An amended version of a bill that calls on county sheriffs and the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry to support the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts cleared its first committee on Monday.

SB1164, dubbed the Arizona Immigration, Cooperation, and Enforcement Act, passed the Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee 4-3 along party lines with Republican support.

The bill, introduced by Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, calls for sheriff departments and the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry to use its “best efforts” to support federal immigration enforcement but no longer requires those agencies to enter into 287(g) agreements with the federal government. The agreements allow state law enforcement agencies to perform specified functions of federal immigration officers and receive training from the federal government on the scope of those functions.

The bill does require county sheriffs and the Department of Corrections to comply with immigration detainer requests, which prevents detainees from being released from custody.

In addition, the bill prohibits cities and towns from adopting or enforcing any policies that hinders law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. If the Attorney General investigates and finds the law was violated, those municipalities would lose state-shared revenues until they comply.

“There may be nothing more important that a government does (than) make sure that its citizens are safe,” Petersen said during the committee hearing.

Petersen said he’s been working with law enforcement agencies to craft the bill and touted the support of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association.

“The Arizona Sheriffs’ Association fully supports the AZ ICE Act,” said Yavapai County Sheriff and Association President David Rhodes in a prepared statement. “We thank Senate President Warren Petersen for working with Sheriffs to bring this important legislation that ensures the rule of law will be enforced. Communities will be kept safer because of this new law, and the will of the voters will be followed.”

The committee hearing drew opponents of the bill, who shared their concerns about being racially profiled, especially in the wake of President Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations.

Tanisha Hartwell-Parris’ husband, Marlon Parris, is a U.S. Army combat veteran who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Jan. 22, days after Trump took office. Parris, a Trinidad and Tobago native, had documentation showing he was legally in the country and has lived in the country for about 30 years, Hartwell-Parris said.

During her testimony, she said the issues could be worse for someone who didn’t serve in the military or doesn’t have any documentation.

“Due to things that could happen within this (law), he is now currently detained, even with all of the proper documentation. So I can only imagine what could happen with somebody that doesn’t have the documentation,” she said.

Tyler Montague, senior policy advisor for the American Business Immigration Coalition, said the portion of the bill calling for law enforcement to use their “best efforts” to support immigration enforcement could hurt the economy since people who are here illegally comprise a huge portion of the workforce in certain sectors.

“We don’t oppose removing dangerous criminals from the community or efforts to improve border enforcement and security and public safety,” Montague said. “But this bill has some big landmines, as far as we’re concerned, and so we urge a no vote in its current form.”

Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Laveen, who sits on the committee, agreed that the bill would still negatively affect the community, no matter how many times it’s refined.

“You could spend many days trying to fix it, and (it) still has tons of consequences towards our community,” Miranda said.

Petersen reiterated that the law would primarily focus on those who are already in custody for a state crime, which should curtail concerns of racial profiling.

“What we don’t want is for somebody to be released,” he said. “We have seen this in other states where people have been released back into the community knowing that they had just committed a crime and they were not here legally. So that is specifically what this is focused on.”