Arizona’s proposal to allow local police to make border-crossing arrests is up for a final vote in Parliament

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona would directly intervene in immigration laws by making it a state crime to cross the Arizona-Mexico border at any location other than a port of entry, according to a proposal that lawmakers will receive a final vote on Tuesday. If passed, voters in November would decide whether the measure becomes law.

The bill, which is set to be voted on in the Arizona House of Representatives, would allow state and local police to arrest people crossing the border without authorization and would give state judges the power to order convicted people to return to their home country.

The proposal is similar to a Texas law that was put on hold by a federal appeals court while it is being challenged. The Arizona Senate approved the proposal on a 16-13 party vote. If the proposal passes the House, it would bypass Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who vetoed a similar proposal in early March and will instead be sent to the vote on November 5.

Although federal law already prohibits migrants from entering the U.S. without authorization, supporters of the measure say it is necessary because the federal government has not done enough to stop people from entering illegally across Arizona’s vast, porous border with Mexico. They also said some people who enter Arizona without authorization commit identity theft and use public benefits.

Opponents say the proposal would inevitably lead to ethnic 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 community.

Supporters of the proposed ballot measure dismissed concerns about racial discrimination, arguing that local officials would still have to demonstrate reasonable suspicion to arrest people entering Arizona outside of border crossings.

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 does not include geographic restrictions on where it can be enforced within the state.

The ballot proposal includes other provisions not in the Texas bill that are not directly related to immigration, including making the sale of fentanyl that results in a person’s death a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and requiring state agencies that administer welfare programs to use a federal database to verify whether a noncitizen is eligible for benefits.

Opponents warned of potential legal costs, pointing to Arizona’s 2005 immigration smuggling ban, which then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio used to conduct 20 large-scale traffic stops targeting immigrants, leading to a 2013 racial discrimination verdict and taxpayer-funded legal and compliance costs that now total $265 million and expected to reach $314 million until July 2025.

Under the current proposal, a first-time conviction for violating border crossing rules would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. State judges could order detainees to return to their country of origin after serving a prison sentence. However, courts would also have the ability to dismiss cases if detainees agree to return.

The measure would require the state Department of Corrections to detain individuals charged or convicted under that measure if local or county law enforcement agencies do not have enough space to house them.

The proposal provides for exceptions for people to whom the federal government has granted legal residence status or asylum.

The provision allowing the detention of border crossers between ports would not take effect until the Texas law or similar laws in other states have been in effect for 60 days.

This is not the first time Republican lawmakers in Arizona have tried to criminalize immigrants who are not authorized to stay in the United States.

When the Arizona legislature passed its immigration bill in 2010, it considered expanding the trespassing law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the trespassing language was removed and replaced with a requirement that officials enforcing other laws must question the immigration status of people believed to be in the country illegally.

Despite critics’ concerns about racial discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the survey requirement. However, the courts barred enforcement of other parts of the law.