security concerns, citing protests that disrupted a Senate hearing on the same bill. But critics said that’s a double standard, pointing to raucous conduct by people opposed to a repeal of the state’s near-total abortion ban who were allowed to stay in the gallery in May. HCR 2060  is similar to a bill passed by Republicans earlier this year that was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, but the new ballot referral will bypass Hobbs’ veto pen and go directly to voters on the Nov. 5 ballot. Both HCR 2060 and the vetoed legislation were modeled after Texas’ SB4, which is currently blocked from going into effect as it faces a pending legal challenge. Republican lawmakers said the measure is necessary to stem the flow of immigrants crossing the border illegally in the face of federal inaction. The vote came the same day President Joe Biden issued an executive order that will temporarily block migrants who attempt to cross the border illegally from seeking asylum once the amount of daily crossings meets a preset threshold. Biden lobbied blame at Republicans in Congress for not taking more action on the border. “The current situation is also the direct result of the Congress’s failure to update an immigration and asylum system that is simply broken — and not equipped to meet current needs,” he stated in a proclamation. Arizona state Rep. Analise Ortiz consults with House Minority Leader Lupe Contreras after House Speaker Pro-tem Travis Grantham cut her off when she complained about the decision not to allow spectators in the House gallery But Republicans said the state law is necessary despite that action. “But it’s three and half years too late,” House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci (R-Lake Havasu City) said. “The federal government has been failing to do the job that they have promised to do to protect our border.” The legislation faced stiff opposition from Democrats, who said it is not the state’s job to police the border. They called HCR 2060 an ineffective solution to the problem that will drain the state’s budget and harm minority communities. “I can assure you that HCR 2060 is not a solution,” said Rep. Marianna Sandoval (D-Goodyear). “It’s … election year politics.” Democratic lawmakers, activists and business leaders compared the legislation to the controversial SB 1070 that was passed over a decade ago and partially overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they believe that, like SB 1070, HCR 2060 would be used to illegally profile minority residents, a concern Republicans said they addressed by including language in the measure requiring law enforcement to have probable cause that a person crossed the border illegally. And business groups, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, said the state should leave immigration enforcement to the federal government, warning the legislation could be a black eye for the state. “I am an immigrant,” said House Speaker Ben Toma (R-Peoria). “This is not anti-immigrant. This is anti-lawlessness. It’s about securing our border, because the federal government has failed to do their job.” HCR 2060 goes beyond criminalizing illegal border crossings in state law. It also includes enhanced penalties for persons found guilty of selling fentanyl that causes the death of another person and those that submit fraudulent paperwork in order to obtain public benefits or evade the federal E-verify system, which verifies an individual’s legal status to work in the U.S. The benefits and employment clauses are remnants of legislation crafted by Toma, which did not deal with illegal border crossings. Beyond those policy concerns, critics also said the way HCR 2060 is constructed poses serious concerns. They say it could violate the Arizona and U.S. constitutions and lead to costly litigation. They said the measure could also violate an Arizona Constitutional provision that requires ballot referrals to cover a single subject, because it lumps border and immigration measures together with legislation targeting fentanyl trafficking. “Instead, [HCR] 2060 embraces a hodgepodge of disparate subjects, including employment verification; immigration law, immigration enforcement; sentencing for drug crimes; laws related to city, town and county administration of public benefits; and the legislature's right to intervene in lawsuits.” said House Assistant Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos (D-Laveen). LUCHA, a Latino rights group that opposed HCR 2060, said it will hold a press conference outside of the Arizona Supreme Court tomorrow to announce plans to file a lawsuit challenging the measure. “HCR 2060 is a right-wing extremist wish list cobbled together from a variety of previously rejected individual pieces of legislation. It covers everything from an imagined invasion of the state to criminal drug charges to regulating employment. It most certainly embraces more than a single subject. Arizonans against hatred and extremism will have their day in court,” LUCHA attorney Jim Barton said in a statement. There is also the argument that it violates the Supremacy Clause, giving federal law supremacy when it comes into conflict with state statutes. Much like SB 4, Democrats said HCR 2060 would lead to legal challenges, because immigration enforcement is the purview of the federal government. But Republicans brushed off that concern, citing a clause that says the portion of the ballot referral dealing with border crossings can not actually be enforced until SB4 or similar legislation has been in effect for at least 60 days. And then there is the cost. The state is currently facing an estimated $1.3 billion budget deficit, and opponents said HCR 2060 is an “unfunded mandate” that will either drain state or local coffers. The state Department of Corrections, which would have to incarcerate people arrested or convicted under the law, estimated it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fulfill its duties under the law, though Republicans argued any costs to the state would pale in comparison to the costs it currently incurs dealing with the effects of unauthorized border crossings. The legislature’s own budget analysts estimated HCR 2060 would increase spending for arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations and could reduce state and local tax collections, though they declined to attach a specific cost. And even supporters like Yavapai County Sheriff Sheriff David Rhodes said the legislature would have to approve new money to fund local enforcement if voters approve the measures. De Los Santos said those costs constitute “mandatory expenditures.” The state Constitution requires that ballot referrals that include those expenditures must identify a funding source. But Toma, the House Speaker, said those costs will be offset by the money the state saves by reducing illegal border crossings, citing a report by the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform presented to the U.S. House Budget Committee that found illegal immigration costs the state over $3 billion annually. “We're saving billions of dollars,” he said. “So often we do that when there's an offset, and it's clearly an offset.” Republicans have yet to explain how the state would facilitate a provision allowing those arrested under the legislation to self-deport to their home country instead of face jail time. “That would be up to the courts to decide, but presumably they would be sent back to Mexico,” Toma said. However, at the pressing of Sen. Ken Bennett (R-Prescott), Republicans had modified the law to allow a court to order a person returned to the country from which they entered – Mexico – or the person’s “nation of origin.” And, as Republicans repeatedly pointed out, many of the individuals crossing Arizona’s border with Mexico are from dozens of other countries around the world. All those concerns, critics said, mean HCR 2060 is not something lawmakers should be sending to voters due to legal protections that make it difficult to update or repeal legislation that receives voter approval. “I’ve said it before and I will say it again: HCR 2060 will hurt Arizona businesses, send jobs out of state, make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs, and bust the state’s budget. It will not secure our border,” Hobbs said in a statement shortly after the bill passed. And some critics have already committed to organizing a campaign to defeat HCR 2060 at the ballot. Alejandra Gomez, LUCHA’s executive director, said earlier this year that the group plans to knock on “1 million doors” this year to convince voters to oppose the measure. Toma said he is not yet sure who will spearhead the campaign to convince voters to approve the measure, but “I think this is going to pass even without much of a funding source on this.” Link to original article: https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1881800/arizona-gop-border-security-measure-will-be-november-ballot-after-state-house-vote

Critics assailed the proposal for being anti-immigrant, damaging to the economy and unconstitutional By Gloria Gomez, Arizona Mirror Arizona voters will get a chance to decide whether the state should have the ability to enforce immigration law after Republicans in the state legislature OK’d sending a proposal to the November ballot that seeks to grant local police officers and state judges the power to arrest and deport migrants. But there are numerous constitutional questions about the proposal, which the GOP majority in the state House of Representatives approved on Tuesday. Republicans passed House Concurrent Resolution 2060 by a vote of 31-29, while every Democrat voted in opposition. Titled the “Secure the Border Act,” the proposal would make it a state crime for migrants to cross Arizona’s southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry. If voters approve it, a first offense could lead to a class 1 misdemeanor, which carries with it up to 6 months in jail. Repeat border crossers could face greater penalties and longer jail time. Hoping to capitalize on the election year concern with immigration, Republicans touted the proposal as a solution for the state’s recent spike in border crossings. Last year, interactions between migrants and border patrol officials in the Tucson sector, which spans 262 miles, outnumbered every other U.S.-Mexico border sector for five months in a row. Since then, however, encounters have steadily decreased and in April were at 31,219 – a marked difference from 80,184 in December of 2023. The Biden administration is to blame for Arizona’s border troubles, said Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix. “For too long, our southern border has been broken, and it is a disaster because the federal government has failed to do its job,” he said. Left unsaid by Gress and his GOP colleagues, however, is that a bipartisan federal immigration bill was left on the table last year after Republicans in Congress walked away at the request of former President Donald Trump, who has made the border the focal point of his bid to recapture the White House. And just hours before Tuesday’s vote, President Joe Biden issued an executive order drastically overhauling and tightening the country’s asylum policies. Several Republicans sought to cast migrants as dangerous criminals. Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Scottsdale,  read aloud from a list of people he claimed were undocumented and responsible for gruesome crimes, including murder and rape. “This is a federal problem and Arizona needs to take control of it, and we will let the citizens of Arizona vote on this this November to decide how we’re going to handle our own border,” he said. “These folks should not be in our country and they’re making every community in our state more dangerous.” Rep. Alexander Kolodin, likened Arizona’s southern border to the Israel-Hamas conflict, equating migrants with violent terrorists and implying they would destroy Arizona communities. The Scottsdale Republican said that, on a recent trip to a war-torn border town he and other legislators took in March, he was overcome with tears imagining a similar fate for Arizonans. “I was thinking to myself: ‘This is what happens when borders fail.’ And I was seeing a picture in my head of Scottsdale — what I think is the most beautiful place on Earth — in ruins like that,” he said. Democrats, meanwhile, vehemently denounced the proposal, citing opposition from the business community, Latino advocacy groups, and criticism from state and law enforcement officials that it will result in insurmountable costs for Arizona and rampant discrimination if voters greenlight it. Rep. Judy Schwiebert, D-Phoenix, pointed out that HCR2060 includes no funding for the law enforcement agencies who will be responsible for upholding it, despite the fact that most of them are already financially strained. The Arizona Republic recently reported that the Department of Public Safety is struggling with a severe trooper shortage, leaving many rural areas unsupervised at night. And in a legislative analysis released last week, the department estimated it would be forced to set aside $3.8 million every year to comply with the proposal, and it projected that the total costs for law enforcement agencies across the state could be as much as $41 million. “How many robberies and other crimes in local communities will now go uninvestigated, how many crimes will go unreported by immigrants and Latinos who will be too scared to trust law enforcement to protect them?” asked Schwiebert, before voting against the measure. Rep. Quantá Crews, D-Phoenix, sounded the alarm over a provision in the ballot referral that provides legal immunity for police officers who make arrests under it. The legislation expressly gives civil immunity for damages for enforcing the law. While Republican lawmakers have dismissed concerns that the proposal could lead to racial profiling and added a set of criteria for police officers to follow in an attempt to satisfy critics, Democrats and immigrant advocacy groups have remained unimpressed with the continued existence of the blanket legal protection. And the criteria for police officers to make arrests, which requires the officer themselves to witness an unlawful border crossing, video evidence, or other “constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause,” has also been criticized as broad enough to allow for discriminatory arrests. Crews, who is Black, said she has been the victim of racial profiling and said the proposal threatens to shield law enforcement officials with discriminatory motivations from accountability. “Not all law enforcement officers are racist, but law enforcement has been weaponized by racist individuals,” she said. “If this bill is so safe for American citizens, why grant 100% immunity to law enforcement officers? Why does law enforcement need protection if they’re not going to do anything wrong?” Democrats also derided the proposal for its likely unconstitutionality. The proposal, modeled after a Texas law that is currently being litigated but has been blocked because it doesn’t comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws, is merely Arizona’s latest attempt to criminalize being in the country illegally. In 2010, the state’s infamous SB1070 directed local law enforcement to detain suspected undocumented immigrants and turn them over to federal authorities for detention and possible deportation. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled the bulk of that law was unconstitutional because states have no authority to enforce immigration laws. There are also apparent conflicts with the Arizona Constitution, which has strict rules for how ballot referrals and initiatives must be crafted, including requirements that they focus on just one subject and include an independent funding source if they increase state spending. Assistant Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos pointed out that HCR2060 covers a wide range of topics. Along with making it a crime to cross the border between official ports of entry, it also criminalizes undocumented Arizonans who submit false information to apply for jobs or public benefits and it creates an entirely new class of felony to punish people who knowingly sell fentanyl that ends in someone’s death. Republicans have sought to tie each provision together in a lengthy introduction by classifying them as the consequences of an “unsecured border,” but it’s unclear if that argument will hold up in court. De Los Santos was unconvinced. “(HCR)2060 embraces a hodgepodge of disparate subjects, including employee verification, immigration law enforcement, sentencing for drug crimes, laws related to city county and town administration of public benefits and the legislature’s right to intervene in lawsuits,” he said. “Simply put, this cannot conceivably be construed as a single subject.” The Democrat from Laveen added that the proposal also likely violates the state’s constitutional requirement for ballot initiatives to account for funding needs, saying that “not a single sentence, and, in fact, not a single word,” in the proposal addresses how lawmakers intend to cover the costs. Legislative budget analysts and an independent economic analysis each concluded that the measure would cost several hundred million dollars a year to enforce. House Speaker Ben Toma, who has been a key proponent of the legislation, told reporters after the vote that perceived conflicts with the single-subject or constitutional revenue rule are unfounded. The Republican from Glendale defended accusations that the ballot referral will incur hundreds of millions of dollars of costs by claiming that even more will be saved by cutting off undocumented immigrants. “We’re saving billions of dollars,” he said. “There’s clearly an offset.” The Arizona Constitution, however, doesn’t contemplate weighing savings from a ballot measure against the money it demands be spent. The revenue provision, which voters added in 2004, says only that a ballot measure requiring any “mandatory expenditure of state revenues for any purpose” must also “provide for an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the entire immediate and future costs of the proposal.” And that money can’t come from the state’s general operating fund. One Latino advocacy organization, Living United for Change, announced on Tuesday that it plans to take the proposal to court over its single-subject issues. Because an intiative’s compliance with the single-subject requirement has to do with its structure, such a challenge can be launched before voters get a chance to weigh in. “HCR 2060 is a right-wing extremist wish list cobbled together from a variety of previously rejected individual pieces of legislation. It covers everything from an imagined invasion of the state to criminal drug charges to regulating employment,” LUCHA attorney Jim Barton said in an emailed statement. “It most certainly embraces more than a single subject. Arizonans against hatred and extremism will have their day in court.” Republicans barred the public from watching as lawmakers voted on HCR2060 While Republican lawmakers cast their votes in favor of sending the “Secure the Border Act” to the November ballot, and made their case for why it would be beneficial for the state, the third-floor gallery overlooking lawmakers was completely unoccupied. Where audience members would ordinarily sit to watch the legislative process in action, only empty blue seats witnessed proceedings. President Pro Tem Travis Grantham, the Gilbert Republican who was presiding over the floor session, announced when lawmakers convened that the gallery would be closed to the public. He said GOP leaders and House security made that decision in light of what occurred the last time the legislation was considered in the Senate, which he said was “unacceptable.” On May 22, after the upper chamber approved the act, protestors in the gallery erupted into loud criticism, denouncing Republican lawmakers while hurling expletives at them and unveiling a makeshift banner, all in violation of the chamber’s rules, before being ejected. Instead, people who came to the Capitol to watch the vote were sequestered into first-floor hearing rooms, where the proceedings were broadcast on televisions. Democrats, outraged by the decision to shut out the public, attempted to use procedural moves to allow the audience in. Outside, in the building’s lobby, dozens of LUCHA members and Latino advocates lined up to go through security. “The public gallery should be open to the public,” said Rep. Analise Ortiz. “This is the People’s House.” The bid from Democrats to open up the gallery failed after all 31 Republicans voted to debate legislation instead. And an attempt from Ortiz to override that vote was shot down after she angered Grantham when she accused him of shutting out protestors whose views he didn’t agree with. When the legislature held controversial debates around abortion law, the Democrat from Phoenix pointed out, pro-life supporters packed the gallery and were also rowdy and rude to Democrats, but the GOP majority didn’t bar them. “It’s hypocritical to stand up there and say, ‘Welcome to your House’ every day before we start the floor session, and yet close the gallery like we are afraid of the public when they have committed nothing wrong and they have the right to watch us conduct the people’s business,” Ortiz said. “I am sure the chair would not rule the same if they were people who aligned with his views.” Grantham cut Ortiz off and declared that she would no longer be allowed to speak for impugning his motives against the chamber’s rules. Later, Grantham reversed that decision to allow her to explain her vote against the proposal. Toma told reporters afterwards that he had decided to close the chamber to the public because he didn’t agree with activists causing “chaos” in the gallery, likening it to the vocal protest of some Democrats on the House Floor during a push to repeal a territorial-era abortion ban earlier this month. “What has happened before on this floor I am not okay with,” he said. “I don’t care if we disagree on a policy issue, that’s more than fair. Everybody should vote their conscience. That’s fine, we can debate, that’s all good. But to cause chaos, to allow illegal activity to happen on this floor, that’s a no.” Instead, protestors congregated in the chamber’s first floor, clustering around a banner reading, “See you in November.” Chants in Spanish and English, at times vowing resilience and at others excoriating Republican lawmakers, echoed throughout the narrow public lobby as security guards looked on. “Undocumented, unafraid, unashamed!” the group yelled. “We want freedom, freedom! All these racist politicians, we don’t need ‘em!” went another cry. Link to original article: https://azmirror.com/2024/06/04/arizona-voters-will-decide-the-fate-of-the-texas-style-secure-border-act-in-november/

Arizona Republicans want voters to approve a border security measure that mimics a controversial Texas bill. By Arelis Hernandez, The Washington Post Arizona lawmakers voted Tuesday to put a Texas-inspired immigration referendum on the November ballot, the latest effort by Republican state leaders to challenge federal authority on enforcing border security. The measure will ask voters whether they want to direct law enforcement agencies to arrest those who cross illegally. The resolution mimics Texas’s Senate Bill 4 and is similar to a bill recently signed into law in Louisiana. In the past year, the Iowa and Oklahoma legislatures have also enacted laws that mirror parts of the controversial Texas law, which is being challenged in court. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Tennessee, Florida and Georgia adopted measures to more easily penalize and report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. The referendum could have broader political implications in a critical swing state in the presidential election. Republicans are counting on drawing to the polls voters upset over President Biden’s handling of border security, while Democrats believe constituents will see the proposal as extreme. The measure is likely to fire up opposition from the same groups that helped Democrats win big in Arizona in 2020 by standing against another controversial immigration-related state bill. The vote came on the same day that Biden announced new measures blocking migrants’ access to the U.S. asylum system when illegal border crossings reach high levels. “We believe these types of bills are going to galvanize Latino voters to show up at the polls and reject not just this proposal but also the architects of the bill,” said Cesar Fierros, a spokesperson for Living United for Change in Arizona, an immigrant advocacy organization. The group is one of several that challenged Arizona’s controversial “show me your papers” law, or S.B. 1070. The Supreme Court struck down most of the law’s provisions but upheld immigration checks. As proposed, Arizona’s Secure the Border Act will make crossing the border illegally a state crime and allow state judges to order deportations. It also includes new penalties for any undocumented immigrant found fraudulently receiving public benefits, selling fentanyl or working without authorization. The proposal is a compilation of various border measures rejected by Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) earlier this year. Republicans are expecting voters to support it. Republican state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a lawyer who was disciplined by the State Bar of Arizona for representing plaintiffs in baseless lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results, said the ballot measure is a response to the Biden administration’s “failures” to uphold federal law. “The federal government is the sole regulator of immigration policy set by Congress, saying illegal immigration is a crime,” Kolodin said. “Congress said it’s a crime. We also think it’s a crime and we are just allowing our people to enforce it, too.” Critics say the referendum is a desperate attempt by Republicans to gin up voter turnout in an election year that may wipe away their thin majorities in both legislative chambers. Arizonans could have to slog through at least a dozen proposed measures on the ballot. Democrats who oppose the immigration bill are worried voters will unwittingly choose to approve the measure to get through an exceptionally long ballot quickly without understanding the consequences. Democratic state Sen. Flavio Bravo dismissed the referendum effort as a political ploy by Republicans that does nothing to solve actual problems. “They are trying to hold on to their power and are going to put this on the back [of] immigrants,” Bravo said. “This is not about border security.” The constitutionality of the statutes in Arizona and other states closely resembling the Texas law hinge on the case before U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit. In that case, opponents contend Senate Bill 4 is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority on enforcing immigration laws. Lone Star state leaders have expressed a willingness to challenge the federal government’s supremacy on immigration matters all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arizona’s governor, Democrats, business leaders and some state law enforcement, including those near the border, have opposed the bill. Advocates contend it will lead to the same kind of racial profiling that the 2010 law permitted and will harm families, particularly those where some members are undocumented, but others are in the nation legally. The measures regarding fraud, for example, could confuse parents with U.S.-born children, who may forgo public benefits even if their children are eligible, lawmakers said. State Sen. Ken Bennett, a Republican, had similar concerns. He vowed not to vote for the referendum earlier this spring unless his colleagues removed a provision allowing law enforcement to retroactively enforce the law against people like “Dreamers.” That measure, which would have penalized young immigrants protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, was later removed from the bill. He also pushed for amendments he thinks will prevent discriminatory behavior from law enforcement. Under the current proposal, state and local police would have to personally witness someone crossing the border outside a port of entry, watch a video of it or secure some other “constitutionally sufficient” indication that they entered illegally. The grounds for probable cause are more vague in Texas, where how immigrants will be identified by law enforcement under S.B. 4 remains a major point of contention. Migrants caught crossing illegally in southern Arizona will face a misdemeanor charge for the first offense and a felony for subsequent attempts. “Without a state law, all deputies and police on the border can do is call Border Patrol, who are so overwhelmed that they can’t get there for hours or even days,” Bennett said. “This is adding a very narrow tool for catching someone in the act. Beyond that, this is not a stop-people-based-on-racial profile and ask-about-lawful-presence bill.” Along the southwest border, Arizona has seen the highest number of border encounters in recent months. Migration routes have shifted away from Texas, where crossings have largely dropped, since last fall, according to federal data. State Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, a Democrat, said he still doesn’t think the language is clear enough to prevent racial discrimination by law enforcement. He said he has met locally with several immigration activist groups and that they are preparing to challenge the measure in court, in hopes of preventing it from being placed on the ballot. “It really does feel like S.B. 1070 days,” he said. Republicans have included language in the bill that would give minority leaders unprecedented authority to defend the law in court in the event they lose control of either chamber in November. “Typically, the language has been that the House speaker and the Senate president can intervene on behalf of a law,” De Los Santos said. “They’re explicitly writing into it a brand new provision that we’ve never seen before. It’s clear that they’re terrified of what might happen in November.” The proposal needed a simple majority in the state House to pass. The Senate had already given the bill its stamp of approval. A state budget analysis said implementing the law would cost more than $300 million at a time when Arizona is facing structural budget deficits. The analysis also noted the state could save money from reduced immigration levels. Dave Wells, research director for the Grand Canyon Institute, a nonprofit think tank, said several ballot initiatives could draw Democrats to the polls, but whether that’s enough for them to retake control of the state legislature remains to be seen. The GOP has had largely uninterrupted control of the legislature since the 1960s, and predicted Democratic victories haven’t materialized on several occasions. The immigration bill could play a significant role in driving voters to the polls, particularly young Latino voters. Republicans represent the largest group of registered voters in the state and are unanimously dissatisfied with border matters. Disapproval of Democrats’ handling of immigration matters spans across the political spectrum in the state. But independent voters, who make up more than a third of the electorate, are less keen to approve extreme measures or deportation schemes, according to University of Arizona political scientist Samara Klar. “It’s going to be a really close call,” Wells said. “Voters have really short memories and a lot about elections these days is about turning out your base.” Once the ballot measure is filed with the secretary of state, opponents have 10 days to file a lawsuit to try to stop the referendum. Immigrant rights groups signaled they would unveil the details of their expected legal challenge on Wednesday. Link to original article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/04/arizona-illegal-migration-texas-border/

The Arizona House of Representatives passed the "Secure the Border Act," on Tuesday, sending it to the November ballot. By Danyelle Burke North & Dillon Fuhrman, KYMA Yuma YUMA, Ariz. (KYMA, KECY) - House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2060 would allow local law enforcement agencies to arrest migrants crossing the border illegally. HCR 2060 is said to be, "a ballot referral measure which will enable voters to enact meaningful reforms to protect the integrity of Arizona's workforce, strengthen criminal laws, and reinforce the rule of law in this state." Last month, the Arizona Senate officially passed HCR 2060 in a 16 to 13 vote, with Senator Brian Fernandez (D-Ariz.), representing Yuma County, voting against it while Senator Sine Kerr (R-Ariz.), also representing Yuma County, voted in favor of HCR 2060. Prior to the House vote, members of the Arizona House of Representatives visited Yuma to discuss how the bill could impact border security in the area as well as the rest of the state. The vote was 31 to 29 in favor of passing the resolution. “I was proud to vote yes on the bill," shared Representative Tim Dunn (R-Arizona). Over the span of two hours, 43 members of the Democratic and Republican parties voiced their thoughts following the vote. Some were in favor and others were in opposition. “This is an issue not only with the citizens of the United States of America, but sovereignty for the United States of America. And we need this bill and we must act on it. With that, I vote yes," said Representative John Gillette (R-Arizona). "I have so much more to say about how terrible this bill is. And I have no idea who drafted this because they clearly have shown that they do not understand immigration law. But with that I vote no," said Representative Alma Hernandez (D-Arizona). Local Arizona state Representative Tim Dunn voted in favor of the bill. He said the bill is a border safety bill, not an immigration bill. "Arizona is pro-immigrant. We have 1500 people coming across to harvest our crops. So this is not an immigration bill. This is strictly a border security bill. There is thing in it that allows racial profiling. There’s nothing in it that allows it to happen. This is strictly arresting people within points of entry," said Rep. Dunn. Dunn said it would not allow racial profiling. “This is not against our Hispanic folks, that’s what the narrative is going to be. This is about the cartels. The 171 countries that are coming across the border. So we need to protect all our citizens and vote for the bill," explained Rep. Dunn. However, other groups like ​Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) think the bill will do just that. "And is a measure that is completely dangerous to our community and will promote racial profiling," said Karime Rodriguez, LUCHA immigration and services manager. LUCHA was one of the many groups that gathered outside the state Capitol to voice their concerns with this resolution. "It will cost millions of dollars to Arizona tax payers. There’s just so much bad language in the bill. And that’s why it’s disappointing because we were hoping for our representatives to strike this down now. And now it will be in the hands of the voters," said Rodriguez. The resolution would also increase the rules of the E-Verify program relating to employment. Arizona voters will have their say on this resolution at the polls this November. Representative Lupe Contreras (D-Arizona) gave a statement on the passing of HCR 2060: "Today, House Democrats stood united against hate and division. We made it crystal clear that HCR2060 is an unconstitutional mess and a costly unfunded mandate that, if it becomes law, will deepen our state's deficit and bankrupt local governments in an effort to duplicate federal immigration efforts. It's a measure that will encourage racial profiling and make our communities less safe. I've never been so proud of our caucus, who stood up for our state and for our economy and against hate, division and politicizing a humanitarian crisis."Representative Lupe Contreras The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona has issued a statement following the passage of HCR 2060: "This is a dark day for many in Arizona, especially those who remember the devastation and fear caused by the state's notorious 'show me your papers' law, SB 1070. If approved at the ballot in November, HCR 2060 would pose similar risks of racial profiling, harassment, and arrest of long-time Arizona residents. What's more, it would direct enormous state resources towards immigration enforcement — an issue of clear federal responsibility — in ways that are ineffective, inhumane, and unconstitutional.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."Noah Schramm, Border Policy Strategist for the ACLU of Arizona In addition, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) issued a statement saying: "Arizona Republicans have taken their anti-immigrant extremism to a new level with this ballot measure that will now appear on the 2024 ballot. After failing to pass this dangerous legislation into law, Arizona Republicans have wielded their power to go around Gov. Hobbs through a ballot measure that scapegoats and vilifies immigrants. Make no mistake – this proposal is a distraction from commonsense border solutions and will only make Arizona more dangerous.The GOP's mission to circumvent systems of checks and balances to place this offensive proposal on the ballot drives home the importance of the 2024 legislative elections. The only way to stop this crusade of anti-immigrant hate and advance actual solutions on the border is to elect commonsense Democrats to the state legislature. Democrats are only two seats away in each chamber from winning legislative majorities, and the DLCC is leaving nothing to chance to flip legislative control in Arizona in 2024."Sam Paisley, Press Secretary, DLCC Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, following HCR 2060's passage, issued a statement saying: "Arizonans need to ask Democrats like President Joe Biden and Governor Katie Hobbs why they are fighting to keep America’s border wide open. It's unsafe, it's unsecure, it's un-American, and it's indefensible.Nothing good comes from open borders. Only crime, deadly drugs, violence, unsafe communities, and an unending financial drain on American taxpayers. Yet, Democrat leaders fiercely oppose doing anything about it.Arizonans have had enough and want change. They want safe communities and a secure border. House Republicans do too. That’s why we crafted HCR 2060, the Secure the Border Act, a ballot referral with meaningful reforms to protect the integrity of Arizona's workforce, strengthen criminal laws, and reinforce the rule of law in this state. Today's final passage sends this Act to the ballot this November, so the will of Arizona voters is heard."Rep. Ben Toma Link to original article: https://kyma.com/decision-2024/arizona-politics/2024/06/04/arizona-house-of-representatives-passes-secure-the-border-act/

Organizations Head to Capitol to Defend Communities from the Anti-Immigrant Legislation that will Destroy Arizona. June 3, 2024 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PHOENIX — Tomorrow June 4, LUCHA alongside community members and movement partners, will be at the capitol as we await the final vote on HCR 2060. We invite the press to join us at 10 a.m. to pack the House Gallery as we show our solidarity against this racist legislation that will lead to widespread racial profiling in our communities. Time and time again, we have heard extremist Arizona Republicans mask this referral as a solution to the border and fentanyl crisis. HCR 2060 provides no real solutions to these issues, but instead welcomes an anti-Arizona agenda that will foster an environment where fear, hate, division, and racism run rampant across our state. Not to mention, the economic impact of HCR 2060 on Arizona’s economy and its communities would be devastating.The Grand Canyon Institute estimates an annual cost of at least $325 million, not including additional law enforcement expenses and potential reputational damage, which could total $1 billion. “It’s a true travesty that Arizona is being led back to the dark days when our communities of color were under attack due to the color of their skin just 14 years ago,” said Alejandra Gomez, Executive Director of Living United for Change in Arizona. “I’ve lived it once before, and I know we cannot allow for Arizona Republicans to revive SB 1070, which will sow fear and racism within our communities. If passed by the House, make no mistake – our communities will reject this hate-filled policy at the ballot in November.”

In a party line vote of 31-29 Tuesday afternoon, Arizona lawmakers approved House Concurrent Resolution 2060 (HCR 2060), known as the “Secure the Border Act.” By Christy Kelly, Arizona Sun Times PHOENIX, Arizona - The resolution aims to give local law enforcement the authority to verify the immigration status of individuals during lawful stops, detentions, or arrests if there was probable cause that they were in the country illegally. During the session, Republican lawmakers argued that this measure would fill gaps left by federal immigration enforcement, ensuring that state and local officials could act to maintain order and security within Arizona’s borders. The resolution will appear on the November 2024 ballot, and voters will decide whether to accept its provisions. “Arizonans have had enough and want change. They want safe communities and a secure border,” State House Speaker Ben Toma (R-Glendive) said in a statement celebrating the resolution’s passage. He noted the ballot referral includes “meaningful reforms to protect the integrity of Arizona’s workforce, strengthen criminal laws, and reinforce the rule of law in this state.” “Today’s final passage sends this Act to the ballot this November, so the will of Arizona voters is heard,” Toma said. Republicans criticized House Democrats for not attending a Monday border visit with fellow members. After the border tour, they said it was clear that the federal government had abandoned its duty and action under the 10th Amendment, which was necessary to protect Arizonans. Democrats compared this bill to the SB 1070, known as the “Show Us Your Papers” law, which opponents criticized as racist. State Representative Nancy Gutierrez (D-18) argued that the bill would create a “fear-filled place” in Arizona. She expressed concerns that public schools would become battlegrounds and target zones for ICE immigration enforcement, making parents afraid to engage with schools. However, Toma clarified that the bill aimed only to strengthen E-Verify, increase fentanyl penalties, and make it a state crime to illegally enter Arizona. The speaker said the bill empowered local authorities to act under a probable cause standard, not the lower reasonable suspicion standard used under SB 1070. He also asserted that police would not have “special immunity” under the new provisions and that the resolution had nothing to do with children in schools. Before the hearing began, Toma closed the gallery to the public and directed numerous protesters and community members to remote viewing rooms. The Arizona Sun Times spoke with representative from the Left-leaning activist group, LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona) about the measure. “While MAGA Republicans like to treat the Arizona Legislature like their personal sandbox for the creation of racist legislation like HCR 2060, the Legislature remains the people’s house!” she told The Sun Times; adding, “Today’s announcement that the House Gallery has been shut down is a travesty and a disgrace. Republicans don’t believe in democracy when the people get to witness their inhumanity in action. They want to legislate without looking into the eyes of Arizonans.” “Make no mistake in November, they will see us,” she said. Supporters of HCR 2060 argued that reducing illegal immigration would lead to safer communities and a more controlled and legal workforce, outweighing any potential economic drawbacks. By putting HCR 2060 on the November ballot, Republican lawmakers aimed to bypass a likely veto from Governor Katie Hobbs, allowing voters to decide on the measure. Link to original article: https://arizonasuntimes.com/news/arizona-lawmakers-pass-secure-the-border-act-to-be-on-november-ballot/ckelly/2024/06/04/

A proposal that would allow for warrantless arrests and could greenlight racial profiling by law enforcement was approved along party lines Tuesday—and, pending legal challenges, is expected to appear on the November 2024 ballot. By Camaron Stevenson, The Copper Courier Opponents of the proposal have compared its language surrounding detainment, enforcement, and deportation to that of SB 1070. This 2010 law granted police the authority to make warrantless arrests—just as HCR 2060 does—and was ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Here’s what the measure, currently known as HCR 2060, would do: Give state law enforcement authority to arrest anyone they suspect has entered the country outside authorized ports of entry Declares crossing the border anywhere outside a port of entry to be a state crime—and a felony Creates stricter requirements and penalties for businesses that employ immigrants Grants law enforcement and government bodies blanket immunity from civil lawsuits that might result from enforcement of the law Requires harsher penalties against anyone convicted of knowingly selling fentanyl that causes death. HCR 2060 does not provide funding for its mandate that local authorities enforce border crossings, despite enforcement coming with a hefty price tag, estimated to be $325 million annually. The spike in incarceration is also expected to cost the state’s prison system $50 million every year. Opposition around the corner The proposal’s passage through the legislature takes place the same day the Biden administration announced major restrictions on migrants seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border. Sean McEnerney, Arizona campaign manager for the Biden-Harris campaign, said that, unlike Tuesday’s executive action, the proposal passed by Republicans in the Arizona Legislature would encourage discrimination while doing little to address concerns surrounding border security. “Arizonans have already mobilized against extreme Republicans’ ‘show me your papers’ law once, and they’ll reject this new harmful bill, which will be on the ballot this November,” said McEnerny. “This legislation from Trump’s MAGA allies does nothing to secure the border and will encourage discrimination against and racial profiling of people just because of the way they look or speak, even if they have been American citizens all of their lives.” But HCR 2060’s place on the ballot is not yet secure: opponents believe the proposal itself is unconstitutional. Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) plans to file legal challenges to stop the measure on grounds that it doesn’t meet requirements in place that limit the size and scope of ballot propositions. Among other concerns, they believe the breadth of the measure could go against a requirement in state law that ballot measures only address a single subject. Jim Barton, a lawyer for LUCHA working on the lawsuit, believes the legislation is a scattershot of proposals that were vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs earlier this year and covers too many issues to meet state requirements. “HCR 2060 is a right-wing extremist wish list cobbled together from a variety of previously rejected individual pieces of legislation,” said Barton. “It covers everything from an imagined invasion of the state to criminal drug charges to regulating employment. It most certainly embraces more than a single subject. Arizonans against hatred and extremism will have their day in court.” Should the measure pass legal scrutiny, it will be added to the November 2024 ballot, where it will need approval from a majority of voters to become law. Link to original article: https://coppercourier.com/2024/06/04/immigration-bill-arizona-biden-lucha/

HCR 2060 passes in the House of Representatives. By Jakob Thorington, Arizona Capitol Times Republicans in the state House of Representatives approved a ballot referral on party lines that will allow voters in November to decide if state law enforcement should arrest people who have entered the country illegally. “There were allegations that there were members from this very chamber colluding with them to cause chaos today. I am not okay with that,” Toma said. With the House’s passage of the measure, it will next be sent to voters as a ballot question during the Nov. 5 general election, bypassing action from Gov. Katie Hobbs. If approved by voters, the measure would establish state criminal illegal entry through the border and drug offenses involving fentanyl that cause death. The measure is similar to Texas’ SB4 and would require law enforcement officers to have probable cause to arrest someone that has entered the country illegally. “I’ve heard some say that they don’t want our Arizona to be like California,” said House Minority Whip Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson. “And I say with HCR2060, don’t Texas my Arizona.” Republicans said Tuesday the probable cause requirement of the measure separates it from the controversial immigration law SB1070 that lawmakers passed in 2010 that required police officers to investigate people they believed to have entered the country illegally based on reasonable suspicion. Toma said a police officer would have to physically see or have evidence of someone crossing the border illegally in order to make an arrest. “Just seeing someone of a different color driving through Phoenix or that doesn’t speak English – that would make no sense whatsoever,” Toma said. “There’s no way you could get the probable cause.” Rep. Patty Contreras, D-Phoenix, said there’s no guarantee in the bill that police wouldn’t racially profile Arizona residents at traffic stops if HCR2060 becomes law. She also noted the measure grants immunity to certain state personnel who would be tasked with enforcing the measure; although the immunity provision only applies to the legislation’s scope, Toma said racial profiling is not protected by the measure. Other Democrats said the bill is unconstitutional and that immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, although Republicans say state action is necessary and the federal government has failed to act. House Assistant Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen, said the bill violates the single-subject clause that ballot referrals are limited to by the Arizona Constitution and it doesn’t include a funding mechanism in the bill, which is also required constitutionally. The measure also makes it a felony for someone not lawfully present in the U.S. to apply for federal public benefits or use false documents in submission for benefit applications as well as establishing sale of lethal fentanyl as a criminal offense. “(HCR) 2060 embraces the hodgepodge of disparate subjects including employment verification, immigration law, immigration enforcement, sentencing for drug crimes, laws related to city, town and county administration to public benefits and the legislature’s right to intervene in lawsuits,” De Los Santos said. “Simply put, this cannot be conceivably construed as a single subject.” A fiscal note from the Joint Legislative Budget Council estimates the measure would cost $325 million annually for border enforcement and incarceration costs. But Toma said the cost of the bill would be offset by what Arizona spends in costs associated with illegal immigration. The fiscal note estimates those costs amount to $3.2 billion annually. Toma also expressed confidence the bill meets requirements for the single-subject clause. House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, said he was willing to spend any amount of money in efforts to combat trafficking, sex and homicide crimes associated with illegal border activity. “Why are we even sitting here complaining that money is an issue,” Biasiucci said. “IIf we spend a billion dollars to ensure that no child gets raped again, I will happily do it in this legislature.” Earlier on Tuesday, President Joe Biden issued an executive order that temporarily suspends entry of migrants seeking asylum who cross the border unlawfully. The New York Times reported Biden attributed signing the order to Congressional Republicans blocking bipartisan border legislation and is the most restrictive border policy instituted by any modern Democrat. “He’s doing exactly what we are doing here today,” Biasiucci said. “But it’s three and a half years too late.” After the House vote, Living United For Change in AZ announced the organization is preparing a lawsuit to try and strike down the bill from the November ballot. If HCR2060 remains on the ballot, funding won’t be considered by lawmakers in current budget negotiations since the budget is expected to be signed by Hobbs in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, the measure is contingent on what the U.S. Supreme Court decides with Texas’ SB4 and can only take effect 60 days after SB4 is determined to be legal by the court. Link to original article: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2024/06/04/divided-house-passes-border-measure/

HCR 2060 will be on the November ballot after it passes through Arizona House of Representatives By J.D. Wallace, KOLD 13 News TUCSON, Ariz. (13 News) - The Secure the Border Act is headed to Arizona voters. The state House of Representatives approved it Tuesday along party lines after an hours-long vote. Opponents called it racist and unconstitutional but supporters said the bill is not about immigration but enforcement. Protests against HCR 2060 greeted anyone entering the House of Representatives Tuesday. “We feel it’s a total racist bill, one that will be detrimental to our community in Tucson. You know a lot of our businesses depend on the spending power that immigrants spend,” said Rocky Rivera, a community organizer for Living United for Change in Arizona, known as LUCHA. “It’s absolutely not racist. It’s not SB 1070. It’s correcting a problem that is the number one issue in the state of Arizona. People want our border secure,” said Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford. The House gallery was closed for the final vote. “It’s disappointing to me that it’s come to this. What we saw in the Senate two weeks ago was inexcusable,” Speaker Pro Tempore Travis Grantham said about the gallery closure from the dais. “The public gallery should be open to the public. This is the people’s house and I am appealing the ruling of the chair because when we had anti-abortion extremists pack the gallery,” Rep. Analise Ortiz, D-Glendale, as she addressed the speaker pro tempore from the floor of the House. Democrats raised concerns about the lack of funding and the possibility of racial profiling under the act by allowing local law enforcement to arrest those who cross the border between ports of entry. Republicans said a trip to the border highlighted the need for the bill, from vans of people showing up and their risk of being exploited to the amount of fentanyl being smuggled across. “We don’t know who’s coming through our borders. There are 160 different countries being represented by people coming through. So it is a problem,” Griffin said. “Many of us who are sitting here have actually spent the majority of our lives crossing between Tucson and Nogales. So I don’t need to go on a field trip and play dress up,” said Representative Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, as she explained her vote against the bill on the floor of the House. The act, sponsored by House Speaker Ben Toma who spoke last, ultimately passed 31 to 29, which leaves the ultimate decision to voters in November. “This is actually really a border security issue first and foremost and a border security bill than an immigration bill. As such, I think it’s going to fine. There will be an effort. I don’t know the details yet,” Speaker Toma said. The bill has no funding source but Speaker Toma said that if voters approve it, the budget process is always negotiable; however, the governor has expressed disapproval of the bill. Link to original article: https://www.kold.com/2024/06/05/secure-border-act-heads-arizona-voters/

The ballot measure would make it a state crime to enter the country somewhere other than a port of entry. By Paola Rodriguez, Arizona Public Media The controversial House Concurrent Resolution 2060, also known as the “Secure the Border Act,” passed Arizona’s House of Representatives Tuesday afternoon. The measure will now be decided by voters in the November election. If approved, the ballot measure will make it illegal for undocumented immigrants to enter the state from anywhere besides a port of entry. The proposition mirrors a similar action taken by Texas that has since been put on hold by a federal appeals court until its challenges are resolved. The proposal would bypass Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who vetoed a similar measure earlier this year. Opponents of HCR 2060 compared it to 2010’s SB 1070, which was considered to be the country’s strictest legislation meant to combat illegal immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court partially struck down the law but upheld the “show me your papers” provision that would verify immigration statuses during law enforcement stops. Critics said this perpetuated racial profiling by police. Those same concerns were echoed on the House floor Tuesday afternoon regarding this year’s ballot proposition. “My colleagues on the other side swear this new law won't lead to racial profiling. Unfortunately, we can't be assured of this,” Democratic Representative Patricia Contreras said. “Many brown-skinned people like myself were profiled when ‘the show me your papers’ SB 1070 was law… This measure gives police full immunity even if they arrest someone with probable cause.” Many, like democratic Representative Judy Schwiebert, say the legislation is unconstitutional and will eventually increase policing costs. “They are already understaffed and now this bill requires them to also do the job of federal law enforcement,” Schwiebert said. “How many robberies and other crimes in our local communities will now go uninvestigated? How many crimes will go unreported by immigrants and Latinos who will be too scared to trust law enforcement to protect them? HCR 2060 is an anti-public safety bill.” Under the measure, state corrections would be required to keep those charged or convicted in custody if local or county-level law enforcement does not have room. According to a fiscal note sent by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “the resolution would result in added workload for local public attorneys and public defenders related to the prosecution of HCR 2060 crimes” and “eventually lead to higher incarceration costs at the Arizona Department of Corrections and at the county level.” Additional costs may also include translation services and transportation for non-English-speaking individuals. It was also noted that a 2023 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that 610,000 individuals without a lawful presence cost the state $3.2 billion annually. “In terms of the 610,000 population, FAIR estimates that Arizona spends $1.36 billion for their education, $631.3 million for their justice-related and incarceration and the remaining $1.2 billion for other programs such as healthcare and public assistance,” the fiscal note reads. “We are not aware of how FAIR derived the Arizona-specific estimates since the report only provides information on the nationwide methodology and not the state's portion.” House Republicans disagree saying the proposal is meant to prioritize the safety of Arizonans from issues like drug smuggling. Some, like Republican Representative Matt Gress, said it was time for Arizona to take control of the border, citing failures from the federal government to secure it. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws,” Gress said. “Today, this house can renew our commitment to the rule of law and to orderly immigration.” Republican Speaker Ben Toma says the bill will strengthen E-Verify–a web-based program meant to verify employment eligibility, enhance sentencing for fentanyl dealing, and make it a state crime to enter Arizona from a foreign nation somewhere other than a port of entry. “I'm an immigrant. This is not anti-immigrant,” Toma said. “This is anti-lawlessness. It's about securing our border because the federal government has failed to do their job. The people of Arizona will get the final say in this issue.” Closed Gallery The gallery, where the public may observe House and Senate proceedings, was closed after House Republicans cited “security concerns prompted by the shameful and illegally disruptive conduct by Democrats and their leftist allies.” Speaker Ben Toma said he decided to close the gallery after Democratic Representative Analise Ortiz called for it to be kept open. “The public gallery should be open to the public,” she said. “This is the people’s House.” The move comes after the immigration rights organization Living United for Change in Arizona, better known as LUCHA, packed the gallery when the Senate upheld the ballot proposition a few weeks ago. A dispute ensued between Senate President Warren Petersen and LUCHA activists. “MAGA Republicans like to treat the Arizona Legislature like their personal sandbox for the creation of racist legislation like HCR 2060,” LUCHA Executive Director Alejandra Gomez said. “Republicans don’t believe in democracy when the people get to witness their inhumanity in action. They want to legislate without looking into the eyes of Arizonans. Make no mistake in November they will see us.” Link to original article: https://www.azpm.org/p/headlines/2024/6/4/220500-house-passes-controversial-border-initiative-heads-to-ballot-for-voter-approval/

Those in opposition criticize it as promoting racial profiling By Renee Romo, KOLD 13 News PHOENIX, Ariz. (13 News) - HCR 2060, also known as the Secure the Border Act, was passed in the Arizona Senate on Wednesday, May 22. Republicans argued that the act will help secure the border. But on and off the floor, those against the bill described it as racist and harmful to Arizona, with some protestors even interrupting the hearing. Senators spent nearly four hours discussing the bill, which was most recently amended Wednesday morning. A main point of the hearing is that the most recent amendment to the bill now excludes DACA recipients and anyone who crossed before the act is put in place. That was the deciding factor for Senator Ken Bennett, R-D1, who was the reason the act didn’t pass last week. “That is very important to me, that we’re not talking about trying to retroactively apply this to DACA individuals or anyone else frankly,” Bennett said. But Senator Brian Fernandez, D-D4, disagreed on who should handle the issue. “More needs to be done,” Fernandez said. “But it’s a federal responsibility, we can’t have local authorities enforcing something that really is what the federal government has been charged to do.” Questions on clarification of the new amendment took center stage throughout the hearing. The amendment includes that if law enforcement witnesses someone illegally crossing the border, or if there is footage of someone illegally crossing the border, either gives probable cause to arrest the individual. But the main focus was on the third point, which is “any constitutionally sufficient” probable cause. Which many senators described as broad and claimed that because of that, it could confuse voters into voting for it without fully understanding the bill. With the amended bill being passed, it now heads back to the House, and if passed there, the issue will then be put into the hands of Arizona voters. However, a spokesperson for LUCHA said that if it does get to that point, all it will do is mobilize young Latino voters to head to the polls to vote against it. Link to original article: https://www.kold.com/2024/05/23/secure-border-act-passes-arizona-senate-heads-back-house/