Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: border

USMCA renewal is critical to Arizona and the nation

Steven G. Zylstra

When the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA in 2020, it did more than modernize a landmark yet outdated agreement. It established the framework for more than $1.8 trillion in annual trade across North America as recently as 2024. That trade supports millions of jobs in the United States, thousands of them here in Arizona. Now, as the 2026 renewal decision approaches, the certainty provided by USMCA is on the line.

Carol Colombo

For Arizona, the stakes could not be higher. Mexico is our No. 1 trading partner and Canada is No. 2. From aerospace and electronics to copper, mining products, citrus and lettuce, nearly a third of Arizona’s total exports head to those two markets. In 2024 alone, Arizona exported about $9 billion in goods to Mexico and another $3 billion to Canada. These flows of trade represent paychecks for U.S. workers, revenue for businesses and opportunities for communities statewide.

Anyone watching the trucks line up at the Nogales-Mariposa Port of Entry knows how deeply our economy depends on cross-border commerce. The winter produce that fills U.S. grocery store shelves often comes through Nogales, while Arizona’s manufacturers export the parts and equipment used in everything from automobiles to jet engines. In Tucson, aerospace companies rely on supply chains that stretch across the border. In the East Valley, technology startups depend on USMCA’s digital trade provisions to keep their products moving efficiently. Without the agreement, many of these goods would face tariffs, delays or unpredictable rules that would harm competitiveness.

The agreement also provides something less visible but equally important: predictability. More than 7,000 Arizona companies exported goods in 2024, with the overwhelming majority small or mid-sized firms. These are not multinational giants backed by teams of lawyers and trade experts. They are local entrepreneurs who depend on USMCA to keep rules clear and markets open. Their ability to hire, expand and invest depends on certainty.

The public comment period on USMCA renewal is now open. Until Nov. 1, individuals, companies and organizations can submit their views to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. There will also be a public hearing on Nov. 17 in Washington, D.C. Arizona voices need to be heard. Policymakers want to know how trade agreements affect real communities. Whether your business relies on exporting to Mexico or Canada, your farm depends on tariff protections or your workers benefit from integrated supply chains, you must share your story now. 

Should the agreement unravel, Arizona would feel the shock first. Tariffs would rise, supply chains would fray and investment could shift elsewhere. The consequences would be fewer jobs, higher prices and slower growth. Preserving USMCA is not about politics. It is about protecting the backbone of Arizona’s economy and ensuring that families from Nogales to Phoenix to Flagstaff continue to benefit from strong cross-border ties.

At the national level, USMCA remains one of the few trade agreements that reflects the realities of today’s economy. It covers digital trade, labor protections and sustainable practices. It is a model for how trade can support good jobs, environmental responsibility and shared prosperity. USMCA is more than a treaty on paper. It is the system that powers businesses, supports jobs, strengthens supply chains and connects communities across North America. Weakening it would not only harm Arizona but also the entire United States.

Arizona’s future depends on certainty, not disruption. As the renewal decision approaches, our voices must be clear. We should continue to build on USMCA, not dismantle it.

Steven Zylstra is president and CEO of the Arizona Technology Council & SciTech Institute. 

Carol Colombo is managing member of Fedelta Partners and the AzDEC chairwoman.

Here’s why public-private detention partnerships are essential

Jonathan Lines

As the national immigration debate continues to evolve, policymakers and the public face a critical question: How do we manage the many individuals entering the U.S. and ensure fair, humane, and efficient enforcement of immigration laws? One often overlooked, yet vitally important, element of this discussion is detention infrastructure. Specifically, the increasing need for immigration detention bed space and the role that private detention facilities and public-private partnerships play in addressing that need.

Far from being a mere convenience, private sector involvement is fast becoming a necessity. With the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) proposing and requesting funding for up to 100,000 detention beds, the limitations of existing state-run infrastructure have become clear. Meeting this level of demand requires not only physical capacity, but also operational expertise, scalability and accountability, and a commitment to humane treatment. Experienced private contractors are uniquely positioned to provide these capabilities. 

Managing a complex and fluid detention system is expensive, but that doesn’t mean it has to be inefficient too. In fact, private detention centers often operate with lower overhead and more streamlined management than government-run counterparts. They are structured for agility and are accountable through competitive contracts. Moreover, they are often able to deliver higher performance at lower cost, benefiting taxpayers and ensuring federal resources are used wisely.

In contrast to the bureaucratic constraints that slow down state-managed facilities, private contractors can quickly adopt innovations, cut redundant processes, and deliver real-time solutions to problems as they arise. By outsourcing to experienced operators, ICE can maintain focus on its core enforcement mission while leveraging the private sector’s strengths in logistics, facilities management, and service delivery.

The need for up to 100,000 ICE detention beds, as proposed by DHS, underscores the magnitude of the challenge ahead. Migrant surges, changes in enforcement priorities, and geopolitical instability require a system that can expand and contract quickly. Public-private partnerships allow for exactly that.

Where public facilities may require years of capital investment and construction, private operators can stand up temporary or modular facilities quickly, redeploy resources across regions, and scale operations to meet demand — all while adhering to federally mandated standards. This flexibility makes the system more resilient in the face of unpredictable migratory trends, including increases in asylum seekers, border crossers, and individuals pending removal proceedings.

It also ensures that ICE can fulfill its legal mandate without relying on makeshift solutions or overcrowded conditions, which are not only unsafe but also expose the federal government to legal and reputational risk.

One of the most misunderstood elements of private detention is accountability. Critics often claim that profit-driven entities are less likely to uphold detainee rights, but in fact, private operators are bound by detailed federal contracts that impose strict standards for performance, safety, and care.

These contracts are not static. They are continually monitored and audited through third-party inspections, unannounced site visits, and performance reviews. Failure to meet contractual obligations can result in serious consequences, including fines or contract termination. Public facilities often lack these incentives. 

Moreover, private companies that specialize in immigration detention bring decades of institutional knowledge and subject-matter expertise. These are not ad hoc operators; they are seasoned partners that understand ICE’s mission, legal mandates, and operational frameworks, making them better suited to respond to high-level demands than state-run facilities that may be focused primarily on criminal incarceration.

One thing is clear: existing government-run capacity is insufficient to meet the nation’s current and projected needs. ICE must have the infrastructure to detain individuals in accordance with federal law, court orders and public safety concerns. Private contractors provide the surge capacity to meet this challenge and bring with them not only the beds but the institutional readiness and compliance systems to manage them effectively.

Furthermore, experienced private providers often operate under federal Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), which include protocols for medical care, legal access, visitation, and mental health support. Some go even further, implementing internal accountability systems and third-party review boards to ensure they exceed minimum standards.

The alternative to leveraging private partnerships is grim: ICE would face chronic overcrowding, increased legal liabilities, reduced enforcement efficacy, and deteriorating detention conditions. These outcomes are neither practical nor morally acceptable.

To be clear, public-private partnerships are not a panacea. Strong oversight, transparency, and community engagement are essential. But they represent a realistic, scalable and humane solution to one of the most pressing logistical challenges in modern immigration enforcement.

The national immigration system needs more than political will – it needs infrastructure, agility, and expert execution. As the federal government considers expanding detention capacity to meet rising demand, it must rely on experienced, proven private-sector partners who can rise to the occasion.

Let’s move beyond outdated narratives and embrace a model that works. A system built on public-private cooperation, grounded in accountability and focused on results, is not only desirable — it is essential for a safe, efficient, and just immigration system.

Jonathan Lines is a Yuma County supervisor, business owner, and serves on the Arizona-Mexico Commission and as chairman of the Border Security Alliance.

Republican immigration efforts continue despite vetoes

Key Points:
  • Senate Republicans plan to rerun immigration bills next year
  • Measures demand cooperation with federal government and increase enforcement efforts
  • Democrats criticize the enforcement’s lack of due process 

Senate Republicans remain determined to support President Donald Trump’s border security efforts despite seeing their immigration related bills vetoed this session.

The Republicans have vowed to either revive the vetoed measures as bills or ballot referrals next year, or potentially wait for the outcome of the 2026 gubernatorial election to see if Arizonans elect a Republican governor who may be more likely to sign the legislation.

Most of the vetoed bills would have required municipalities, law enforcement agencies and other entities to support the federal government’s immigration enforcement operations and prohibit local governments and agencies from hindering those efforts.

Despite the vetoes, Republicans have been galvanized by Trump’s return to office, the passage of Proposition 314 last fall and the promise of mass deportations.

The president’s immigration agenda has taken shape with federal authorities arresting immigrants lacking permanent legal status in cities, including Phoenix, and an expanded military presence along the southern border in Arizona and other states.

Democrats, activists and other organizations questioned the constitutionality of the proposed bills, the role of local law enforcement in enforcing immigration law and the federal government’s enforcement policies in cities and the border. 

“We were concerned about these bills because they were all different ways to support the federal government’s mass deportation efforts,” said Noah Schramm, border policy strategist at the ACLU of Arizona. “And, of course, while deportation is a right the federal government has, the way in which mass deportation has been talked about, the way in which the Trump administration has been going about it, we find to be incredibly problematic for all sorts of reasons.”

Cooperation, detention and deportation
Senate Republicans featured border security as one of their main priorities heading into this legislative session.

One of the first major immigration bills introduced this session was Senate Bill 1164, known as the Arizona Immigration, Cooperation, and Enforcement Act (AZ ICE Act), introduced by Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert.

The bill would’ve allowed law enforcement agencies and other government agencies to enter into memorandums of agreement with federal agencies to enforce immigration laws, including 287(g) agreements, which 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 would have prohibited cities and towns from adopting or enforcing any policies that hinder law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. 

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the legislation on April 18.

Petersen said at a press conference on April 21 that Republicans were discussing potential next steps, which would include deciding whether the AZ ICE Act could return as a referendum.

“We’re looking at 18 months until the next election, and the governor will be on the ballot,” Petersen said at the time. “So a part of the equation will be: Is the focus going into getting a governor that will sign the bill, or does this go on the ballot?”

Petersen didn’t have an update on a decision but recently said in a text message to “stay tuned.”

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, also dropped a couple of bills that would have supported the federal government’s deportation efforts.

Senate Bill 1294 would’ve required the Arizona Department of Administration to lease a vacant prison in Marana to the federal government for $1 per year, but the bill failed in the House.

Another measure, Senate Bill 1610, would’ve called for county detention facilities to provide personal identifying information of anyone arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, or any other violent crime resulting in death or serious injuries.

Kavanagh said earlier this month, after the veto, that the legislation could return as a ballot measure. 

Two other Republican lawmakers have also said their vetoed bills will likely return next year.

Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, said in a text message that he’ll likely bring back Senate Bill 1088 as a bill or ballot measure. The bill would’ve required cities, municipalities, agencies and government contractors to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. 

And Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, expressed a desire to rerun Senate Bill 1268, a measure that would require hospitals to include a section on admission forms that gives people the option to indicate whether they were lawfully present in the country.

“Vetoes cannot and do not dissuade me from leading on legislation for which my constituents voted me in to represent them,” Roger said in a text message statement through a Senate spokeswoman earlier this month.

All of the Republicans directed heavy criticism toward Hobbs for vetoing their bills.

“You may see a number of the border measures that she vetoed coming back next year for the voters because Gov. Hobbs is totally out of step with the voters on illegal immigration enforcement,” Kavanagh said earlier this month.

In response, Hobbs has touted her work partnering with the federal government to secure the border and stop drug trafficking, but said she didn’t want to place burdens on local law enforcement or have local officials take “marching orders” from Washington, D.C.

“Governor Hobbs has taken real action to keep our communities safe, including working with the federal government to secure the border,” said Christian Slater, spokesman for the governor. “Last year, she announced Task Force SAFE, deploying the National Guard to the border to stop drug smuggling and human trafficking. In coordination with the federal government, that Task Force has stopped over 11 million fentanyl pills and thousands of pounds of illegal drugs.”

ICE arrests and enforcement

As Senate Republicans regroup on border policy, the vetoes haven’t interfered with the federal government’s immigration enforcement around the state.

In Phoenix, ICE agents arrived at the Phoenix immigration court to arrest people over a two-day period beginning May 20 before returning on May 28 to detain more people, according to reports from local media and activist groups.

ICE didn’t answer questions regarding how many people were arrested, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying the agency is targeting individuals who have entered the country within the last two years.

The Homeland Security statement reads: “Most aliens who illegally entered the United States within the past two years are subject to expedited removals. (President Joe Biden) ignored this legal fact and chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, into the country with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been. If they have a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation.”

Kavanagh applauded the agency’s efforts, saying people were making “bogus” asylum claims.

“They were going through a legal process to try to scam the federal government based on their illegal claim of refugee status,” he said.

Democrats have vehemently disagreed with the arrests, questioning the methods for detaining people and a lack of due process for those in custody.

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, joined a cadre of Democratic lawmakers and activists at the immigration court during the week to protest the arrests.

The legislators collaborated with Puente Arizona and the Borderlands Resource Initiative to train volunteers, inform individuals of their rights, and accompany them to their hearings. 

Ortiz said there are many mixed status families in her district, so she was concerned that some of those constituents could’ve been taken into custody.

“Republicans want to further embolden these masked agents. We don’t even know who they are,” she said. “They are circumventing due process. It should terrify any American. It should terrify any person in the United States. We have a right to due process for a reason.”

Schramm referred to the arrests as an “aggressive tactic” to target people who are trying to navigate the process legally.

“They’re essentially tricking people and taking advantage of the fact that the vast majority of immigrants do attend their court hearings and do want to do things the right way,” he said.

Help from the National Guard

At the border, the federal government has also increased the presence of military personnel in Arizona and other border states.

The U.S. Northern Command activated the Joint Task Force-Southern Border in March, composed of active duty and National Guard military personnel from across the country.

“We are absolutely here working in support of DHS, and so we have our Border Patrol counterparts that we’re working with, kind of throughout the sectors along the southern border, certainly in Arizona,” said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Sarah Ray, a spokeswoman for the Joint Task Force-Southern Border.

There are more than 8,500 personnel from the U.S. Army, Marines, Navy and other agencies, according to a May 19 press release from the U.S. Northern Command. However, it’s not clear how many of those are stationed in Arizona.

The federal government also established National Defense Areas in Texas and New Mexico, transforming the southern border in those states into military zones.

With the increased military presence, there’s been a sharp decrease in encounters along the border.

According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Border Patrol recorded more than 8,300 apprehensions along the southwest border in April, compared to almost 129,000 in April 2024.

Ortiz wasn’t aware of the military presence in Arizona, but knew personnel had been deployed to other states. 

But the mobilization is another example of the country’s “rapid descent into authoritarianism,” she said.

“There should be no other frame on this story than the fact that we are rapidly losing our rights as United States citizens. We are rapidly losing our democracy,” she said. “And this is all part of that.”

Despite recent veto, head of Arizona Sheriffs’ Association supports Arizona ICE Act

Key Points:
  • The head of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association spoke in favor of the Arizona ICE Act
  • The measure would have required local officials to detain suspects marked by federal officials for deportation
  • The bill was vetoed by the governor, but some legislators want it on the 2026 ballot

The head of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association said on April 21 that he and his counterparts in all 14 counties should be forced by state law to hold those they have arrested if they are wanted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At a press conference, Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes said he disagrees with the decision of Gov. Katie Hobbs to veto legislation designed to ensure more cooperation between local and federal officials. That measure specifically included a mandate that county sheriffs honor “detainer” requests made by ICE to hold those who have been arrested on state crimes until the federal agency can pick them up.

That is something that sheriffs can do now, and Rhodes said he believes a majority of the sheriffs do comply already.

“But you have a handful that are not,” he said.

Rhodes did not name names. But Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos is among those who said his agency will not participate in plans by ICE to conduct mass deportations, including holding those in county jails for anything beyond the state crime for which they were arrested.

That, said Rhodes, is wrong.

“The state should be telling those sheriffs, ‘If you have somebody in your custody, and that person has committed crime, particularly violent crime, and they are subject to removal from this country, they must notify the immigration authorities,”’ he said. “I do believe that that is a fair, common sense, piece of legislation and direction that they need to follow.”

The requirement to hold individuals for ICE was just part of what was in the bill vetoed by Hobbs.

It also would have authorized the attorney general to file suit against any non-cooperative law enforcement agency and prohibited state and local agencies from adopting or enforcing any policies that prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. And it also directed the attorney general, on request of any legislator, to investigate those entities that restrict such cooperation.

Hobbs, in her veto message, said she was unwilling to “force state and local officials to taking marching orders from Washington, D.C.”

But Senate President Warren Petersen said this would have amounted to state lawmakers, not the federal government, setting policy for state and local governments. The Gilbert Republican who crafted the now-vetoed bill said it served a public purpose: allowing immigration officials to take those not here legally into custody at a jail versus having agents go look for them in the community, a much riskier process.

What’s next for the measure remains unclear. One option is put the measure on the 2026 ballot.

Petersen said voters already have made it clear they support greater local involvement in enforcement of immigration laws, citing the approval of Proposition 314 in November by a 63-37 margin.

That measure made it a state crime, enforceable by state and local police, for anyone who is not a citizen to enter Arizona at anything other than a port of entry. Additionally it gave new requirements for verification of immigration status by those seeking public benefits, and made it a felony to submit false documents when applying for a job or seeking benefits.

But Petersen said Republicans may have a higher priority for the 2026 election.

“The governor will be on the ballot,” he noted. “So, part of the equation will be, is the focus going into getting a governor that will sign the bill, or does this go on the ballot with her?”

Petersen said the bill that went to the governor did include some compromises, mainly changes sought by law enforcement. But he said he would not have made other changes in an effort to line up votes or address concerns.

One of those objections was that, as worded, the measure requiring cooperation with ICE would have affected not just city and county policies but also those of public schools. That drew concerns from some school districts who said they did not want to be forced to allow immigration officials onto their campus.

Petersen brushed aside their concerns.

“That’s the case right now,” he said. “ICE can already go into schools.”

He also derided Hobbs who said in her veto message that she is using state resources the way they are designed: to stop the flow of fentanyl across the border.

“Just 90 days ago, the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office conducted a traffic stop along I-40 and found 24 pounds of fentanyl in the vehicle,” Petersen said. “The governor’s policies are not stopping fentanyl from being transported into our state.”

Tough immigration bill requires local officials to support federal efforts

The Senate approved a bill on April 9 that would mandate the governor, attorney general, cities and towns to support the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

House Bill 2099 is one of a series of measures introduced this session that calls for state officials, municipalities and law enforcement agencies to support the federal government’s deportation efforts. State Republicans have proposed the legislation in response to President Donald Trump’s deportation initiatives and the passage last fall of Proposition 314, which makes entering the country anywhere other than a port of entry a crime.

HB2099, which was approved along party lines with Republican support, would be repealed on Jan. 20, 2029.

The bill’s passage occurred a day after the Trump administration’s border czar Tom Homan spoke to state lawmakers during a joint session where he reiterated the administration’s promise to mass deport immigrants with criminal records who are living in the country illegally.

The bill, along with Republican lawmakers’ other efforts to support the federal government’s immigration mandates, has drawn staunch opposition from Democrats and activists who remain concerned about racial profiling and the lack of due process for people who have already been deported.

During the April 9 Senate hearing, all 13 Democratic senators spoke in opposition to the bill, sharing stories of immigrants who either had no criminal records or have been granted permission to stay in the country but were still deported, as well as college students who were taken into custody and had their student visas revoked.

Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Laveen, told the story of Marlon Parris, 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 had previously served time for a non-violent drug offense but was assured by federal officials he wouldn’t be deported.

“HB2099 takes a divisive, state centric approach that could undermine efforts for a more holistic and humane immigration system,” Miranda said.

Sen. Theresa Hatathlie, D-Coal Mine Canyon, shared the story of Tufts University doctorate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was taken into custody by immigration officials last month while walking through a Boston suburb. According to media reports, Ozturk had publicly expressed support for Palestinians.

“This speaks to the fact that, for these individuals, they have no history (of) any type of legal misconduct. However, they are not being provided due process,” Hatathlie said. “Due process is something that we continue to talk about. And in fairness of the law, due process should be provided.”

Sen. Brian Fernandez, D-Yuma, spoke of Canadian actress Jasmine Mooney, who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for two weeks and spent time in a facility located in his district.

“I represent most of the southern border with Mexico, probably well over 60% and our local law enforcement have worked for decades to build trust within the communities,” Fernandez said. “In fact, we’ve tried to hire micro-locally to ensure that people feel close to the place and don’t feel an adversarial relationship. And this bill will destroy that in one moment.”

Other Democrats shared stories of families that were split up and immigrants who were profiled because they sported certain tattoos.

Republicans countered with the story of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia who was killed when she went on a run in February 2024. Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who entered the country illegally, was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise, said, “While I understand there are plights that frustrate people, and I feel for them, we cannot turn this conversation around and not discuss the fact that what we’re asking for is to follow the laws in the United States of America … The reason we are the land of opportunity is because we are a land of law.”

GOP lawmakers look to help Trump on border, implement Prop. 314

Editor’s note: This story has been revised to correct the year of the Florence prison closure.

With voter approval of Proposition 314 and President-elect Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations, Arizona Republicans appear primed to introduce more legislation that they say will further secure the border and support the Trump administration’s efforts. 

Senate Republicans released their 2025 Majority Plan on Jan. 8 for the upcoming legislative session, which outlines their priorities for border security and other key issues.

In the plan, Republicans highlighted their intention to support the implementation of Proposition 314 by providing resources to law enforcement, assisting the federal government in enforcing immigration law and increasing penalties for fentanyl trafficking and possession. The Prop. 134 ballot measure makes entering the country anywhere other than a port of entry a crime.

However, the GOP could still face obstacles to accomplishing those goals.

The portion of the proposition targeting those who enter the country illegally won’t take effect unless a similar law in Texas or any other state has been in effect for 60 days. The Texas law, Senate Bill 4, is facing legal challenges in federal court.

State law enforcement officials say they will need more money to properly enforce border laws as many agencies contend with a shortage of officers and deputies, and a potential strain on jail facilities.

And any potential border bill will need the approval of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who last year vetoed a measure similar to the proposition, which she opposed. Many Democrats and activists also opposed the proposition and will likely speak out against any border legislation they deem inhumane.

“I think it’s a real question of what the public’s reaction is going to be to some of these mass deportation policies,” said Noah Schramm, border policy strategist at the ACLU of Arizona. “I think that may well inform what we’re likely to see at the Legislature. You could imagine a scenario where the Trump administration goes quite far, and starts doing deportations in a way that is extraordinarily inhumane that results in families being separated.”

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he will introduce several border-related bills in anticipation of Trump’s plan for mass deportations, including legislation that would lease two empty prisons to the federal government for $1 a year.

State officials closed the prisons in Marana and Florence in 2022 as cost-saving measures.

Kavanagh also wants to drop bills requiring all prisons and detention facilities to screen inmates for immigration status upon release and reimbursing law enforcement agencies that send their officers to training that teaches them how to identify those in the country illegally.

“We need to get detention officers all over the state trained to legally determine who’s here illegally, so they can call ICE. I think that’s the number one priority, because getting the criminals out is the most important part of the deportation program,” Kavanagh said.

Law enforcement officials are hoping the state will allocate the money to support agencies as they prepare to enforce any impending border laws.

The Arizona Sheriffs’ Association is requesting about $50 million from the state in the next fiscal year to support local law enforcement agencies’ drug interdiction efforts in border communities.

“Each individual law enforcement agency that’s down along the border will have to make decisions on their own policy and priorities, and a lot of those decisions are going to be informed by the availability of funding,” said Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes, who serves as the association’s president. “The cost of the increased staff that it would require to beef up border security, of local law enforcement, the cost of any impact to the local criminal justice system, incarceration, all that stuff. It can’t just fall to the counties or the local jurisdictions. They don’t have the money.”

Kavanagh, who is chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he sent a letter to the association asking for a detailed breakdown of those figures and described the estimate as “grossly inflated.”

“A large part of this request is based upon the assumption that when illegal immigrants are apprehended crossing the border, rather than agree to leave on their own, they decide to go to court and risk going to prison for six months,” he said.

Kavanagh said he believes the situation along the Arizona/Mexico border will improve based on Trump’s presence in office.

“I don’t think, with Trump as president, we’re going to have waves of illegal immigrants stringing across the border that the Border Patrol and our local police have to apprehend,” he said. “There will be far fewer people crossing the border, which will allow us to focus on the long-term goal of securing the border with a wall.” 

 

Border sheriffs likely to get more money, but how much?

The president of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association said Wednesday that border sheriffs want to nearly triple the funding for local border law enforcement in the next fiscal year.  

Association president and Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes told the Arizona Capitol Times Wednesday that the association is requesting about $50 million in state funding in the next fiscal year for local law enforcement agencies’ drug interdiction efforts in border communities. 

The recently enacted budget included $17 million to local border law enforcement distributed through the Department of Public Safety from Gov. Katie Hobbs’s Stopping Arizona’s Fentanyl Epidemic Initiative. 

Rhodes said the $50 million estimate is needed for border sheriffs after the passage of Proposition 314, the Secure the Border Act. 

border, drugs, fentanyl, sheriffs,
Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes

“The citizens are expecting local law enforcement, particularly along the border, to be able to do more,” Rhodes said.

Prop 314 will make it a state crime for non-citizens to enter the state at any location other than a port of entry once it goes into effect, allowing for law enforcement to arrest non-citizens they’ve observed or have evidence of entering the state illegally.

The measure also includes penalties for people found guilty of selling fentanyl that results in the death of another person, making the act a Class 2 felony with a 4-year to 12.5-year prison sentence.

Voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 314 in November. The measure passed with more than 62% of voters supporting it. 

Rhodes said border sheriffs need more deputies, and he expected a good portion of increased funding if it’s enacted by the Legislature to go to deputy positions and their equipment. He estimated adding 20 deputies would cost about $5 million. 

“There’s $20 million annually on the four border counties right there if that comes to pass,” he said.

An increase in funds could also go toward technology for fentanyl investigators and jail renovations for an expected increase of detentions, Rhodes said. 

The need for further funding as a result of Prop 314’s passage isn’t new for lawmakers. During the 2024 legislative session, Rhodes told legislators law enforcement wouldn’t be able to enforce Prop 314 without additional funding. 

“I have heard several of the sheriffs for the counties on the border say … Prop 314 is going to be an unfunded mandate. It is expenditures that we have not put in the budget,” Rep. Stephanie Stahl-Hamilton, D-Tucson, said during a Wednesday Joint Legislative Budget Committee hearing.

The House Appropriations Committee Chairman, Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, told the Arizona Capitol Times Wednesday that he is expecting the Legislature to increase border law enforcement funding, but he’s not sure yet if they’ll get to the $50 million estimate. He has not met with the sheriffs or the governor’s office yet to discuss details, he said.

“We have to do a better job protecting our citizens,” Livingston said. “I do expect we will increase (funding). Will we increase it to that amount – I just don’t know yet.”

The Legislature will have some wiggle room in budget negotiations compared to last session when lawmakers faced a $1.8 billion deficit with recent state tax collections giving the state about a $660 million surplus to work with as of October, but JLBC staff has warned lawmakers that the state could see another budget shortfall by 2026 if they spend excessively. 

There are other big-ticket spending items lawmakers will consider in the upcoming session. An October presentation from JLBC staff projected a sharp rise of K-12 spending with costs increasing by $524 million. That estimate was calculated by backfilling the loss of Proposition 123, which funds public schools from the  State Land Trust Permanent Fund. 

Lawmakers on JLBC also removed $250,000 of funding designated toward the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office by the Department of Public Safety’s Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission. 

The committee voted on party lines to exclude the funds from Santa Cruz after Republicans raised issues with Santa Cruz Sheriff David Hathaway’s attitude of immigration enforcement. 

Hathaway, a Democrat, has publicly opposed Prop 314 because the measure had no funding mechanism. He told KJZZ in October that he also believed immigration responsibilities would distract local law enforcement from other priorities. 

DPS’s expenditure plan originally allocated $1 million to sheriff offices in Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Santa Cruz and Yuma counties. Now, Santa Cruz’s share will be reallocated to the other counties because Republicans don’t have confidence in Hathaway enforcing immigration laws.

“He’s projecting the impression that he thinks immigration enforcement is racist and xenophobic and he’s not going to do it. Well, then he’s not going to get the money,” said Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who also serves as the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman. 

Democrats on the committee opposed taking away Santa Cruz’s funding and accused Republicans of defunding police. 

“Taking something like this away – you are going to hurt our families down in my district and people who rely on this money for their income and the support to do their job and keep them safe,” Stahl-Hamilton said. 

The county has received grants from the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission since 2016. County Manager Jesus Valdez wrote a letter to the committee Wednesday asking them to include the county in the expenditure plan, noting both the Nogales and Mariposa ports of entry are located within the county, which contribute about $30 billion in trade each year. 

“A reduction of border security funding would increase already substantial challenges related to gang activity and transnational crime that directly impact our residents’ safety and well-being,” Valdez wrote. “Securing these funds will directly translate into a safer community for our residents and absent this important state assistance the financial burden will be borne by our local taxpayers.” 

But Valdez’s request wasn’t good enough for Republicans on the committee. They wanted to personally hear Hathaway request border funds and give assurance that he would enforce the law. 

Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, said while he wanted to see Santa Cruz get the grant funds, he couldn’t vote to include them in the expenditure plan unless he had assurance from Hathaway. 

“If we take out Santa Cruz County, that is defunding the police,” said Rep. Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, the incoming House assistant minority leader. 

 

The politics of immigration play differently along the US-Mexico border

SUNLAND PARK, N.M. (AP) — The politics of immigration look different from the back patio of Ardovino’s Desert Crossing restaurant.

That’s where Robert Ardovino sees a Border Patrol horse trailer rumbling across his property on a sweltering summer morning. It’s where a surveillance helicopter traces a line in the sky, and a nearby Border Patrol agent paces a desert gully littered with castoff water bottles and clothing.

It’s also where a steady stream of weary people, often escorted by smugglers, scale a border wall or the slopes of Mount Cristo Rey and step into an uncertain future. It’s a stretch of desert where reports of people dying of exhaustion and exposure have become commonplace.

“It’s very obvious to me, being on the border, that it’s not an open border. It is a very, very, very difficult situation,” said Ardovino, who pays for private fencing topped by concertina wire to route migrants around a restaurant and vintage aluminum trailers that he rents to overnight guests.

“I wish the facts would rule this conversation, and being here, I know they do not.”

As immigration politics have moved to the forefront of this year’s presidential election, they’ve dominated contests across the country for congressional seats that could determine which party controls Congress. But the urgency of the situation is greater in some districts than others.

Three of 11 congressional district races along the southern U.S. border are hotly-contested rematches in districts that flipped in 2022 with the election of Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez in New Mexico and Republican Reps. Juan Ciscomani in Arizona and Monica De La Cruz in Texas.

A partner in a decades-old family business, Ardovino lives in one border district in Texas and works in Vasquez’s district in New Mexico. He was disappointed by the collapse in February of a bipartisan border bill in Washington, and he bristles at politicians talking from afar about an “open border.”

What he wants, more than anything, is a collective fix — one that doesn’t diminish the work of border agents or gloss over real-world challenges like migrants fleeing dictators.

“It’s frustrating for people who need a border bill of any kind, any time, to start dealing with the big picture,” Ardovino said. “I’d rather be running a restaurant than working on these fences.”

Democrats touting border solutions

Early voting starts Oct. 8 in Sunland Park, on the edge of a whiplashed congressional district that flipped in 2018, 2020 and again in 2022 with the election of Vasquez.

Democrats in Congress are promoting border enforcement as seldom before, including a half-dozen bills from Vasquez. He touts his knowledge of the region as the U.S.-born son of immigrants with relatives on both sides of the border.

“With migrant activity along the border, we have had to adjust our approach,” said Vasquez. “I can say here that the sky is blue for 50 years, but when it turns red, you have to admit that it’s turning red.”

Here, border politics are literally matters of life and death. Federal and local authorities describe a new humanitarian crisis along New Mexico’s nearly 180-mile portion of the border, where migrant deaths from heat exposure have surged and merciless smuggling cartels inflict havoc.

Where Doña Ana County shares a 45-mile stretch of border with Mexico, the sheriff’s department reported 78 lifeless migrant bodies found between January and mid-August.

“The death toll, in my 21 years of working with the Doña Ana sheriff’s department, we have not had this,” said Major Jon Day.

In the Texas race, Democratic challenger Michelle Vallejo has taken a hard line on border enforcement, shocking progressive allies in her campaign to unseat De La Cruz. A recent ad from Vallejo describes “chaos at the border” and urges bipartisan cooperation to deploy more Border Patrol agents and fight human trafficking cartels.

‘A responsibility to enforce the law’

In Arizona’s 6th Congressional District, Republican incumbent Ciscomani calls border enforcement his No. 1 priority. But he has distanced himself from former President Donald Trump’s sometimes caustic anti-immigrant rhetoric and avoided presidential campaign events in swing-state Arizona. Instead, Ciscomani tells an immigrant’s story — about his own arrival in the U.S. at age 11 from Hermosillo, Mexico. He received citizenship in 2006 and says he is determined to fix the border.

“We have a responsibility to enforce the law on the border, and we also are a community of immigrants — myself included — that came here to this country, and we’re seeking opportunity.”

Experts say voters near the border have tangible concerns about smugglers and contraband but know the benefits of authorized cross-border commerce and commuting.

“There is, I think, more of a nuanced view,” said Samara Klar, a pollster and professor at the University of Arizona School of Government and Public Policy.

Border patrol arrests on the southwest border plunged to a 46-month low in July after Mexican authorities stepped up enforcement and President Joe Biden temporarily suspended asylum processing. But in New Mexico, where the decline has been less pronounced, surging migrant deaths prompted coordinated U.S. law enforcement raids in August on stash houses where smugglers hide migrants.

Vasquez, looking to be the first Democrat to win reelection in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District since 1978, has pitched legislation to improve detection of fentanyl coming across the border and to disrupt cartel recruitment of young Americans to ferry migrants to hiding places — quick trips that offer $1,100 — amid a scourge of addiction and proliferation of homeless encampments in cities along the Upper Rio Grande.

But he also has plans to improve conditions at migrant detention centers and offer permanent residency to immigrants who fill critical jobs in the U.S.

Republicans walk a tightrope

Vasquez ousted one-term Republican Congresswoman Yvette Herrell by only 1,350 votes in 2022 after Democrats redrew congressional maps to split a conservative oil-producing region into three districts.

Herrell, seeking the seat for the fourth consecutive time, has described an “absolute chaotic scene” at the border, and joined Republican House leaders in claiming that Democrats undermined U.S. elections by opposing a proof-of-citizenship requirement for new voters.

“It’s one or the other,” Herrell said at a rally in Las Cruces with Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. “It’s our sovereignty over the open border.”

Noncitizens already are prohibited from voting in federal elections under penalties including prison or deportation, and Vasquez says the new requirement would make participation more difficult for legitimate voters, including Native Americans who couldn’t vote in New Mexico until 1948. Data from states indicate that voting by noncitizens happens — though not in high numbers.

Herrell’s rhetoric on immigration takes aim at voters in a district Trump lost by a roughly 6% margin in 2020.

“It’s a tightrope that she’s got to walk in trying to get any of the pro-Trump enthusiasm,” said Gabriel Sanchez, director of the University of New Mexico Center for Social Policy.

The district’s voting age population is 56% Hispanic — with centuries-old ties to Mexican and Spanish settlement and a smaller share of foreign-born residents than the national average.

“Republicans have been focused more and more on the Hispanic vote because they sense that they can make some inroads,” Albuquerque-based pollster Brian Sanderoff said. “And in fact the Hispanic vote in southeastern New Mexico is split. If you’re a Hispanic right now in Lea County (in New Mexico), you’re almost as likely to be voting Republican as Democrat.”

Recently retired Border Patrol agent Cesar Ramos of Alamogordo says he felt stymied by limitations on prosecuting undocumented immigrants, whose arrival he says contributes to higher prices for housing and essentials. He applauds Herrell’s tough talk.

“People here in Alamogordo are 110% behind legal immigration, but despise that there are criminal acts of smuggling, and just breaking into the U.S. with no legal documentation,” said Ramos, a registered Republican of Puerto Rican heritage.

In Sunland Park, a working-class community nestled between the border and a quarterhorse racetrack, Democratic Party orthodoxy is being tested, too.

Sunland Park native Luis Soto said migrants who cross the border impact his own efforts to open a cannabis dispensary in a former post office.

“I’m waiting for a fire marshal inspection and he’s busy saving people in the desert, rescuing bodies from the river, helping people out that are locked in a trailer,” said Soto, 43, the son of immigrants from Mexico in a family of lifelong Democrats. “We come from immigrants as well, but I think if the system was fixed, it would work out even better for them as well as for us.”

He is leaning toward Herrell, and associates Trump with better times.

“There was more money, more money rolling around,” Soto said. “Now there’s money, but it’s money to pay off bills.”

Incumbents try to find common ground

Vasquez in New Mexico and Ciscomani in Arizona — youthful by congressional standards at 40 and 42 — are near ideological opposites, but they’ve co-sponsored at least three bills to modernize temporary farmworker visas, spur local manufacturing and combat opioid trafficking. Those bills haven’t gotten a floor vote, while the Republican-led House approved Ciscomani’s initiative to deter deadly highway pursuits of migrant smugglers by law enforcement.

“Juan and I play basketball together, and he has become a good friend,” Vasquez said. “There are solutions on the border that we can do today that may not look like comprehensive immigration reform, but it’s biting off chunks and pieces.”

Ciscomani said he’s eager to collaborate when he can. His Democratic challenger in Arizona’s 6th district, Kirsten Engel, scoffs at that notion, saying Ciscomani publicly opposed a major bipartisan border bill in February, days after Trump told GOP lawmakers to abandon the deal.

The $20 billion bill would have overhauled the asylum system and given the president new powers to expel migrants when asylum claims become overwhelming.

“It was actually a pretty conservative bill and (Ciscomani) rejected it right after Trump told him to,” said Engel, a law professor and former state legislator. “This is the kind of solution that … a lot of voters here really supported.”

Engel lost in 2022 by about 5,000 votes. She hopes to win this time with a campaign against consumer price-gouging and for abortion rights. A constitutional amendment to ensure abortion rights on the statewide ballot could help turn out Democratic voters.

Engel supports the abortion amendment and opposes a ballot proposal to allow local police to make arrests near the border, which she calls an unfunded mandate. Ciscomani did not say how he would vote on the initiatives but says he opposes a national abortion ban.

At Sunland Park, an off-road Border Patrol vehicle kicks dust into the morning air. An unmarked bus arrives for detained migrants. Ardovino, from his deck, gazes at Mount Cristo Rey and wonders aloud what it will take to make this work for people coming in search of a better life — and for those already here.

“The whole desert is unfortunately littered with people’s lives,” he said.

___

Associated Press reporter Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, contributed to this report.

Border measure headed to ballot

A measure creating new criminal statutes barring illegal border crossings and enhancing drug offenses to include the sale of “lethal fentanyl” was cleared to go to voters by the Arizona Supreme Court Tuesday. 

In a unanimous decision, the state high court found Proposition 314 did not violate the single subject rule of the Arizona Constitution, affirming an earlier ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court. The order allows the measure to be printed on the 2024 ballot. 

House Concurrent Resolution 2060, passed by the Republican majorities in both chambers, augments state criminal code and creates a law barring illegal entry from a foreign nation and deeming it a class 1 misdemeanor and enacts a new criminal statute making it a low-level felony for individuals in the country illegally to knowingly apply for public benefits using false documents. 

The act also designates the sale of “lethal fentanyl” produced outside the U.S. as a criminal offense. 

Following its passage, immigration advocacy and legal groups filed suit. 

Living United for Change in Arizona, Victory Pac and assistant minority leader Oscar De Los Santos first sued for violation of the single subject rule and were later joined by a separate, but similar, legal challenge from Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network and Florence IMmigrant and Refugee Rights Project. 

All five groups sought to see the measure struck down and claimed the various provisions changing criminal code in the realm of immigration, drugs and public benefits were fractured from each other and could not be logically held together by the “border security” umbrella claimed by the legislature.

Maricopa County Superior Court judge Scott Minder, an appointee of the former Gov. Doug Ducey, found all provisions of HCR2060 did relate to one general subject, “responses to harms related to an unsecured border.” 

“The subject is broad,” Minder wrote in his July ruling. “But it is not ‘foolishly’ so.”

On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Minder’s ruling. 

“The Court unanimously agrees with the superior court that Appellants have not met their burden to overcome the strong presumption that HCR 2060 is constitutional. Specifically, the Court concludes that HCR 2060 satisfies the single subject rule. HCR 2060’s subject is ‘responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,’ and all components of the proposed law are ‘reasonably related’ to that,” Chief Justice Ann Timmer, an appointee of the former Gov. Jan Brewer wrote. “It is not necessary that the components have a free-standing relationship to each other.” 

In the order, Timmer did clarify the sole issue raised is the single subject rule. 

“We were not asked to address, nor could we address, the constitutionality of any individual

provision in HCR 2060,” Timmer wrote, referring to case law which provides constitutional challenges to legislation or measures must follow enactment to avoid interfering with the legislative or initiative process. 

Timmer noted, having rejected the single subject claim, that HCR 2060 will appear on the ballot and ultimately be decided by voters. 

LUCHA executive director Alejandra Gomez said in a written statement that LUCHA would continue to fight against the measure’s passage.

“LUCHA will not stand by and allow this unjust referendum to go unchallenged. We are committed to knocking on more than 1 million doors across the state to inform and mobilize voters against Prop 314. This will be a major motivator for Latinos and all Arizonans who value justice, freedom, fairness, and dignity,” Gomez said. “We will not rest until Prop 314 is defeated.”

 

. 

 

State lawmakers urge court to reject challenge to border measure

There’s nothing legally wrong with asking voters to boost penalties for lethal fentanyl sales in the same ballot measure that seeks to let police arrest illegal border crossers, an attorney...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Court rules border ballot measure legal, appeal to come

State lawmakers are entitled to ask voters to approve a border security measure that contains everything from penalties for entering this country to selling fentanyl, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Voters will have their say in November on border measure

When faced with a significant crisis, it is crucial for elected leaders to act decisively. This is exactly what the Arizona Legislature did by passing HCR2060, known as the “Secure...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.