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.
What are critics saying?
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.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
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.
Proponents: the fund has never been a problem before
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.
Top Dems: It’s not a priority at the bargaining table
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.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
