PHOENIX — Arizona would intervene directly in immigration enforcement by making it a state crime to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere except at the port of entry, under a proposal set to be voted on by lawmakers on Tuesday. If approved, voters would decide in November whether the measure becomes law.
The measure, scheduled for a vote in the Arizona House, would allow state and local police to arrest people crossing the border without permission. It would also give state judges the power to order people convicted of the crime to return to their home countries.
The proposal is similar to a Texas law that has been put on hold by a federal appeals court while it is challenged. The The Arizona Senate approved the proposal on a party-line vote of 16 to 13. If the House passes, the proposal would bypass Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a similar proposal in early March, and they will instead be sent to the Nov. 5 ballot.
Although federal law already prohibits the unauthorized entry of migrants into the U.S., supporters of the measure say it is necessary because the federal government has not done enough to prevent people from illegally crossing Arizona’s vast, porous border with Mexico. They also said some people who enter Arizona without permission are committing identity theft and taking advantage of public benefits.
Opponents say the proposal would inevitably lead to racial profiling by police, burden the state with new costs from law enforcement agencies that have no experience with immigration law, and damage Arizona’s reputation in the business world.
Supporters of the proposed ballot measure dismissed concerns about racial profiling and said local officers would still have to develop probable cause to arrest people entering Arizona outside of the ports of entry.
Supporters also say the measure focuses only on the state’s border region and — unlike Arizona’s landmark 2010 immigration law — does not target people across the state. Opponents point out that the proposal contains no geographic restrictions on where it can be enforced within the state.
The ballot proposal includes other provisions not included in the Texas measure that are not directly related to immigration. These include making it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for selling fentanyl that causes the death of a person, and a requirement that government agencies that administer benefit programs use a federal database to verify whether a noncitizen is in is eligible for benefits.
Opponents warned of potential legal costs and pointed to Arizona’s 2005 ban on immigrant smuggling, which was used by then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to implement 20 large-scale traffic patrols targeting immigrants. That led to a 2013 ruling on racial profiling and taxpayer-funded legal and compliance costs that now total $265 million. is expected to reach $314 million by July 2025.
Under the current proposal, a first conviction for crossing the border would be a crime punishable by up to six months in prison. State judges could order people to return to their countries of origin after serving a prison sentence, although the courts would have the authority to dismiss cases if those arrested agree to return home.
The measure would require the state corrections department to take into custody people charged or convicted under the measure if local or state law enforcement agencies do not have enough space to house them.
The proposal includes exceptions for people to whom the federal government has granted legal residence or asylum status.
The provision allowing the arrest of border crossers between ports would not take effect until the Texas law or similar laws of other states have been in effect for 60 days.
This isn’t the first time Republican lawmakers in Arizona have tried to criminalize immigrants who are not authorized to stay in the United States.
When passing the 2010 immigration law, the Arizona Legislature considered expanding the state’s trespass law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the cross-border language was removed and replaced with a requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question people’s immigration status if they were believed to be in the country illegally.
The interrogation requirement was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court despite critics’ concerns about racial profiling, but courts barred enforcement of other parts of the law.
