Arizona voters, on the front lines in the battle against illegal immigration, appear to be favoring new state laws that are designed to stem the flow.

Early returns show more support for Proposition 134 than opposition in what actually has been a fairly low-key race, with little money spent on advertising.

But the measure, put on the ballot by Republican lawmakers, could be benefiting from years of headlines and videotape about people entering the country illegally.

The number of border crossers has recently slowed. But the whole issue has become a central point in the presidential race, with Republican Donald Trump, now the president-elect,  promising mass deportations if he is elected – and even Democrats conceding that more needs to be done, though their approaches are different.

There’s also the fact that proponents crafted it in a way that could tilt public support: It states it is designed to respond to “harms related to an unsecured border.”

The measure has four provisions.

One makes it a crime to use false documents when applying for work. Another mandates proof of legal presence to obtain certain public benefits.

There also is a section that increases the penalty for the “sale of lethal fentanyl” based on the claim that much of the supply of the drug or its precursor chemicals has come across the border.

The key would allow state and local police to arrest anyone who is not a legal resident who enters Arizona from Mexico, but not through a lawful port of entry.

That has led to claims that the law would lead to racial profiling, with a focus on anyone who appears not to be a lawful resident.

In a bid to address that, state Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, insisted on the addition of a provision saying that an arrest cannot take place unless the law enforcement officer “witnesses the violation” or has a recording of the illegal crossing. But that did not mollify foes who noted there also is a catch-all of sort allowing an arrest if there is “any other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause.”

During House debate on the measure, Rep. Patty Contreras, D-Phoenix, who was born in Yuma, said there is a history of racial profiling in Arizona.

She told colleagues of being taken with her seven siblings on road trips by her parents. On one of those trips, Contreras said, her father, John, was stopped by police in Quartzsite, about 100 miles north of the border.

“He was an American citizen, he was born in California, he was a Korean War veteran,” she said, aside from being a businessman and a former vice mayor of Somerton where they were living, and an American Legion post commander.

“But these things didn’t matter to the officer,” Contreras continued. “What mattered to the officer was that there was a brown-skinned man driving a station wagon filled with a bunch of little brown kids.”

What also is stoking fear that the measure could be misused is that it provides immunity to government entities, officials, employees and contractors for any actions taken under the law.

But House Majority Whip Teresa Martinez said the question is simple.

“This vote will allow the people of Arizona to decide for themselves what they want,” she argued.

“Do they want a stronger border?” asked the Casa Grande Republican. “Or do they want open borders?”

There have been various estimates of what the new law might cost in law enforcement and incarceration. That has been countered by various claims of the cost of illegal immigration.

But that incarceration part may be academic.

Prop 134 is set up so that judges, rather than jailing individuals, can order them to “return to the foreign nation from which the person entered” or to the “nation of origin.” And judges would be able to order a state or local law enforcement agency to transport them to a port of entry.

There’s also the question of whether all of this is legal.

The key provision is modeled after SB 4, approved by the Texas Legislature. Challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal appellate court has blocked its enforcement until that litigation is settled.

That fact did not escape Arizona lawmakers. Prop 134 is worded that it cannot be enacted here until at least 60 days after there is a final ruling on that Texas statute. And going through the anticipated appellate process could take months.

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed legislation with a nearly identical provision earlier this year. That led to the decision by GOP lawmakers – there were no Democratic votes – to bypass the governor and send it directly to voters.