SEARCH RESULTS.

Gloria Rebecca Gomez Wed, April 2, 2025 at 12:45 PM MST 9 min read LUCHA Executive Director Alejandra Gomez speaks on April 2, 2025, about the lawsuit her organization filed challenging the constitutionality of the Secure Border Act, which voters overwhelmingly passed in 2024. Photo by Gloria Rebecca Gomez | Arizona Mirror An immigrant rights group is asking the courts to overturn the Secure Border Act, the ballot measure voters overwhelmingly approved last year that made it a state crime for migrants to illegally cross the Arizona-Mexico border, because it violates a provision in the state constitution that voters approved more than 20 years ago.  Living United for Change in Arizona, a progressive organization that was among the most vocal critics of the act while it was being considered by lawmakers last year,” filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court Wednesday arguing that the sweeping anti-immigrant law should be struck down because it violates funding source protections in the Arizona Constitution.  Standing in front of the court on Wednesday afternoon, just hours after the lawsuit was filed, Alejandra Gomez, LUCHA’s executive director, denounced it as a resurrection of SB1070, the state’s notorious “show me your papers law” that gave police officers permission to investigate a person’s legal status during routine traffic stops. “We remember SB1070,” she said. “We remember what happened when politicians played politics with our dignity and safety. We are taking this fight to the courts because our families, our rights and our futures are on the line.” Voters last year sided with the GOP lawmakers who crafted the Secure Border Act and sent it to the ballot, with 63% of votes in favor of Proposition 314. The law makes it a misdemeanor to cross the state’s southern border without authorization anywhere but at an official port of entry, which could carry with it up to 6 months in jail. Local police officers would be empowered to arrest migrants suspected of violating that law, and state judges would be able to issue deportation orders.  While that provision is frozen until the U.S. Supreme Court rules a near-identical law in Texas can be enforced, other parts of it are active, including making it a class 6 felony to use false documentation to apply for benefits or jobs and creating an entirely new class of felony for people convicted of selling fentanyl that later results in someone else’s death.  The problem with the initiative, according to LUCHA attorney Jim Barton, is that the Arizona Constitution requires ballot measures that result in any government spending to identify a funding source. And that money can’t come from Arizona’s general fund.  That constitutional provision dates back to 2004, when Republican lawmakers sought to prevent advocacy groups from going to the ballot to force the state government to pay for programs that the GOP majority didn’t want. But the constitutional restriction applies also to measures sent to the ballot by the legislature. When lawmakers last year were considering the Secure Border Act, multiple law enforcement officials travelled to the Capitol to warn that they would need more resources to enforce its directives.  But lawmakers still failed to set aside a funding stream, something the Arizona Mirror exclusively reported on .  That, Barton said, nullifies the initiative.  “Because Proposition 314 will cost millions of dollars and it has no funding source, it’s unconstitutional and unenforceable,” he said.  In Texas, more than $11 billion of taxpayer money has been set aside to fund the Lone Star State’s restrictive border policies. Although the provision in Prop. 314 making it a state crime to cross the border without permission is likely the one with the biggest price tag, the other parts that are being implemented also cost money. In the brief, Barton pointed out that the act requires state agencies to double-check a person’s eligibility for public benefits through a federal database if they are a noncitizen, even if they have legal status. That database, called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, charges individual agencies a $25 monthly fee and a separate fee for each inquiry. That per-inquiry fee is currently $1.50 but will incrementally increase in the coming years until it hits $3.50 by 2028. Several state agencies already use SAVE, including the Department of Health Services to verify eligibility for AHCCCS and the Department of Economic Security to make sure applicants are eligible for food stamps or cash assistance, but Barton told the Arizona Mirror that the Secure the Border Act threatens to impact a host of new public benefits, including library cards.   During Wednesday’s news conference, Barton also noted that lawmakers had ample notice about the potential economic hit of the Save the Border Act. While it was still being drafted, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee released a fiscal impact report that estimated it would cost state and local law enforcement as much as $41 million every year to make arrests and transport people with orders of deportation to a port of entry.  And the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, which would be required under the act to house people accused of illegally crossing the border if local law enforcement agencies don’t have the capacity to, could see costs of up to $178 million. The nonpartisan Grand Canyon Institute, meanwhile, projected the total annual costs at $325 million if the provision giving the state the power to enforce federal immigration is made effective.  But, Barton said, while GOP lawmakers knew about the costs, the Arizonans who voted to approve the Secure the Border Act were never given the opportunity to consider that drawback.  “The legislature chose to lie to the voters and hide the cost of this measure when they presented it to the voters,” Barton said. “Luckily, in the state of Arizona, that is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to ask voters to pass legislation without identifying the funding source when it costs money.”  When faced with questions about the costs, GOP lawmakers last year repeatedly waved away the concerns, saying they would figure that out later — or that it would pay for itself by saving the state vast sums because the rate of illegal immigration is even more expensive than any costs that could be incurred by enforcing federal immigration laws.  In the lawsuit, LUCHA lambasted that reasoning, with Barton writing that nowhere in the Revenue Source Rule is any exception made for funding sources established after the fact, or for “hypothetical offsets.”  Senate President Warren Petersen, who helped write the Secure the Border Act and shepherded it through the legislature, did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. Kim Quintero, a spokeswoman for Petersen and Senate Republicans, said he was not willing to speak on the issue until he’s able to review the lawsuit himself. Follow-up questions about whether Petersen believes that the act complies with the Revenue Source Rule went unanswered. This isn’t the first time LUCHA and Barton have sought to void Prop. 314. Before the initiative was placed on the ballot last year, the group attempted to convince the courts that, because it spans so many different parts of Arizona law, it violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule. But that challenge failed, with the Arizona Supreme Court agreeing with Republican lawmakers, who argued that all of the act’s provisions fall under the overarching theme of border security. But this lawsuit is different, Barton said, because the Arizona Constitution is very clear about funding sources and it isn’t open for interpretation.  “I don’t see any wiggle room here,” he said. “The law says you have to provide funding for mandatory expenditures. This mandates expenditures and it doesn’t provide a source.” And that earlier loss in court will also aid LUCHA: Barton noted that the courts have already concluded that all the provisions in Prop. 314 deal with just one subject, meaning that Republicans won’t be able to argue that just one part should be struck down. So, if any part of it is judged to be in violation of the Arizona Constitution, the whole act will have to be nullified.  Along with arguing that Prop. 314 is unconstitutional because it fails to provide money to pay for it, LUCHA is also claiming that it violates two other legal principles enshrined in the state constitution, which govern how lawmakers make policy and to what degree government branches can encroach on each other’s responsibilities.  One of them, which is included in the Arizona Constitution, is the separation of powers. Barton said that a provision in Prop. 314 defining probable cause for officers who arrest migrants infringes on the judicial branch’s authority.  That provision was added by GOP lawmakers after public outcry from immigrant rights groups and criticism from Democrats that it would result in discriminatory policing. It states that an arrest under the new law may only be made if an officer witnesses a person crossing the border unlawfully, there is a video recording of the event, or there are “other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause”.  In the lawsuit, Barton argues that lawmakers have no authority to define what probable cause is because that’s the court’s job, and they’ve already done it. In 1974, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that probable cause is when an arresting officer has a “reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances” which lead them to a reasonable inference that a crime is being committed, that a specific person is committing or has committed it and that a reasonable person would believe the same.  The Arizona legislature’s decision to write a different definition of probable cause amounts to lawmakers “seeking to take over a judicial function,” according to Barton. Barton also claimed that Republicans committed an unlawful delegation of legislative authority by making the effectiveness of the Secure the Border Act dependent on the outcome of a case against a near-identical law in Texas. That law, SB4, was challenged in federal court by the Biden administration and remains tied up in litigation. The Arizona iteration is on hold until the Texas version or similar laws in other states are allowed to go into effect. Putting the enforcement of Arizona laws into the hands of other states where Arizona has no input into their legal strategy is unconstitutional, Barton said.  “The Arizona legislature gave our lawmaking over to the Texas legislature, and said, ‘Well, once Texas gets their law through, then and only then will our law take effect,’” he said. “You can’t do that. The Arizona legislature has the responsibility to make laws for the state of Arizona.” Read Original Article Here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/immigrant-rights-group-seeks-nullify-194500664.html

Author Marlene Valero Latest UpdateApr 2, 2025 La organización Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) anunció una importante demanda contra la Ley 314 y la agenda MAGA (Make America Great Again) encabezada por el presidente Donald Trump y los legisladores republicanos, que atenta contra la comunidad latina e inmigrante. Impacto de la Ley 314 según LUCHA Alejandra Gómez, directora ejecutiva de LUCHA explicó que la Ley 314 fomentará la discriminación racial al facultar a la policía en temas migratorios. Además, dicha demanda forma parte de una lucha más amplia contra lo que denominan una agenda “magafanática” que busca criminalizar a los inmigrantes, violentar los derechos civiles y sembrar el miedo y la división en todo Arizona. Te puede interesar: Senador Mark Kelly exige renuncia de Secretario de Defensa de Donald Trump “No se trata solo de una ley. Se trata de un intento coordinado de convertir a Arizona en un campo de pruebas para la estrategia de deportación masiva de Trump”, expresó. Alejandra Gómez destacó los peligros de la Ley 314, aprobada en las urnas el noviembre de 2024, argumentando que otorgará a la policía el poder de interrogar a personas sin motivo, sembrará la desconfianza entre los vecinos y hará que la gente tenga miedo de ir al trabajo, a la escuela o a denunciar delitos. Argumentos legales contra la Ley 314 Por su parte, el abogado Jim Barton explicó los puntos de la Ley 314 que atentan contra la constitución y que fueron enumerados en la demanda presentada este martes por la mañana. Violación de la regla de la fuente de ingresos: La legislación se aprobó sin identificar una fuente de financiación, a pesar de que su implementación costaría dinero. Violación de la separación de poderes: La legislación asigna a la legislatura la función del poder judicial de definir la causa probable. Violación de restricciones ilegales de delegación: La legislación delega la promulgación de la ley de Arizona a la legislatura de Texas y a su equipo de litigios. Paralelismos con la SB1070 y el temor comunitario Martín Hernández , miembro del Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Alimentación y el Comercio Local 99 de Arizona, recordó que lo que está sucediendo hoy en día con la Ley 314 se vivió con la Ley SB 1070, donde la comunidad latina vivió discriminación racial en el estado. ¡Únete a nuestro canal de Facebook! Entérate primero que nadie de las noticias En la actual administración de Donald Trump y ante la agenda anti inmigrante de legisladores en Arizona, ha presenciado ya la separación de familias y la persecución de las comunidades inmigrantes por políticas extremas como en aquellos tiempos. Read Original Article Here: https://prensaarizona.com/lucha-denuncia-agenda-maga-ley-314/

Critics warn $50 million could bankroll Trump’s agenda as Hobbs moves away from pro-immigrant stance By: Gloria Rebecca Gomez - March 26, 2025 5:14 pm A political climate dominated by concern over border security has put Gov. Katie Hobbs and Arizona Republicans on the same side, with both pushing to increase funding for law enforcement agencies that tackle border related offenses as progressive organizations and Democratic lawmakers are fiercely opposing the move.  In her executive budget proposal , Hobbs earmarked $23.2 million for the Local Border Support grant program, a 36% boost over last year’s $17 million allocation . Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are advancing their own measure to increase the fund to $50 million . What are critics saying? The GOP bid to nearly triple the fund’s size has drawn criticism from immigrant rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers, who fear it could bankroll President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign in Arizona. Opponents say the allocation’s underlying language is too broad and leaves the door open for Arizona law enforcement officials to carry out the federal government’s anti-immigrant agenda.  The proposal that sets aside the $50 million is House Bill 2606 , which directs the Arizona Department of Public Safety to divvy up the money for police departments and sheriffs offices to fund officer positions that “deter and apprehend” people suspected of “drug trafficking, human smuggling, illegal immigration and other border related crimes.” Some of the funds are also intended to help cities and towns pay for prosecuting and detaining people under those same charges.  Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for progressive group Living United for Change in Arizona, urged lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee who were considering the bill on Tuesday not to make it easier for the current federal administration to recruit local law enforcement agencies.  “(The bill) will use state resources to perpetuate the deeply flawed immigration enforcement system of the U.S., one that has been rife with human atrocities and blatant legal violations,” she said. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. Liggett pointed out that the White House has already made headlines for violating the civil rights protections of people detained by immigration officials and has mobilized even century old laws to speed up deportations. Earlier this month, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to bypass due process protections built into the immigration system and deport 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador , without any due process.  Attorneys for some of those deported say their clients had no ties to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, but were instead deported simply because they had tattoos .  Liggett called on lawmakers to use the money to instead bolster initiatives that benefit Arizonans.  “Our state has a moral duty to prioritize taxpayer funds to make much needed investments  towards schools, health care and affordable housing, not appropriating dollars and pushing policies that target people based on race and status,” she said. Proponents: the fund has never been a problem before Supporters, however, argue that the bill is only eliciting criticism because of the current political moment, not because it carries with it any inherent threat.  Jen Marson, speaking on behalf of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association, which is in favor of the allocation increase, said during a March 17 Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee meeting that the same language has been used since at least 2019.  She noted that the money doesn’t go toward enforcing immigration laws, but has historically helped pay for local task forces that address drug interdiction, bomb squads, canine units and inmate housing costs associated with people convicted of violating state laws around drug smuggling or human trafficking. And the unusually high allocation is simply the Sheriff’s Association trying to get their foot in the door for budget negotiations, not a bid to adopt federal responsibilities. Voters, Marson added, overwhelmingly sided with increasing border security in November and the Sheriff’s Association hopes that mandate can lead to more funding. Roughly 63% of Arizonans last year agreed to punish migrants who cross the southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry with a misdemeanor via Proposition 314, called the Secure the Border Act.  While that portion of the initiative is frozen until the U.S. Supreme Court rules that states have the right to enforce federal immigration laws, other provisions creating new penalties for undocumented people who submit false documentation to apply for jobs or public benefits and mandating severe punishments for people found guilty of the sale of lethal fentanyl are in effect. “The sheriffs felt that, because of the clear will of voters in November regarding that proposition, that this was the time to ask for additional funding, and we had the will of the voters on our side,” Marson said. Republican lawmakers have also defended the increased appropriation as intended to provide the funding that was missing from Prop. 314. When the initiative was first being considered by lawmakers, multiple law enforcement officials warned they would need more resources to enforce its mandates, especially if the provision making it a state crime to cross Arizona’s southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry is ever made effective in the future by the country’s highest court rolling back its decision to reserve the power to implement immigration laws for the federal government.  Doing so could prove pivotal in whether the law remains on the books. Voters in 2004 amended the Arizona Constitution to require ballot measures that will increase state spending to include a source of funding other than the state’s general fund. Using any part of the $50 million to pay for actions taken under Prop. 314 could set the initiative up for a constitutional challenge .  Republicans appear to realize the potential pitfall. In the bill’s latest committee hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott Valley, who was previously vocal about the allocation helping to cover the costs of Prop. 314, dropped that argument, saying it has nothing to do with the ballot measure and only seeks to beef up the fund that has existed for nearly a decade.  The bill cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee with only Republican support, and is next slated to go before the entire Senate.  Top Dems: It’s not a priority at the bargaining table The majority of Democratic lawmakers have opposed the funding allocation, while still defending Hobbs’ smaller increase. Just one Democrat, Rep. Kevin Volk, who represents a swing district in Tucson, crossed the aisle to join Republicans in voting for the $50 million increase , saying his constituents are concerned about border security.  Progressive organizations have been sharply critical of the freshman lawmaker, and said they worried his support could prove decisive during budget talks.  “We know that Democrats don’t have power at this moment to get progressive policies to the governor’s desk but where it does count in this moment is the state budget,” Gina Mendez, LUCHA’s organizing director, told the Mirror during a March 3 protest of anti-immigrant bills.  While Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans in both legislative chambers, and have little say in what bills advance, they do have more influence during budget negotiations because Hobbs has said bipartisanship is a key factor in deciding what she approves.  And Democratic leadership is opposed to the $50 million budget increase.  House Minority Leader Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, highlighted the potential constitutional conflicts on March 5, when the bill was approved by the full House of Representatives.  “I don’t feel that money needs to go to support a proposition that is unconstitutional,” Gutierrez said. “We really need that money in our public schools, and for housing and for making things affordable for our communities. To spend $50 million for law enforcement on an unconstitutional proposition is wrong.” The Tucson Democrat said she agreed with critics that the money could be used to facilitate mass deportations in Arizona, and said even if the language is tightened or the amount is reduced, she doesn’t consider it a priority.  “I want to fully fund K-12 schools, our higher education,” Gutierrez, a former teacher, said.”This would be at the very bottom of our list.”  Similarly, Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, who leads the Democrats in the Senate, said her party is uninterested in seeing the $50 million included in the final state budget agreement.  “None of us are advocating in the budget talks for money that would be used for this purpose. We are firmly not interested in advocating for that kind of budgetary amount,” she said, during a rally for immigrant rights on March 17 that, along with other border security bills, featured criticism of the allocation as yet another way to fund deportations.  If it does end up in the budget, she added, Democrats intend to fight for narrower language.  Sundareshan acknowledged that Hobbs, too, has signaled an interest in ramping up funding for the law enforcement grant program, but said that the governor has been careful to keep the money in the realm of drug interdiction.  “Gov. Hobbs has been very intentional about directing that money towards other border safety measures like fentanyl and the SAFE program, which are intentionally not to support the kind of enforcement of these kinds of federal immigration laws,” she said, referring to Hobbs’ Stopping Arizona’s Fentanyl Epidemic taskforce.  Hobb has focused her border security efforts on boosting local drug interdiction instead of wading into the criminalization of unlawful immigration. She has been vocally opposed to Trump’s mass deportation plans, and vetoed anti-immigrant proposals sent to her desk.  But she has also shifted to the right on immigration policy as governor, moving away from early pro-immigrant initiatives like a scholarship fund for Dreamers and supporting hostile federal legislation like the Laken Riley Act, which authorizes the indefinite detention of undocumented people accused of low level crimes, like shoplifting, in a bid to portray herself as tough on the border ahead of the 2026 election.  Her stance on the $50 million allocation is unclear; despite multiple requests for comment, her spokesman, Christian Slater, was silent on the bill’s fate or the criticism against it, saying only that “the final amount will be negotiated in the budget.” Read Original Article Here: https://azmirror.com/2025/03/26/border-security-or-mass-deportation-arizona-leaders-clash-over-money-for-local-law-enforcement/

By Madeleine Greenberg February 27, 2025 In a big win for Arizona voters, two anti-voter laws that unfairly targeted Latino, Native and student voters were shot down by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  In 2022, Arizona passed two restrictive laws that required voters to provide extra documents proving their citizenship and provide their birthplace in order to vote in state and local elections. Voters also had to provide those documents to be allowed to vote by mail or in the presidential election.   The laws also created another layer of documentation requirements to prove residency to vote in any election. These laws also allowed state officials to investigate and purge voters’ registrations based on old and faulty information. Together, these laws create an unfair, discriminatory and confusing system that makes it much harder for all Americans to exercise their freedom to vote. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has been fighting on behalf of our clients for years, and this ruling is a clear win for Arizona voters.   There is no reason voters should have to jump through these extra hoops to cast their ballots. We already have strict laws to ensure that only eligible American citizens vote in federal elections. When registering to vote, all voters must already swear that they are U.S. citizens and residents of the state where they vote. Lying about your citizenship or residency on a voter registration form can lead to serious consequences, like deportation or jail time.   People of color, as well as young and elderly people, are more likely to have difficulty in accessing these proof of citizenship documents. Additional proof of residency requirements discriminate against Native voters who often lack traditional street addresses. Arizona voters and community organizations stepped up to challenge these discriminatory laws in court and won. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is proud to have represented our clients, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona Coalition for Change and Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC), in this lawsuit. Thanks to this important victory, Arizonans will be able to exercise their freedom to vote without unnecessary burdens and restrictions.     Our democracy is strongest when every American can make their voice heard. This victory will ensure that Arizonans can do just that.   Without this win, thousands of Arizonans would have been silenced. Congress should keep this in mind as it considers the SAVE Act , which would make unfair restrictions like those struck down in Arizona the norm across the country. With your support , CLC will continue to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Read Original Article Here: https://campaignlegal.org/update/arizonans-score-win-over-unfair-voting-laws

Kevin Volk says his vote on $50 million immigration enforcement fund is fulfilling constituent wishes By: Gloria Rebecca Gomez - February 26, 2025 2:33 pm Progressive groups that helped a moderate Democrat win a state House seat in a Republican district castigated the freshman lawmaker as “racist” for backing a bill to give money to local police to enforce immigration law and said they may work to defeat him in 2026 if he continues to support the measure. Rep. Kevin Volk, D-Tucson, is a former teacher who narrowly captured a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives last year after mounting a campaign that opposed the “extreme” and “divisive” policies of the GOP-majority legislature.  Since the legislative session began last month, he has sought to establish himself as a moderate, and on Feb. 24, he broke party ranks by joining Republicans to approve a proposal that critics say would transform police officers into border patrol agents.  What’s in the bill?  House Bill 2606 earmarks $50 million to fund law enforcement officers who work in drug interdiction, against human trafficking or who “deter and apprehend” people accused of crossing the state’s southern border illegally. The money would also be used to reimburse cities, counties and towns for the costs of prosecuting and detaining people accused of drug trafficking, human smuggling or immigrating without authorization.  The costs of providing public defense against those charges for people who can’t afford a lawyer, however, could not be paid from the pool of cash, even though doing so is legally required.  GOP lawmakers say the bill provides the financial backing that law enforcement officials warned them would be necessary to enforce the mandates in Proposition 314. Titled the “Secure the Border Act,” the referral made it a state crime for migrants to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere but at an official port of entry. After 63% of Arizonans in November voted to approve the referral, lawmakers returned to the legislature in January intent on providing the funding they had failed to secure initially — despite the fact that using taxpayer money from the state’s general fund to pay for a proposal that increases state spending violates the Arizona Constitution and will likely lead to a lawsuit that could nullify Prop. 314.   Critics fear AZ police will ‘turn into ICE agents’ Opponents of the proposal urged lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee on Feb. 24 to reject it, arguing that awarding law enforcement agencies money to take on immigration enforcement duties primes them for carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda.  Although it has been sold by Republicans as limited to actions taken under the directives of Prop. 314, critics say it’s so broadly written as to greenlight any move to enforce federal immigration laws. Crystal Padilla, a member of Unite Here Local 11, a pro-immigrant group that regularly mobilizes on behalf of Democratic candidates, said she fears paying police officers to get involved in immigration enforcement will result in the rampant racial profiling that occurred while SB1070, the state’s notorious “show me your papers” was still in effect. Padilla shared that, as a child living near Sierra Vista, a town just 15 miles north of Mexico, she witnessed her family members suffer repeated discrimination because of SB1070.  “Some of my earliest memories were being pulled over by Border Patrol over and over again,” she said. “My uncle is a citizen, and he was harassed by Border Patrol and local law enforcement just based on the color of his skin. He was even wrongfully imprisoned twice.”  Padilla warned that funding Arizona law enforcement agencies to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally would jeopardize the due process rights of thousands, no matter their citizenship status.  “HB2606 would spend 50 million taxpayer dollars to turn local police into ICE agents and result in the over-policing of communities of color and immigrants,” she said. Volk joins GOP to fulfill voter mandates In the end, 11 Republicans and Volk cast their votes in favor of the bill, saying it’s necessary to ensure that law enforcement officials have sufficient funding to meet the demands placed on them by the state and to keep Arizonans safe from crimes committed at the southern border. The remaining six Democrats on the panel voted against the bill.  Volk said his constituents were overwhelmingly in favor of Prop. 314, and that his vote acknowledged their mandate to strengthen border security. But he noted that he also believes in the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and called on the federal government to take action to preserve legal immigration.  “People want our border to be well managed, and they want a hardline for bad actors — especially dangerous criminals,” he said. “And the majority of us want an efficient, orderly process for legal immigration for those who are seeking a better life.” The Tucson Democrat pointed out that the requirements in Prop. 314 for state police officers and Arizona judges to arrest and deport people convicted of unlawfully crossing the border have been enshrined in state law by voters, and police departments will need money to implement the initiative if it ever becomes enforceable. Currently, the provision governing Arizona’s involvement in immigration adjudication is frozen until the U.S. Supreme Court deems a near-identical law in Texas constitutional, or overturns its 2012 ruling against Arizona’s SB1070, which concluded that the enforcement of immigration laws is under the sole purview of the federal government. Like Republicans on the panel, Volk defended the bill against concerns it will result in discrimination by saying the funding is intended only for law enforcement decisions prompted by Prop. 314’s mandates. And, Volk claimed, the voter-approved law sufficiently addresses the situations under which police officers can arrest a person they suspect of having crossed the border without authorization.  A provision in the referral states that arrests can only occur if a law enforcement officer witnesses a person crossing the southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry, there was a video recording of the unauthorized crossing or under “other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause.” Uncertainty about what the third option entails was the source of fierce opposition from Democrats when the measure was debated last year. They worried it could open the door to racial profiling, especially given that the referral includes an immunity clause shielding police officers from liability in lawsuits that may arise from decisions made while enforcing Prop. 314.  Volk acknowledged that “constitutionally sufficient indicia” is vague, but said the threat of costly lawsuits should prevent law enforcement agencies from violating the constitutional rights of Arizonans.  “We see that here in Maricopa County, where the bill is just passing $300 million in settlements,” he said, citing the ongoing legal and compliance costs associated with a federal judge’s order that the county’s sheriff’s department overhaul its policies after it was found to have engaged in rampant racial profiling under the leadership of Joe Arpaio.  “This bill is a way to get much needed resources to supplement public safety,” Volk concluded. Pro-immigrant groups rally against Volk, other Dems who vote for GOP border policies Hours after Volk voted to pass HB2606 — the second time he’s approved the bill since it was first introduced — dozens of pro-immigrant advocates and members of progressive organizations gathered outside the state Capitol to vow electoral retribution if he continues to back the bill.  It’s next slated to go before the full House of Representatives for consideration.  Cries of “Republicans say go away, we say no way!” and “Volk, Volk you can’t hide, we can see your racist side!” echoed between the two legislative buildings as protestors marched behind a large green banner denouncing Volk for siding with “AZ MAGA” politicians.  Xenia Orona, the executive director of the Fuerte Arts Movement, which helped design and paint the banner, criticized Volk for what she viewed as abandoning immigrants and Latino Arizonans. “Kevin Volk sold out our communities by giving money to the poli-migra ,” she yelled to loud jeering from the crowd, using the Mexican slang term for close cooperation between local police and ICE.  Orona, who has been an activist since the days of SB1070 and was among those who mobilized to recall its sponsor, Sen. Russell Pearce, said progressive groups canvassed on behalf of Volk, and his vote on Monday left them feeling betrayed. “We helped him get into office and he sold us out,” she said.  Gina Mendez, the organizing director for Living United for Change in Arizona, lambasted the GOP majority for continuing to advance anti-immigrant proposals.  Emboldened by Trump’s vow to oversee a mass deportation campaign and the passage of Prop. 314, Republicans in Arizona have introduced nearly a dozen such bills, including a bid to force law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration officials and another to transform police departments and sheriff’s offices into bounty hunting agencies by awarding them $2,500 for each arrest that leads to a deportation.  Mendez called the bills an “attack” on working and minority Arizonans, and criticized Volk for backing one of them, leading the crowd in a “Vote out Volk!” chant.  She warned that any Democrat who crosses party lines to support discriminatory legislation would face repercussions from progressive groups that mobilize voters. LUCHA has long been involved in canvassing voters for Democratic candidates, and was part of a coalition last year that knocked on 1 million doors to encourage voters to back pro-reproductive rights candidates.  “That’s exactly what we’re going to have to do with him and any Democrat who uses our people to get votes and uses our people as a sacrifice to get bills in,” Mendez said, after the chants to vote Volk out died down.  Raquel Terán, a former state senator and current director of Proyecto Progreso, said that allocating funding for border security initiatives necessarily reduces the amount of money that could be spent advancing initiatives that could help improve the lives of all Arizonans. “The more resources that are given to implement immigration laws, the more is taken away from schools, from public services that are needed — it takes away from things that move Arizona forward,” she said.  Terán, an activist-turned-politician who went on to serve in both legislative chambers and was the head of the Arizona Democratic Party from 2021 through 2023, waved off the political reality that Volk faces in a heavily Republican district . The solution is not balancing votes, she said, but rather “sticking to Democratic values,” which includes standing with immigrant communities, not supporting proposals that could lead to racial profiling.  While Terán was critical of Volk’s choice to stand with Republicans on the issue, she said she’s optimistic that the bill will eventually meet Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen.  Hobbs has been vocally opposed to Trump’s mass deportation plans and proposals in Arizona that seek to ramp up the prosecution of undocumented Arizonans. And while the Democrat prefers addressing border security by increasing the funding for law enforcement agencies and communities along the border, even bills that Republicans have sought to frame as doing so have met her ire.  A spokesman for her office said that there was “no way in hell” she would sign a bill awarding law enforcement agencies $2,500 for every arrest that leads to a deportation that was touted by Republicans, in part, as aiming to financially enable law enforcement officials to keep communities safe.  Still, with the 2026 election looming and amid attacks that she’s soft on the border from Republicans, Hobbs has recently shifted to the right on immigration policy.  In January, she took to social media to applaud the passage of the Laken Riley Act in Congress. The new federal law, which prompted criticism from immigrant rights advocates, mandates the indefinite detention, without bail, of undocumented people who are accused of low-level crimes like shoplifting even before they’ve been convicted.  Hobbs’ praise raised alarms among immigrant advocates, who fear it’s a sign the Democrat might be willing to approve some hostile border security bills at the state level. A spokesman for her office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the governor’s stance on the bill. Read Original Article Here: https://azmirror.com/2025/02/26/immigrant-rights-groups-threaten-to-oust-democrat-for-voting-to-increase-border-funding/

Stacey Barchenger Arizona Republic Un senador republicano del estado de Arizona quiere crear una recompensa de 2,500 dólares por el arresto de cada inmigrante indocumentado que sea finalmente deportado. Esa recompensa financiera se pagaría a las agencias policiales locales y estatales de Arizona y se financiaría con una nueva "tarifa de remesas para inmigrantes (no autorizados)" cobrada en las transferencias bancarias internacionales, según la propuesta del senador Jake Hoffman, republicano de Queen Creek. Hoffman dijo al Arizona Republic que su proyecto de ley ayudaría a las fuerzas policiales locales a apoyar los esfuerzos federales de deportación mientras se aprovechan los dólares que los inmigrantes envían a otros países. Pero sus colegas demócratas —y un portavoz de la gobernadora de Arizona, Katie Hobbs- se opusieron, diciendo que crearía un sistema que recompensaría a las fuerzas policiales por perseguir a los inmigrantes indocumentados y fomentar la discriminación racial. "La realidad es que millones de dólares se envían a naciones extranjeras", dijo Hoffman. "Ese dinero, de otro modo, estaría contribuyendo a nuestro PIB como estado y como país. Por eso, la tasa de remesas para inmigrantes (no autorizados) está diseñada para recuperar parte de esos fondos y luego destinarlos a algo que es muy popular, no sólo en Arizona sino en todo el país, que es ayudar al gobierno federal a detener a inmigrantes (no autorizados) delincuentes". "Esto garantiza que nuestros funcionarios están haciendo todo lo que está a su alcance para apoyar los esfuerzos del gobierno federal", añadió Hoffman. La tasa propuesta sería de 25 dólares para cualquier transferencia bancaria extranjera de menos de 500 dólares, y de 25 dólares más el 5% del importe superior a 500 dólares para transferencias superiores a 500 dólares. Un contribuyente que pague la tasa podría reclamar esa cantidad como crédito en sus impuestos, dice el proyecto de ley. Las empresas de transferencia de dinero, que están autorizadas por el estado, estarían obligadas a cobrar las tasas y depositarlas en una nueva cuenta bancaria estatal llamada "fondo de deportaciones de Arizona". El dinero financiaría subvenciones a las agencias policiales de Arizona que realizan arrestos que luego conducen a la deportación, según la propuesta de Hoffman. Se pagaría después de que el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE por sus siglas en inglés) u otra agencia federal confirmara que la persona había sido deportada. Hoffman, presidente del Caucus por la Libertad de Arizona y uno de los miembros más conservadores de la Legislatura de Arizona, llamó a su propuesta "proyecto de ley de recompensas". El proyecto de ley, el Proyecto de Ley Senatorial 1111, provocó un acalorado y políticamente cargado debate en el Comité de Gobierno del Senado el jueves, donde se aprobó con una votación partidaria de 4 a 3 con los republicanos a favor. Dos grupos que abogan por las comunidades migrantes, la Unión Estadounidense por las Libertades Civiles de Arizona y Living United for Change in Arizona, se opusieron al proyecto de ley. Noah Schramm, estratega de política fronteriza de la ACLU, dijo que el proyecto de ley "sobrealimentaría la discriminación racial en todo el estado". La senadora Lauren Kuby, demócrata de Tempe, se opuso al proyecto de ley, calificándolo de medida racista y "el proyecto de ley más feo y odioso que he visto… en Arizona". Si el proyecto de ley obtiene el apoyo mayoritario en el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes, que están controlados por los republicanos, Hobbs está esperando con su sello de veto. "No hay manera de que el gobernador firme una ley de aumento de impuestos, especialmente una que pone precio a las cabezas de personas inocentes que han trabajado duro, pagado impuestos y vivido en sus comunidades durante décadas", dijo el portavoz de Hobbs, Christian Slater, en un mensaje de texto. "Los arizonenses quieren seguridad fronteriza, no quieren convertir a los agentes de la ley que trabajan duro en cazadores de recompensas". Los demócratas del Senado dijeron en una publicación en las redes sociales que la medida "crea una patrulla de esclavos de la nueva era para inmigrantes indocumentados que trabajan y pagan impuestos en nuestro estado". Hoffman presentó una enmienda esta semana para crear el fondo y la recompensa reescribiendo un proyecto de ley existente, una práctica común en la Legislatura de Arizona conocida como enmienda de "eliminar todo". Una primera versión de la enmienda exigía que los 2,500 dólares fueran directamente a los propios agentes de la ley, pero Hoffman la cambió de nuevo para que el dinero se destine a El proyecto de ley es una de las varias medidas que los republicanos han presentado este año para apoyar la ofensiva migratoria del presidente Donald Trump. También el jueves, los miembros republicanos del Comité de Gobierno del Senado aprobaron el Proyecto de Ley Senatorial 1088, que exige que los gobiernos estatales y locales cumplan con la aplicación de la ley migratoria federal. Hobbs, que está a mitad de su primer mandato y se espera que busque la reelección en 2026, ha dicho que trabajará con los republicanos en Arizona y Washington, D.C., en cuestiones fronterizas. Reiteró esa promesa en los primeros días del segundo mandato de Trump, y ha apoyado públicamente medidas de aplicación como la Ley federal Laken Riley, que la encontró en desacuerdo con algunos miembros de su partido. Pero Hobbs ha establecido una línea dura cuando se trata de recursos estatales, diciendo que se gastan mejor apoyando a las agencias policiales locales y no se utilizarían para "ir a las comunidades y detener a personas que no están causando daño". Anteriormente, ella ha manifestado su oposición a que el estado implemente un "mandato único" según el cual las agencias locales trabajen con los agentes federales de inmigración. Hoffman, quien frecuentemente y públicamente se enfrenta a Hobbs, a menudo por su papel como guardián de los candidatos de su agencia que buscan la confirmación del Senado, dijo que la oposición de Hobbs al proyecto de ley indica que ella "apoya la apertura de las fronteras y hará cualquier cosa para proteger a la futura base de votantes demócratas importada ilegalmente". "Katie Hobbs nunca se ha encontrado con un aumento de impuestos a los ciudadanos estadounidenses respetuosos de la ley que no apoyara, pero cuando la tarifa está dirigida a inmigrantes (no autorizados) criminales, de repente se opone", dijo Hoffman.

By Renee Romo Published: Feb. 20, 2025 at 6:21 PM MST TUCSON, Ariz. (13 News) - Several groups protested Thursday morning outside of Rep. Juan Ciscomani’s office in Tucson. Advocates are concerned over the budget cuts – and how it’ll impact the future of working families. Meanwhile, the other side believes it’s necessary to balance the budget. Living United for Change in Arizona and People First Economy got together to advocate against the budget from Republican lawmakers. Rocky Rivera, LUCHA community organizer for Tucson, explained that will cut $1 trillion from the budget. That is $800 billion from Medicaid and $200 billion from the food assistance program SNAP. “We don’t think that they should be taking resources that people depend on here, you know just to give somebody a tax break,” Rivera said. Another message many were trying to get across was their dislike of DOGE and Elon Musk’s involvement in government – which has led to various cuts. While they were protesting outside Ciscomani’s office, the message was for all Republicans in support of cutting these crucial programs for working-class families. But Kathleen Winn, Pima County GOP chairman, said they’re trying to get the country back on track - and everyone will be impacted. “This is going to be across the board,” Winn said. “This isn’t just targeting the working Americans, it’s targeting everybody, and there’s going to be some painful cuts.” Winn added that the country is taking in $5 trillion a year in taxes but spent $7 trillion – which is why the American people voted for the budget to be balanced. “The taxpayers have a right to expect that their government does the right things with the dollars that we send in. And there is so much mismanagement and corruption in government,” Winn said. “So, the only way to fix this, is to see where the dollars are going, and cut unnecessary programs.” However, Rivera said billionaires and corporate donors are the only ones benefiting from this, as they’ll be the ones getting tax breaks. “We don’t feel that it’s essential that we do more corporate tax cuts,” Rivera said. “You know, we’re already in a big deficit, and the only way to get out of it would be to really increase these taxes I believe, so we believe in taxing those people, we believe in bringing the economy back to the people.” 13 News reached out to Ciscomani’s office but has not heard back. Read Original Article Here: https://www.kold.com/2025/02/21/groups-protest-budget-cuts-doge-elon-musk-tucson/

Bill would pay law enforcement $2,500 for each undocumented immigrant removed from US By: Gloria Rebecca Gomez - February 20, 2025 7:38 pm Arizona police departments would be incentivized to target people they believe are undocumented under a Republican bid to award them a $2,500 bounty for every arrest that ends in a deportation.  The move represents the GOP legislative majority’s latest foray into immigration policy, which has taken on a decidedly hostile tone in the wake of President Donald Trump’s election victory and his stated goal of deporting millions of immigrants.  And it goes far beyond what Republican lawmakers in Arizona have ever attempted, including the controversial SB1070 in 2010, the “show me your papers” law that spawned boycotts of Arizona and ultimately cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity . Sponsored by Sen. Jake Hoffman, the leader of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus who has built a reputation for hard-ball politics and controversial proposals, Senate Bill 1111 would set up an “Arizona Deportations Fund.” That fund would be used to disburse bounties of $2,500 to law enforcement agencies every time the arrest of an undocumented person leads to their removal from the country by federal officials.  Originally, the bill called for that money to be divided up among the arresting officers as compensation for their involvement in the deportation of unauthorized immigrants, but Hoffman modified it so that the money is sent instead to the police department or sheriff’s office they work for.  Immigrant rights advocates argue that the effect remains the same: Paying law enforcement agencies to arrest people suspected of being in the country illegally essentially transforms Arizona’s police departments into bounty hunting agencies, incentivizing them to prioritize enforcing federal immigration laws over state laws.  Noah Schramm, the border policy strategist for the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, warned lawmakers on the Senate Government Committee — which Hoffman chairs —  that it would spell disaster for the constitutional rights of Arizonans, no matter their citizenship status.  “It will supercharge racial profiling across the state,” he said.  Lena Avalos, an organizer with Living United for Change in Arizona, a progressive pro-immigrant organization, denounced the bill as “hateful, racist legislation” and criticized GOP lawmakers for seeking to facilitate deportations instead of resolving pressing issues the state faces. “Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of rent, keeping our schools open and making sure that Arizonans can keep their health care, we are here discussing different ways to spend taxpayer dollars on criminalizing communities of color,” she said, shortly before being cut off by Hoffman for what he said were comments that strayed from the bill’s intent.  The Republican framed his proposal as restoring lost funding sent abroad by undocumented Arizonans. The money for the $2,500 bounties would be raised from increasing taxes on foreign wire transfers, which immigrants often use to send remittances back to family in their countries of origin.  “We are losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year in economic activity to foreign nations,” he said. “Hundreds of millions of dollars are being sent out of our economy to the economy of foreign nations by those who are in this country illegally, who have broken our laws and are now exploiting the benefits of this great economy, the benefits of this great nation to prop up failing foreign governments.”  Billions of dollars in remittances are sent every year from the U.S. to other countries, including those in Latin America. In 2023, Mexico alone received more than $63 billion in remittances .  Anti-immigrant politicians have long aimed their ire at people who send money back to family members in their native countries. During his first presidency, Trump threatened to tax remittances to pay for the border wall, and long before that, in 2009, Oklahoma lawmakers approved a $5 tax on foreign wire transfers under $500 with collected revenues being sent to the state Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.  Hoffman’s proposal far outstrips Oklahoma’s law, levying a $25 tax — on top of current foreign wire transfer fees — on every sum below $500 and an additional 5% of any amount exceeding that threshold. And while Arizonans with lawful status who file taxes would be able to recoup those fees during tax season, undocumented people — who don’t file income taxes — would essentially be forced to fund deportations.  Western Union, the most popular financial services firm for wire transfers, is opposed to the bill.  Democrats on the committee questioned the fairness of punishing migrants for using the money they earned. Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, pointed out that sometimes people travelling through the state stop to send remittances, and students at Arizona’s public universities who don’t file their taxes in the state might also wire money to their relatives in other countries.  Bravo added that there’s nothing wrong with seeking to help family members who live outside the U.S., and said he himself has sent remittances to his wife, who at the time hadn’t yet become a legal permanent resident and lived in Mexico.  “The American Dream isn’t just about preparing yourself for success, it’s also about bringing up your family with you, and if people have worked hard and earned this hard earned money, I don’t see anything wrong with them supporting loved ones abroad,” he said.  Hoffman also dismissed concerns that the bill would incentivize police officers to make racially biased arrests, saying that it doesn’t change how law enforcement agencies should carry out their duties and leaves in place current protocols that protect Arizonans’ due process rights.  But even without the law on the books, police departments across the state have been found guilty of detaining people based on their ethnicity. A 2011 investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice found that officers with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department stopped Latino Arizonans nine times more often than non-Latino drivers in some parts of the county. And just last year, after a three-year investigation, the DOJ concluded in a 126-page report that Phoenix Police Department officers engaged in rampant discrimination against Black, Hispanic and Native American people, and routinely violated people’s civil and constitutional rights. Some law enforcement groups have spoken out against the bill. The Arizona Police Association, which is the state’s largest law enforcement advocacy organization and is made up of more than 12,000 law enforcement officers, is opposed tocreating a bounty system for cops. Joe Clure, the group’s executive director, said it doesn’t support the “monetizing” of arrest decisions under any circumstances.  Currently, there appear to be no similar laws or state-funded policies on the books that reward police departments for how many arrests are made of a particular group. Bart Graves, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Public Safety, said no bounty program exists for the agency that is dependent on an officer or agency’s everyday actions. Richie Taylor, a spokesman for the Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, said the office does award some bonuses for law enforcement agencies, but those are based on retention and performance outcomes. He added that Mayes is opposed to the bill, which she derided as a political “stunt.”   The Senate Government Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, passed SB1111 along party lines. Democrats on the panel denounced the bill as an attack on immigrants and sharply criticized Republicans for advancing discriminatory legislation. Sen. Lauren Kuby, a freshman Democrat from Tempe, said it was an “ugly” and “hateful” bill. Her voice shook as she shared the story of meeting with a 17-year-old student in her district from a mixed status family.  “She and her family have their bags packed, ready to leave if they need to leave and escape the country, escape persecution, escape this terror that is being visited upon them,” Kuby recounted. “She told me that, when she’s in school, she worries when she gets a phone call from her mother that it’s not her mom just seeing what her plans are for the day. She’s worried it’s going to be a message from her mother that her grandfather’s been taken, or that her sister’s been deported.”  Republicans, meanwhile, dismissed concerns about the bill’s impact on the state’s immigrant communities. Sen. Wendy Rogers, who regularly traffics in hard-line anti-immigrant rhetoric and spoke at a white nationalist conference in 2022 , called for taking the “emotionalism” out of the conversation. She said the bill doesn’t stop people from sending remittances home, it merely raises the fees to do so.  Rogers, a Republican from Flagstaff, also used nativist terms to characterize undocumented immigrants as an “invasion.”  Hoffman, too, invoked invasion terminology and alluded to the racist Great Replacement theory — which has spawned violence in America and around the globe — accusing Democrats of supporting undocumented people with the intent of ousting Republicans from power.  “There is an effort afoot in this nation to take it over through invasion,” he said. “Democratic politicians want illegal aliens to vote, they want illegal aliens to be counted in our census so that the district lines can be drawn in favor of Democratic politicians.”  Anti-immigrant politicians have long framed unauthorized immigration as an invasion to push draconian policies. But the terminology isn’t just wielded in statehouses: it has also been widely adopted by nativist movements and white supremacist terrorists, like the El Paso shooter who targeted Mexicans at a Walmart in 2019 . The bill next goes before the full state Senate for consideration, where it is expected to be supported by the Republicans that hold a majority in the chamber. If that happens, and if the state House of Representatives — which Republicans also control — also passes it, SB1111 would almost certainly meet a swift veto from Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has already panned it.  The Democrat has been a strong advocate for increasing funding for communities and law enforcement agencies along the border instead of taking a hostile approach. And while she has previously voiced support for anti-immigrant proposals at the federal level, she has been dismissive of state-led policy changes that immigrant rights groups oppose. Christian Slater, Hobbs’ spokesman, said she’s prepared to reject it if it lands on her desk.  “There’s no way in hell the Governor signs a tax hike into law, especially one that puts a bounty on the heads of innocent people who have worked hard, paid taxes and lived in their communities for decades,” he said. “Arizonans want border security, they don’t want to turn hard working law enforcement officers into bounty hunters.” And while Republicans, including Hoffman, have criticized Hobbs as weak on border security and unwilling to work with them on the issue despite acknowledging it as critical, Slater said Hobbs is simply not going to cave to “political messaging games.”  “She’s going to work with anybody in order to deliver real border security, and that includes President Trump,” Slater said. “She’s also going to stand up and tell people when they’re getting it wrong.”

BY HEIDI HOMMEL Editor’s Note: This is the first of a three-part special series called “Immigration in Arizona Today” that dives into the latest border issues affecting the state. PHOENIX — Since his inauguration last month, President Donald Trump has been making good on a campaign promise to carry out the largest deportation effort in American history. Republican Arizona lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require county sheriff’s deputies and the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) to enter into a 287 (G) agreement to support federal enforcement of immigration law. Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen is behind the Arizona ICE Act. “You are essentially deputized. You’re now kind of an extension of the federal government, where you’re able to carry out and enforce their laws,” Petersen said. The difference between the Arizona ICE Act and the Proposition 314, which was passed by voters in November, is the 287 (G) agreement allows state law enforcement to apply federal immigration law. Prop 314, also known as the Secure the Border Act, allows local law enforcement to carry out state immigration laws. The Arizona ICE Act would have 10% of law enforcement agencies under a 287 (G) agreement trained on how to enforce federal immigration policy in accordance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Pinal and Yavapai counties already have 287 (G) agreements with the federal government. The measure would also require jails and prisons to hold detainees for up to 48 hours upon release to give ICE a chance to apprehend undocumented migrants to be deported. Petersen said this would prevent ICE agents from being put in a dangerous situation where they have to track down the person after release. What legislation have Democrats introduced? At the same time, Democratic lawmakers have proposed a measure that directly competes with the Arizona ICE Act. The Immigrant Trust Act , proposed by Sen. Analise Ortiz, would prevent local law enforcement from assisting the feds with immigration enforcement. The legislation is meant to protect the people in mixed status families, who she said are living in terror right now. “Who are afraid to call the police, who are afraid to drive their child to the doctor’s because they could be separated from their loved ones,” Ortiz said. Protests have erupted across the nation in opposition of the Trump administration’s deportations, including in Arizona. Earlier this month, multiple police and civilian vehicles were damaged by protesters in Glendale during a demonstration against federal immigration policy. Protests at the state Capitol have remained more peaceful, with activist groups explaining how immigration policy impacts the migrant community. Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) organizer Abril Gallardo Cervera said she became involved with the organization in the SB 1070 days when she felt like her family was under attack. Arizona’s controversial “show-me-your-papers” law was partially struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court after being passed in 2010. She said immigrant communities have been a scapegoat whenever elected officials or corporations want to distract from failed policies and greed. She believes immigrants are not the problem, but part of the solution. “We are your neighbors, your friends, your family,” Gallardo Cervera said. Victoria Lopez, executive director of ACLU Arizona, spoke at the state Capitol protest last week and called the Arizona ICE Act state overreach. She said cities and states should focus on serving their own residents instead of working for ICE. She believes it opens the door for racial profiling if police are required to investigate federal immigration law. “The greater violations of civil and human rights, the greater the chances of family separation and unlawful arrests and detentions,” Lopez said. Katie Hobbs weighs in Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said last week her office has been receiving less information from the Trump administration compared to the Biden administration when it comes to federal immigration enforcement. “We’re continuing to try to keep those lines of communication open so that we can all work together to keep our community safe,” Hobbs said. As for whether she’ll sign the Arizona ICE Act, Hobbs said the 287 (G) agreements already exist and local law enforcement agencies can voluntarily enter them. “I don’t think it’s right to give a one size fits all mandate to local agencies that are already struggling with resources and who already do cooperate with different law enforcement agencies,” Hobbs said.

Allison Kotzbauer /Cronkite News PHOENIX – Advocates for Arizona’s underserved communities urged state legislators Tuesday to stop funding deportation efforts and instead use that money for affordable housing, access to higher education and paid family medical leave for all. Representatives of the nonprofit Living United for Change in Arizona and the Arizona Center for Empowerment gathered at the Capitol for People’s Day to press their agenda for budget priorities. LUCHA also provided political education to community members who attended the event. ACE representatives led tours for youths around the Capitol and provided information on the organization’s social justice efforts. Gina Mendez, civic engagement and youth organizer for LUCHA, said the group will press lawmakers to halt funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and reallocate that money for programs the organization deems essential, like affordable housing, affordable insurance and education. “Our demand is that our taxpaying dollars do not go for immigration enforcement and family separation but instead to essential programs like housing,” Mendez said. Karime Rodriguez, empowerment services manager for LUCHA, said the two groups also want corporations in Arizona to pay their fair share of taxes to fund essential state programs that help the underserved. Since the Trump administration has taken office, Mendez said, there is a heightened fear around deportation, and knowing how to inform lawmakers that deportations should stop and those funds allocated to other issues is crucial to alleviate those fears. “A lot of people (are) scared that there’s going to be deportations, so we wanted to bring it back here, to Arizona, and do what we have control over,” she said. ”We’re going to do some political education with our members and walk them through how the issues are connected to the state budget.” Rodriguez said it is vital for state legislators to hear directly from the communities that are most affected when deciding the budget. Rodriguez said she has a personal connection to deportation policies in Arizona, as she has family members who are undocumented. She asked state representatives to take action to protect those closest to her. “I come from a mixed-status family, and there’s definitely a lot of uncertainty with what we’re hearing not only at the state level but on a national level,” she said. Rodriguez said she believes the meetings with lawmakers could lead to meaningful changes in legislators’ budget priorities, and further LUCHA’s core causes. Community member Carol Gaxiola of Tucson attended People’s Day and said she agreed with the issues LUCHA has identified. “We need to be part of the solution,” she said. State Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, said it is essential that community members continue to show up and push for change in local government. “When we come together to show that we haven’t given up hope and that we will keep fighting for the things we believe in, it shows policymakers that they can’t ignore us and that they need to remember who they work for,” Ortiz said. Read Full Article: https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2025/02/04/nonprofits-lawmakers-support-housing-schools-2025-arizona-budget/

By Susan A. Barnett on Jan 29, 2025 Tucson activists are traveling to the state capitol with LUCHA to advocate for justice, celebrate community efforts, and address concerns over immigration policies. An Arizona group that empowers Hispanic communities is driving Tucsonans to the state capitol Tuesday to demand that  legislators put people over profits. Living United for Change in Arizona is a member-based organization that fights for social, racial and economic justice. Tuesday’s event isn’t a protest, but a space for people to gather, recognize and celebrate efforts to create change. It will feature food, performances and a celebration of the group’s volunteer organizers. The event is one in a series that will continue with March’s Advocacy Day and in May, when the state will be finalizing the budget. So far LUCHA has only filled about half of the seats on the 60-person bus, but organizers hope more people will join in their efforts to call attention to key issues the group is advocating for and against.  Home to the state capitol, Phoenix is the fifth-largest city in the United States with Maricopa County voters turning out in November largely in support of President Donald Trump .  But, “our state is more than Phoenix,” said Rocky Rivera , a Tucson-based organizer for LUCHA. The lesser-populated Tucson was long known as a blue spot in the red state, a qualifier that’s visible in presidential election results . Tucson was one of only four counties carried by presidential candidate and vice president Kamala Harris . Democrats also dominate the local political landscape in Tucson, from Tucson Mayor Regina Romero to its all-Democrat city council. Hundreds of people took to the streets of Downtown Tucson on Inauguration Day to protest Trump’s return and his “millionaire agenda.” That’s why LUCHA is bussing Tucsonans to Phoenix next week and encouraging people to register for the event and stand in solidarity with communities that will be impacted by new immigration orders and changes to path to citizenship. “There's a lot of anxiety in the community over mass deportation,” Rivera said. “We're worried, we're scared, we're fearful, we want to see change. But yet, we want to sit in our comfort zone and stay home. We don't want to show up for our own selves. So if you're not going to do it for you, do it for your community or future generations.”  On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order rescinding policies put into place by former President Joe Biden that protected marginalized communities, the environment and public health, among other things.  Elsa , who spoke to Tucson Spotlight before Trump’s inauguration, said that while she’ll be on the bus to Phoenix, she’s fearful of being at the forefront of advocating for her community. Elsa is living in a state of limbo in which she’s not exactly undocumented, but she’s also not a U.S. citizen. Out of respect for Elsa's situation, Tucson Spotlight is not publishing her last name. She said that she knows participating in the event will take a toll on her mental health, but she plans to go nonetheless. “I just wish I felt more safe about it. If I was like a citizen, maybe I'd be more brave to do it, but right now I'm just so overwhelmed,” Elsa said. “When it comes to me being visible in public, I kind of fear for my life.” She said she’s terrified of possible raids in Phoenix, but feels protected and excited by the number of people she expects to show up.  Since the inauguration, Elsa has tried to remain indoors as much as possible, only going out for work and necessities. She used to shop at El Super in South Tucson, but has stopped going to the south side, due to fear of being pulled over or detained.  “I really just wish that things were different,” she said. “I wish I didn't have to be scared to go outside, to live my life, that I didn't have to see all this violence in this country that calls itself the land of the free. I don't want to wake up scared anymore, but unfortunately, it is our reality, we just have to live with it and stay safe.” The Laken Riley Act, passed bipartisanly by Congress, allows Homeland Security to detain migrants if they are charged with certain criminal offenses. While Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said he has no plans to enforce the law, Elsa is still concerned about  the potential impact. “It’s  definitely been in the back of my mind,” Elsa said.”As a juvenile I committed petty crimes, as an adult I got a DUI very stupidly. It's not my character, but it's a scary thought, that because of a past mistake, something that I've rectified, I've changed, I'm going to be pointed out because of that.” She and her partner, Luna, are now seriously contemplating moving back to Mexico, even though both women have been living in the U.S. since they were young children. Both women have full-time jobs and volunteer with various community groups like Derechos Humanos and PANTERAS.  Luna, who is on DACA, hopes that there won’t be any serious attacks on the program. But for now, the two are trying to stay safe.  “I've seen the prosperity that happens if somebody's given a chance here,” LUCHA’s Rivera said. “We need to shift this narrative and shift this belief. It starts by bringing people's stories to the front.” Susan Barnett is Deputy Editor of  Tucson Spotlight  and a graduate student at the University of Arizona. She previously worked for  La Estrella de Tucson . Contact her at  susan@tucsonspotlight.org . Tucson Spotlight is a community-based newsroom that provides paid opportunities for students and rising journalists in Southern Arizona. Please support our work with a paid subscription. Read Full Article Here: https://www.tucsonspotlight.org/activists-rally-at-state-capitol/

Jimmy Magahern January 2, 2025 Supported by a majority of Latinos and many Democrats, Arizona’s Proposition 314 exemplifies our complicated political moment. By Jimmy Magahern | Photography by Daisy Zavala Magaña Gerry Navarro suspects he lost more than a few votes in his unsuccessful bid for Santa Cruz County Supervisor in November due to his unwavering support for Donald Trump. In Santa Cruz, an Arizona county on the U.S.-Mexico border where 78 percent of the residents are Mexican Americans and where voters favored Joe Biden over Trump by more than two-to-one in 2020, Trump’s persistent rhetoric that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” didn’t go down well. And as the Republican candidate, Navarro took some heat. “I had people down here calling me a Nazi,” says the 71-year-old United States Marine Corps vet and former Coolidge police officer, who served as a border liaison officer in Nogales, Arizona, from 1984 to 2010. He’s now retired and lives in Rio Rico, a small unincorporated community just north of Nogales. “I mean, I’m Hispanic, and I’m the Nazi? Really? The Democrats prefer the illegals to us as citizens, and we pay the bill. That’s not right.” While his years as a border officer made him empathetic to impoverished Mexicans desperate to enter the U.S. (on the campaign trail, he told a story of waving an elderly woman on crutches past customs), Navarro takes a nuanced line on border security. “I’m not against immigration,” he clarifies. “I’m against illegal immigration.” Santa Cruz County again rejected Trump in 2024, but by a smaller margin: Close to 59 percent of the votes went to Kamala Harris, with slightly more than 40 going to Trump. Clearly, Navarro was not alone as a Latino voter who strongly identified with conservative positions and values.  Nor was the phenomenon limited to Santa Cruz County, or to Trump. Across Arizona, the November election saw traditional voting blocs split in new and unexpected ways, across a variety of candidates and issues.  Perhaps most emblematic of the schizoid 2024 election: the resounding passage of Arizona’s Proposition 314, aka the Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure, which will “allow for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully” and “allow for state judges to order deportations” if passed into law. Though characterized by opponents as extremist right-wing legislation, Prop. 314 was approved by nearly 63 percent of voters, meaning that it enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, with many Democrats voting for its passage – and, not insignificantly,  53 percent of Latino voters. Why did the measure garner so much support, particularly among the population activists saw as its target? It may be that those voters don’t see themselves in the crosshairs. “You come here legally, the right way, I don’t have a problem,” Navarro says. “My wife of 51 years, she came here legally because I married her. I’m an American citizen and I brought her with me and she’s now a citizen. That’s the way you do it. You do it legally. But I don’t want no criminals here.” Francisco Pedraza, an associate professor at Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies who now heads its Center for Latina/os and American Politics Research center, believes it was a last-minute provision tacked onto the bill that helped expand its appeal among Latino voters.  After the wording about allowing state and local authorities to make arrests and order deportations for unlawful border crossings, along with a rather innocuous phrase about requiring the use of the E-Verify program to determine the immigration status of individuals before their enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program, the authors added this: “and make the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if a person knowingly sells fentanyl resulting in the death of another person.” The added phrasing drew on U.S. Customs and Border Protection data that shows illicit fentanyl smuggling is increasing, and that most of the fentanyl seized by the border patrol is coming across the southern border – a fact that was loudly amplified by the Trump campaign to demonize immigrants, even though the same data also shows that more than 90 percent of the fentanyl seized is smuggled by U.S. citizens crossing through legal ports of entry. “There were a lot of things in the wording of Prop. 314, but the inclusion of the word ‘fentanyl’ helped it get over the finish line,” Pedraza maintains. “I think other states are going to be paying attention to that.” According the Pedraza, the fentanyl provision may have stimulated the “othering” effect already in place between Hispanic U.S. citizens and their undocumented counterparts. As proof, Pedraza’s department, together with ASU’s Hispanic Research Center, conducted a survey shortly before the election that asked a mix of registered voters their thoughts on the entire ballot, including the propositions. The study then broke down the respondents by race.  It found that on Prop. 314, when shown the complete wording of the measure – including the phrase on fentanyl – 53 percent of Latinos either strongly or somewhat supported it, reflecting the final votes. But when those surveyed were shown the proposition’s wording with that phrase omitted, only 43 percent supported it.  For non-Hispanic whites, it didn’t much matter: 63 percent supported the wording containing fentanyl; 61 percent without. “So, why is that consequential?” Pedraza asks. “Well, if you’re from the Latino community, you might have some reticence in supporting heavy-handed immigration enforcement. But if the proposition is saying we are specifically targeting these particular kinds of offenders, folks who are selling drugs that would lead to somebody dying, then it’s harder to say no to. You’re kind of greasing the amount of public support you’re likely to marshal. “From the perspective of Latinos, I think there is a real willingness to understand that in the broader debate around immigration, there needs to be a balance struck between policy that reforms access to opportunities to adjust your status, and policy that addresses what we are going to do about individuals that enter the U.S. without authorization or that are working without authorization,” Pedraza says.  “That’s the tough question. But certainly, the easy question is, ‘What do we do about individuals that are unauthorized and doing bad things?’ Human trafficking, dealing drugs, committing violent crimes. Whether you’re Hispanic or not, there’s not much of a debate there.” The proposition faces some high hurdles before it can become law. Arizona’s measure includes a provision that it cannot take effect until a similar law, such as Texas’s SB 4, has been operational for 60 consecutive days without legal interference. SB 4, however, remains stalled in court, pending review of its constitutionality. If Texas’s law is struck down, it would likely prevent Arizona’s Prop. 314 from becoming enforceable. If and when it does become law, several civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, have vowed to challenge it in court.  There’s also the matter of the price tag on enforcement. The Arizona Department of Public Safety projected enforcement could cost state and local police $41 million annually, and detentions in Arizona could cost between $224 to $447 million, according to an analysis by The Arizona Center for Economic Progress – costs it says would shift to taxpayers. “There’s no actual funding mechanism for this, so our hope is that in itself will keep the proposition from being implemented,” says César Fierros, communications director for Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), the Phoenix-based community group that has been fighting similar anti-immigration measures since the days of SB 1070, Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2012, ruling its provisions were pre-empted by federal law. On the question of why so many Latino voters supported the measure, Fierros also believes many underestimated how its passage could personally affect them. LUCHA canvassers knocked on more than 612,000 doors of Latino voters this election cycle, and Fierros says for many of them, the Democrats’ emphasis on social justice and identity issues took a backseat to the economy this time around. “What our canvassers found in speaking to Latino voters was a similar attitude toward how a lot of them felt about Trump’s plan to implement ‘mass deportations’ of undocumented immigrants upon taking office,” he reports. “They say, ‘He’s not talking about me . He’s not going to deport my family.’ But a lot of Latinos are part of families that have a lot of mixed-status members. Our message to them is that he’s actually talking about all of us.” Pedraza takes it a step further, citing how the threat of arrests and deportations will disrupt the economies of sectors that rely on the contributions of mixed-status laborers – restaurants, construction, hospitality and entertainment, for example. “With the passage of 314, we’re going to be in a situation where immigration enforcement is not just going to matter to people with a ‘z’ in their last name,” he says. “Yes, the Gonzaleses and the Lopezes, they’re going to care about this. But there’s also going to be a lot of Browns, a lot of Smiths, and a lot of Campbells who’ll be affected, too.” Behind the parsing and projections lies one inalienable fact: Many Americans are fed up with illegal immigration, and their frustrations are starting to bleed over into their feelings about general immigration. A July Gallup poll showed that 55 percent of Americans favored decreasing immigration to the U.S. – the highest figure since 2001, when 58 percent favored curbs.  Unlike SB 1070, which was never put before Arizona voters for approval (the act was approved in 2010 by the Arizona State Legislature and signed into law by then-Governor Jan Brewer), Prop. 314 now carries a public mandate that Pedraza fears may make it harder for judges to strike down. “It made it. It got all the way to the ballot and voters said, ‘Yes,’” he says. “That makes it a different matter, because this is what the people wanted.” PHOENIX reached out to the Arizona State Senator who spearheaded the proposition, Republican house majority leader Warren Petersen, but he declined to comment on the measure.  However, in an interview with FOX 10 News reporter Steve Nielsen on Election Day, Petersen indicated that while the prop still has some obstacles to overcome before becoming law, he doesn’t believe enacting it will be as important now that Trump won the presidency and is expected to strengthen immigration enforcement on the federal level. “They’re going to now do their job, that means we’re not really gonna need to use the law at this time,” Petersen said, adding, “I think it’s kind of nice to have as a tool in case we get into a situation again.” For Navarro, who had mixed feelings about Prop. 314 anyway, that’s just fine if the feds take over the work. “I understand where people who voted for this are coming from,” he says. “They’re frustrated with our federal government, and I don’t blame them. But should the local law enforcement pay for it? Because think about it: You arrest these people, you put them in jail. Who’s feeding them? Who’s housing them? We are. “The main purpose behind that proposition was to try and get some type of control over the immigration problem,” Navarro adds. “Now, hopefully, the federal government will do their job.” ORIGINAL ARTICLE: https://www.phoenixmag.com/2025/01/02/shifting-borders/