Hobbs vetoes Republican bill that would have brought ICE agents into Arizona schools
A Republican effort to boost President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign in Arizona and force schools to open their doors to ICE agents was shut down by Gov. Katie Hobbs, who wielded her veto pen to reject the plan on Friday.
'Arizonans, not Washington, DC politicians, must decide what's best for Arizona,' the Democrat wrote in her veto letter of the Arizona ICE Act.
Senate Bill 1164, named the Arizona Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act, would have mandated that every police department and sheriff's office in the state comply when ICE asks them to hold onto a prisoner.
Such detainers, also called ICE holds, are written requests to law enforcement officials to keep an arrested person in custody for 48 hours after that person is scheduled to be released — even if they haven't been convicted of a crime — to give immigration agents time to determine deportation eligibility.
The requests don't require probable cause and it is currently optional for law enforcement agencies to comply with them.
Some cities, in light of lawsuits following erroneously issued ICE detainers, have approved ordinances forbidding compliance with them. Just this week, a U.S. citizen was forced to spend the night in a Florida jail on an ICE hold, even after his mother showed a judge his birth certificate. Law enforcement agencies in Florida are required by state law to comply with ICE detainers.
The measure would also have prohibited the state, cities and even school boards from passing policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In light of Trump's executive order that restored the ability of ICE agents to carry out immigration enforcement actions in previously protected spaces, like churches and schools, multiple school boards across the country have moved to bar ICE agents from school grounds without judicial warrants.
In January, Phoenix Union High School District's governing board adopted a policy that declared its schools are safe zones from immigration enforcement and prohibited letting people who would disrupt an educational setting onto any of its campuses.
In her veto explanation, Hobbs said she disagrees with the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement and touted her own initiatives addressing fentanyl at the ports of entry and targeting cartel operations. The Democrat has long favored solutions that center on partnering with local law enforcement agencies and increasing funding instead of criminalizing people and issuing mandates.
'I will continue to work with the federal government on true border security, but we should not force state and local officials to take marching orders from Washington, DC,' Hobbs wrote.
The legislation sparked weekly protests from Latino and immigrant rights organizations, who denounced it as a new iteration of SB1070, the state's notorious 'show me your papers law' from 2010 that gave police officers the power to question a person's immigration status during routine traffic stops and critics say resulted in rampant racial profiling.
Alejandra Gomez, the executive director for Living United for Change in Arizona, a progressive organization that led the protests against the Arizona ICE Act, celebrated the veto in a written statement.
'Governor Hobbs' veto of the Arizona ICE Act is a critical victory for our communities and a powerful rejection of Trump's mass deportation agenda,' she said. 'Today, the Governor sent a clear message: Arizona will not be bullied into becoming a tool of federal overreach and extremist politics. We thank her for standing with immigrant families, defending local control, and showing the courage this moment demands.'
The Arizona ICE Act was a top priority for the Republican legislative majority, which has focused its efforts this session on supporting the White House's anti-immigrant agenda.
Whether this is the end of the road for the Arizona ICE Act remains to be seen. The last time Hobbs killed a GOP priority bill focused on immigration enforcement, Republicans responded by packaging it into a ballot referral. That referral, titled the Secure Border Act, made it a state crime for migrants to cross the southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry — and nearly 63% of Arizonans cast their ballots in favor of it last year.
The veto drew criticism from the Republican Governors Association, which works to ensure GOP candidates are elected to lead states across the country.
'Katie Hobbs' veto is no surprise — her record on the border is pitiful. Hobbs tried to fool Arizonans into thinking she was a border hawk, but this veto shows she is unserious about addressing the border and protecting Arizonans from the violence and drugs coming into the state,' RGA Director Kollin Crompton said in a written statement.
Hobbs faces reelection in 2026, and Republicans have sought to frame her as weak on border security to mobilize voters against her.
Concern over the southern border ranked at the top of voter priorities in the last election. The Democrat has tried to straddle the line by supporting harsh immigration policies at the federal level and opposing anti-immigrant proposals at the state level. Congress' approval of the Laken Riley Act, which broadened the scope of ICE detainers for even nonviolent crimes, including shoplifting, prompted Hobbs' strong praise via social media.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Thinks He Knows What Will Get Him Into Heaven
President Donald Trump joked that ending the war in Ukraine will help improve his chances of getting to heaven, as he suggested he is 'not doing well' with his ultimate goal. While appearing on Fox News Tuesday, the president noted the heavy loss of lives following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 before lurching into another gear. 'I want to end it. You know, we're not losing American lives, we're not losing American soldiers. We're losing Russia and Ukrainian, mostly soldiers. Some people, as missiles hit wrong spots or get lobbed into cities,' Trump told 'Fox & Friends.' Related: 'But if I can save 7,000 people a week from being killed, I think that's a pretty ... I want to try and get to heaven, if possible,' Trump said. 'I'm hearing I'm not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.' (Watch a clip at the end of the story.) Related: On Monday, Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and top European leaders in an effort to energize months of stalled U.S.-led efforts to halt the war, which began when Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. During the second Trump-Zelenskyy meeting in the Oval Office this year, Trump said the U.S. would be willing to support European efforts to police any peace deal in Ukraine. Following the talks, Trump called and spoke at length to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who got the red carpet treatment at a summit with Trump last Friday in Alaska. Trump said he would now work to arrange a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. On 'Fox & Friends,' Trump admitted there was a 'warmth' to his relationship with Putin, and said it would have been 'disrespectful' to Putin to speak to the Russian leader on Monday with other Western leaders in the room. Despite the surprisingly cordial relations between the presidents, Trump told Fox News it 'only matters if we get things done,' alluding to a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine. 'Otherwise, I don't care about the relationship,' he added. Trump said both Putin and Zelenskyy will need to show they're willing to end the conflict. 'I hope President Putin is going to be good, and if he's not, it's going to be a rough situation,' Trump said. 'And I hope that Zelenskyy, President Zelenskyy will do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility also.' Related... Takeaways From Trump's Meeting With Zelenskyy And Europeans: Praise, Security Talks, More Meetings Sandwich Thrower Becomes Early Symbol Of Trump's D.C. 'Crime Emergency' Chris Pratt Knocks Trump Critics For Having 'Allergic Reaction' To White House Wins
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction Asylum seekers will be removed from an Essex hotel after a council was granted a temporary High Court injunction blocking them from being housed there. Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Just 35 complaints of debanking cite political bias despite Trump order
By Ross Kerber (Reuters) -Less than one percent of customers who filed detailed complaints about checking or savings account closures with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the last 13 years accused banks of acting for political or religious reasons, even as the White House mounts a campaign to stamp out "systemic abuses" in the financial system that it says have wronged conservatives, a review of the agency's data shows. U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this month signed an executive order requiring banks not to discriminate against clients on political or religious grounds, a practice known as debanking, after citing what Trump called discrimination against conservatives. The White House said the order was targeting "systemic abuses by financial institutions that undermine free expression and economic opportunity." But few customers who have been denied access to banking products cite their political affiliation as a chief concern. Out of the 8,361 detailed complaints about closed bank accounts filed with the CFPB since the agency began taking them in 2012, only 35 include the terms 'politics,' 'religion,' 'conservative' or "Christian," a review by Reuters shows. "It's not a real issue. 'Debanking' is an excuse for political attacks," said Amanda Jackson, a director for Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive-leaning groups. The group and others say a bigger problem is making sure U.S. banks provide services to poorer consumers. Financial institutions have tried to balance fair access with steps to combat a wave of fraud, and say they have not cut customers over their political views. Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, whose leader Russell Vought is also CFPB's acting director, did not directly address questions about the small number of complaints. She repeated claims that members of the Trump family and others have been cut off from banking services on the basis of political or religious beliefs. The actions, Cauley said, amount to "an Orwellian censorship tactic that is antithetical to the American way of life. The Trump Administration believes access to the financial system is a fundamental right for all Americans." The CFPB data does not identify filers. While none of the 35 complaints provided proof that their accounts were closed for political or religious reasons, filers said they suspected that was the case. "I believe this is discriminatory actions based on race, religion and/or political views," according to a 2023 complaint filed against JPMorgan over account closures. A JPMorgan representative, Lauren Bianchi, said via email that "We do not close accounts for political or religious reasons, full stop." The bank supports a national prohibition on account closures for political or religious reasons, and for regulators to allow more transparency in those cases, she said. Brian Knight, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which calls itself a Christian law firm and is supportive of Trump's executive order, said the small number of complaints citing politics or religion could reflect that banks are not required to disclose much detail to consumers they drop. "There's no information-sharing mechanisms" short of litigation to force banks to be more open about their thinking, Knight said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
