Arizona lawmakers ready ‘bounty' bill that would pay police agencies $2,500 for every migrant deported
An Arizona lawmaker has proposed a bill that would give state and local police agencies a $2,500 'bounty' for each deportation of an unauthorized migrant they help secure.
The proposal, Senate Bill 1111, would tax international remittance payments made from inside the state and use this money to fund the bounty program.
'What we don't want are criminal illegal aliens on our streets. So in line with the wildly popular mass deportation that President Trump is currently engaging in, we are going to ensure that our law enforcement is doing its job to support that effort and make sure our streets are safe,' the bill's Republican sponsor, Senator Jake Hoffman, told KPHO.
Migrant advocates have warned that the proposal could cause even lawful migrants to fear engaging with police, and Arizona's Democratic governor Katie Hobbs has said she will not sign the bill.
"There's no way in Hell the Governor signs a tax hike into law, especially one that puts a bounty on the heads of innocent people who have worked hard, paid taxes and lived in their communities for decades," a spokesperson for Hobbs told Arizona Republic. "Arizonans want border security, they don't want to turn hard working law enforcement officers into bounty hunters."
Arizona, a border state with purple politics, has long grappled with whether and to what extent local law enforcement should assist in immigration enforcement, an area of longstanding federal power.
In November, Arizona voters approved Proposition 314, which would make it a state crime in addition to a federal civil violation to cross the border without authorization, as well as empowering state judges to order deportations.
The measure is on hold pending an appeals court ruling.
Some Arizona sheriffs have previously expressed concerns over becoming a part of the federal immigration enforcement apparatus, arguing it would tax limited resources and fall outside their powers.
'There's just nowhere in my duties or responsibilities as the sheriff here that I should be involved or engaged' in such deportations operations, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos recently told KTAR. 'That's not what we're here to do.'
'We're not doing their job.'
State lawmakers have proposed a variety of new bills on immigration since Trump took office, including one that would require all state and local police agencies to sign cooperation agreements with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and another that would bar such cooperation.
Four Arizona law enforcement agencies — Yavapai, Pinal and La Paz counties, and the city of Mesa — already have cooperation agreements, known 287(g) deals.
Backers argue they help federal officials enforcement immigration violations more effectively by having local police help identify and detain offenders, while critics argue they encourage unlawful detention and often take place in departments with documented histories of racial profiling.
These efforts to assist Trump are nothing new.
Prior to Trump taking office again, Arizona's then-Governor Doug Ducey tried to build a state border wall with shipping containers, though a federal lawsuit then forced him to take those down in 2022.
As The Independent has reported, the state remains the site of numerous environmentally devastating, largely ineffective federal border wall construction projects that took place throughout the Biden and Trump administrations.
Arizona also has a long history of controversial immigration enforcement by local police.
The sheriff's office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, has been under a federally appointed monitor since 2013, stemming from a finding in a class action lawsuit that the department engaged in racial profiling against Latinos as part of then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio's police-driven immigration crackdown.
Over a decade later, federal monitors say the department still is falling short on eliminating bias from its traffic stops and clearing a backlog of internal investigations.
The Trump administration will need the cooperation of local police to fulfill its promises of a nationwide deportation operation removing millions of people from the country, and the president has long sought to valorize aggressive local law enforcement involvement in immigration.
Trump's first pardon, in 2017, was of Arpaio, who was serving a 6-month sentence for disobeying a federal court order to stop racial profiling.
The new administration has said it will attempt to block federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities, jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration operations.
Trump border czar Tom Homan has also threatened local leaders with prosecution if they are deemed to have impeded immigration operations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail
At second-annual CartCon conference in Napa Valley, CA, the tone was electric with anticipation but also laced with urgency. Billed as a summit for the company's expansive ecosystem of brands, vendors and strategists, the event served as both a product showcase and a pressure valve. Nowhere was that tension more visible than during one of the conference's hardest-hitting panels, a deep dive into the complexities of tariff policy and its ripple effects on global sourcing, consumer pricing and retail resilience. The panel consisted of three voices with rare insight into the collision of policy and commerce: Chris Smith, president of Summit Global Strategies; Tim Manning, former White House supply chain coordinator under President Joe Biden; and Nick Stachel, logistics strategy adviser at Izba Consulting. What followed was not a high-level overview, but a granular exploration of the legal, political and operational forces shaping how, and where, products are made, moved and sold. From globalization to geo-economics Smith opened the discussion by tracing the historical arc of U.S. trade policy. For decades following World War II, American trade strategy revolved around multilateralism. The U.S. saw global trade not just as an economic imperative but as a geopolitical tool, creating allies, raising standards of living and preventing conflict. But in 2016, that long-standing consensus fractured. The bipartisan abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership signaled a sharp pivot. As Smith explained, the political center collapsed under the weight of the 'China Shock,' a term describing the decimation of American manufacturing towns due to offshoring. Smith described President Donald Trump's tariff policy as a psychological reset. Before Trump, U.S. tariffs averaged around 2%. Within months, they jumped to 18% in key categories. This wasn't just an economic strategy, it was anchoring. 'It's like burger sizes,' Smith said, relating back to Wendy's psychological marketing strategies. 'Before Trump, we had singles and doubles. Now the triple is on the menu, and everything else looks small by comparison.' Tariffs, he added, have become Trump's 'cat toy' — a provocative distraction wielded without consistent strategy. Even if future administrations soften tariff policy, Smith warned, the structure of global trade has already shifted. Retailers and manufacturers alike are building permanent workarounds. Inflation, particularly in consumer goods, is the slow-burning consequence. While Smith provided the philosophical backdrop, Manning broke down the legal tools underpinning today's tariff landscape. The real disruption, Manning emphasized, has come through the use, and misuse, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Originally designed as a tool for national security sanctions, IEEPA has been repurposed by the Trump administration to enact sweeping tariffs with little congressional oversight. Manning described the legal and logistical chaos for businesses from these tactics. In just six weeks, the Trump administration issued 17 executive orders using IEEPA authority, stripping trade policy of its usual predictability and process. For businesses, this has been catastrophic. Sourcing strategies built over years have unraveled in days. 'We're in a volatile environment,' Manning said. The cost of doing business now includes factoring in the potential for abrupt, unexplained swings in tariff exposure. Long-term investments have become high-risk bets, and in many cases, they're simply not being made. On-the-ground retail strategy Bringing the policy talk down to the warehouse floor, Stachel outlined how brands are actually coping with this new reality. In the short term, some are fast-tracking inventory from China before new tariffs hit, relying on expedited ocean freight and cross-docking at West Coast ports to minimize delays and avoid customs bottlenecks. Others are making subtler moves — like holding prices steady on high-visibility products – say, a gaming console – while raising prices on accessories and add-ons to recoup margin. Stachel noted that many brands have moved beyond the now-familiar 'China Plus One' strategy, opting instead for a 'China Plus Three' approach. They are spreading risk across Vietnam, India and Mexico, often working with global manufacturing giants like Foxconn that can seamlessly shift production across borders without retooling or retraining labor. In essence, brands are outsourcing flexibility itself. For those planning beyond the current election cycle, geographic diversification is no longer enough. Brands are factoring in port access, transportation infrastructure, exposure to natural disasters and local workforce stability. Some are eyeing countries like Morocco, Colombia and Thailand as next-generation sourcing hubs. Nearshoring to Mexico has particular appeal, not just because of its proximity to U.S. consumers, but because of the downstream economic benefits. 'We're still benefiting from a cross border perspective, from a transportation trucking perspective, from a warehousing perspective, as these border towns are growing, the economies in the small border towns are growing as well,' said Stachel. These sourcing shifts are backed by hard data prepared by Stachel. According to a comparative analysis of emerging manufacturing markets, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are increasingly viable alternatives to China, not only in terms of labor costs but also port infrastructure and U.S.-bound vessel frequency. Vietnam, for instance, operates nearly 50 seaports, including Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong, both of which have multiple sailings to the U.S. each week. Indonesia boasts over 100 ports, including Tanjung Priok in Jakarta. Even Cambodia, though limited in scale, has weekly direct sailings from both Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville. These figures underscore the importance of transportation fluidity and market access in sourcing decisions. As Stachel emphasized, brands are no longer optimizing solely for cost, they're optimizing for resilience. Both Smith and Manning cautioned that the real reckoning may be ahead. While tariff impacts are already being priced in at the retail level, the broader inflationary wave has yet to crest. Smith called inflation the 'other shoe,' likely to drop later this summer as new tariffs pass through the supply chain and collide with already fragile consumer sentiment. Uncertainty, they agreed, has become the greatest tax of all. With businesses unable to predict future policy, many are frozen. Manning advised attendees to monitor key macroeconomic signals, including treasury bond activity, consumer confidence indices and safety stock drawdowns. Executive orders posted on he added, are the best early indicators of a sudden policy shift. What retailers are saying – and doing The audience at CartCon also offered candid perspectives. Through real-time polling, attendees offered a rare window into how brands are navigating the chaos. Asked what recent policy had most affected their supply chains, 68% cited China tariffs, with an additional 24% naming de minimis enforcement, or stricter checks on duty-free, low-value imports. In a sign of just how volatile the environment has become, 64% said they revisit their sourcing strategies quarterly. And nearly half, 47%, have responded by raising prices. Twenty-nine percent have changed sourcing countries, while 18% are simply eating the cost. Looking ahead, most brands aren't betting on reshoring. Asked if they expect to source more from the U.S. in five years, 70% said their sourcing would remain about the same, and 30% expected an increase. No one expected to source less. It was a striking rebuke of the idea that domestic manufacturing is due for a renaissance, at least for the retail segment. Tariffs and uncertainty are already impacting consumer demand. Thirty percent of respondents said they expect a consumer slowdown by Q4 2025, while 45% said they're already feeling one. And yet, the vast majority, 82%, said they are not cutting marketing budgets in response. In today's environment, visibility is survival. In a forward-looking poll, 81% of respondents said online shopping will be the dominant channel in the next decade, compared to just 6% for stores. Even more striking, 75% believe direct-to-consumer models can still succeed, suggesting that agility, not abandonment, is the key to survival. The post CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail appeared first on FreightWaves. 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
American Military News
7 minutes ago
- American Military News
700 Marines deployed to Los Angeles amid major riots
President Donald Trump's administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles and the surrounding area on Monday in response to the city's massive riots against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. In a Monday press release, U.S. Northern Command announced that it had activated the Marine infantry battalion that the Trump administration 'placed in an alert status over the weekend.' 'Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area,' U.S. Northern Command stated. 'The activation of the Marines is intended to provide Task Force 51 with adequate numbers of forces to provide continuous coverage of the area in support of the lead federal agency.' According to the press release, Task Force 51 includes 700 active-duty Marines and roughly 2,100 National Guardsmen in Title 10 status. Northern Command noted that members of Task Force 51 have been trained in 'de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.' 'Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote in a statement on X, formerly Twitter. 'We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not.' READ MORE: Videos: 500 Marines ready to deploy to Los Angeles amid major riots Northern Command confirmed in the press release that there were roughly 1,700 soldiers from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Los Angeles and the surrounding area as of Monday. On Monday evening, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Sean Parnell tweeted, 'At the order of the President, the Department of Defense is mobilizing an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties.' According to The Associated Press, Trump's authorization for the Department of Defense to deploy an additional 2,000 National Guardsmen in response to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles brings the total number of National Guardsmen mobilized by the federal government in response to the riots to over 4,100. In a Tuesday morning statement on Truth Social, Trump said, 'If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. do to an incompetent Governor and Mayor.'
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know
President Trump has lauded the House-approved spending bill for the 'pro-family initiative' tucked inside the legislation, which creates investment accounts for newborn babies. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy,' Trump said at a Monday event at the White House that touted the accounts. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' lays out rules for the Trump accounts. To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen, born within the next four years to at least one parent with a Social Security number. The money could be withdrawn starting at age 18. Here's what you need to know about the proposed federal program: Under the current bill text, the program would be available to families of all income levels, with babies born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029. A one-time $1,000 contribution would be provided by the Treasury Department and deposited into a diversified U.S. stock index fund or its equivalent. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to contribute no more than $5,000 per year to the account. An estimated 7 percent return on the $1,000 would compound to roughly $3,570 over 18 years, according to the Associated Press. The legislation does not provide a limit on the amount of money a nonprofit or company can donate to a child's investment account within the $5,000 annual contribution limit. Several businesses, including Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and Altimeter have committed to setting aside billions to invest in the accounts of company employees who become new parents. 'It's not just an account; it's a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one,' Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said about the initiative during a White House roundtable. Children enrolled in the investment program are eligible to withdraw half of the cash value amount between their 18th and 25th birthdays, according to CNN. Families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal as there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds, the outlet reported. Funds withdrawn for anything other than 'qualified expenses,' including paying for higher education, buying a residence or starting a business, will be taxed. Researchers have said the investment accounts could widen America's wealth gap. 'Under the current proposal, every child starts with the same amount, and families can contribute up to $5,000 annually,' the Urban Institute, a think-tank focused on social policy, wrote in a late May report. 'But relatively few households hold substantial liquid wealth in the United States, meaning higher-income households are far more likely than their lower-income counterparts to have the means to contribute additional funds,' it continued. The study noted that Trump accounts are likely to only benefit those who have already maxed out existing tax-preferred savings opportunities, like 529 accounts. Instead, they suggested low income families with job insecurity are more likely to gravitate towards investing in traditional accounts that offer flexible guidelines. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' still needs approval from the upper chamber. Senators considering potential changes or cuts to the legislation, hoping to pass the bill before July 4.
