logo
Border security or mass deportation? Arizona leaders clash over money for local law enforcement

Border security or mass deportation? Arizona leaders clash over money for local law enforcement

Yahoo27-03-2025

Border Patrol agents intercept immigrants near Eagle Pass, Texas, in August 2019. Photo by Jaime Rodriguez | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
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.
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.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
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.
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.
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.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Philly's largest city union puts leaders on notice amid threat to strike
Philly's largest city union puts leaders on notice amid threat to strike

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Philly's largest city union puts leaders on notice amid threat to strike

The Brief Philadelphia's largest city union authorities are putting the Parker administration on notice by authorizing a strike vote. District Council 33 says it agreed to a one-year contract extension in November 2024 with a five-percent wage increase, with the understanding it would continue negotiations with the city for a long-term contract. Its leadership says the city is now trying to low ball them. PHILADELPHIA - The largest union in Philadelphia, comprised of members who handle 911 calls, collect trash and more, is giving city leaders two weeks to reach what they say is a fair wage and better working conditions, or they will strike, having already authorized a strike vote. What they're saying "For many years, our members have been underpaid and undervalued, but we're the essential ones who make sure everything is done," District Council President Greg Boulware said. District Council 33 represents over 9,000 members. The union says those men and women keep the water flowing, make sure the airport runways are repaired and safe, handle 911 calls and haul trash. Without them, the union president says the city wouldn't be able to operate. "We touch every aspect of this city, from one end of the city to another," Boulware stated. "Our members are paid the bottom 25 percent for municipal workers in the country. That's sad. We're the sixth-largest city in the country." At a news conference Thursday, DC 33 leadership declared the two percent wage increase offered by the Parker administration doesn't cut it. "We need much more than we are currently receiving," Boulware explained. "We deserve much more than we are currently receiving. Our men and women work their ass off every single day." Several state representatives and members of other unions were on hand to show their support, demanding District 33 get the respect they say it deserves. President of the Philadelphia AFL-CIO, Danny Boulder, said, "One of the best ways to show someone that respect is in their paycheck." Tarik Khan, a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House, added, "On behalf of the Philadelphia Delegation, I want to say a two percent increase in salary per year is not acceptable. It's not acceptable." What's next District Council 33 announced members voted to authorize a strike. The union vowed to walk off the job if it cannot reach a fair settlement with the city by June 30th. "Thus far, it hasn't happened," Boulware said. "We'll meet any time, any place, anywhere, to make sure we can try to get this done. If not, unfortunately, we'll have to shut this city down." FOX 29 repeatedly reached out to the city for comment but have not yet heard back. Another bargaining session is set for tomorrow between city leaders and DC 33 leadership.

Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats

time36 minutes ago

Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats

LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.

‘Shut Up!': House Hearing Erupts Into Chaos After Dem Calls Out ICE Barbie
‘Shut Up!': House Hearing Erupts Into Chaos After Dem Calls Out ICE Barbie

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

‘Shut Up!': House Hearing Erupts Into Chaos After Dem Calls Out ICE Barbie

A congressional hearing quickly devolved into a shouting match between two Republicans and a Democrat who sought a subpoena for Kristi Noem over the forcible removal of Senator Alex Padilla from a Thursday press conference. During a Thursday hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) implored his fellow lawmakers to subpoena Noem over the incident, which saw her security team manhandle and handcuff the Democratic senator after he loudly questioned the Homeland Security Secretary about ICE raids that have led to nationwide protests. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the committee chairman, quickly waved off Frost's concerns over the incident. 'Mr. Chair, also, we were just talking about this. I want to know if you can commit to working with us so we can subpoena,' Frost began to say, before Comer cut him off. 'You're out of order,' Comer replied. The two congressmen briefly spoke over each other until Comer recognized MAGA firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who entered the tense scene guns blazing. 'Oh, Democrats can't follow the rules, can't follow the law,' she said twice. 'We need to subpoena Kristi Noem,' Frost repeated. 'It's her staff, DHS federal officers, that threw a U.S. senator to the ground.' Greene continued to talk over the young Democrat: 'There's a privilege of the majority, and that means we're in charge. Not your side because you lost the election because you supported the invasion of our country.' Frost, Greene, and Comer all refused to back down until the chairman grew exasperated with the back-and-forth. 'Shut up. Just shut up,' Comer told Frost, who had repeatedly asked him to commit to subpoenaing Noem. 'No, you're not gonna tell me to shut up,' Frost hit back. 'He's been out of order six times,' Comer said of Frost. 'He is trying to get on MSNBC. You probably knocked somebody off MSNBC to get on there.' The chairman then handed the floor over to Greene, who lobbed a bizarre accusation at Frost without providing evidence. 'I think because he's been arrested as a former Antifa member, right?' she said of Padilla, referring to the far-left movement. 'He's a former Antifa member… Not surprised.' Frost appeared to be in disbelief as he asked for Greene's remarks to be taken off the record. The dramatic interaction ended when Greene turned her attention to New York Governor Kathy Hochul to ask questions. Several Democrats have rallied around Padilla following his wild takedown. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for an immediate probe into the 'un-American' incident: 'To look at this video and see what happened reeks—reeks—of totalitarianism," he said. 'This is not what democracies do.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Schumer in a post, stating that those behind 'the brazen and aggressive manhandling of Senator Padilla' must be 'held accountable.' Noem called Padilla's interruption 'inappropriate,' while Homeland Security official Tricia McLaughlin slammed the senator for choosing 'disrespectful political theater.' Noem and Padilla spoke for 15 minutes after the incident, McLaughlin said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store