Arizona Election may add illegal immigrant border bill

[Luvnit2]

Arizona voters may be able to vote on enforcement of illegal immigrants entering the country in their state. Democratic governor Hobbs has Veto'd immigration bills designed to stop illegal immigrants bringing in drugs and entering not for asylum, but for better jobs. Hobbs talks about how bad Arizona due to poor Biden policies, yet has done nothing herself to stop it. Immigration is the #1 issue in Arizona according to polling the past 12 months.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/swing-state-gop-looks-go-around-dem-governor-put-texas-style-border-bill-before-voters

Swing state GOP looks to go around Dem governor, put Texas-style border bill before voters
The legislation is opposed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs

An Arizona push to work around Gov. Katie Hobbs and put tougher immigration laws in front of the voters to decide cleared a major hurdle in the state Senate.

"The governor has openly said the border is not secure. She’s said the federal government’s failing us, the Biden administration’s failing us, but unfortunately, it’s just words," Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen told Fox News Digital. "She hasn’t proposed anything, she hasn’t given us anything for the border."

Petersen’s comments come after an Arizona Senate committee approved the "Secure Border Act," or HCR 2060, on Wednesday, coming one step closer to putting the question in front of voters this November

The bill, which is modeled after Texas’ controversial SB 4, would make it a crime to illegally cross the border. Like the Texas law, which is critically at the center of an ongoing court battle, the bill would give local law enforcement the ability to enforce immigration laws.

"This is truly a border security bill," said Petersen, the top Republican in the Arizona Senate. "It allows law enforcement to, if they see somebody crossing the border illegally, they’re able to arrest them, detain them and put them through the judicial process."

Petersen explained that the bill addresses three key issues; border security, addressing the fentanyl crisis in the state and making sure that those who are receiving government benefits are in the country legally.

The Arizona lawmaker also stressed that the new bill is much different than SB 1070, a controversial 2010 immigration law in the state that was partially struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012.

That bill allowed law enforcement in any part of the state to be questioned about their immigration status, Petersen explained, while this bill is more narrowly focused on securing the border.


By putting the question in front of the voters, Arizona Republicans could effectively bypass the state’s Democratic governor, who vetoed a similar bill in March that made it a state crime to illegally cross the border.

"This bill does not secure our border. On the contrary, it will be harmful for businesses and communities in our state and a burden for law enforcement personnel," Hobbs said at the time. "I know there’s frustration about the federal government’s failure to secure our border, but this bill is not the solution."

Hobbs has also indicated that she does not support the new effort, according to a report from AZ Family.

"We’re certainly going to continue addressing the situation, working with border communities, and the coalition that we have built whether or not, whether this measure makes it to the ballot or not," Hobbs said.

But Petersen believes the new legislation is the best way to tackle the issue, arguing the governor has not offered any concrete plans to tackle the border crisis, instead vetoing every bill the Republican-led legislature has put on her desk.

"We’ve done 10 bills in the last two years to deal with border security and she has vetoed all of them," he said. "We’re going to send it to the voters for them to decide in November."


Petersen believes the bill will have a good chance of passing once in front of voters, noting that the border crisis is the number one concern of many of the constituents he and his colleagues represent.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs holds up an immigration bill she vetoed

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-10-2024, 03:09 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Arizona voters may be able to vote on enforcement of illegal immigrants entering the country in their state. Democratic governor Hobbs has Veto'd immigration bills designed to stop illegal immigrants bringing in drugs and entering not for asylum, but for better jobs. Hobbs talks about how bad Arizona due to poor Biden policies, yet has done nothing herself to stop it. Immigration is the #1 issue in Arizona according to polling the past 12 months.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/swing-state-gop-looks-go-around-dem-governor-put-texas-style-border-bill-before-voters

Swing state GOP looks to go around Dem governor, put Texas-style border bill before voters
The legislation is opposed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs

An Arizona push to work around Gov. Katie Hobbs and put tougher immigration laws in front of the voters to decide cleared a major hurdle in the state Senate.

"The governor has openly said the border is not secure. She’s said the federal government’s failing us, the Biden administration’s failing us, but unfortunately, it’s just words," Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen told Fox News Digital. "She hasn’t proposed anything, she hasn’t given us anything for the border."

Petersen’s comments come after an Arizona Senate committee approved the "Secure Border Act," or HCR 2060, on Wednesday, coming one step closer to putting the question in front of voters this November

The bill, which is modeled after Texas’ controversial SB 4, would make it a crime to illegally cross the border. Like the Texas law, which is critically at the center of an ongoing court battle, the bill would give local law enforcement the ability to enforce immigration laws.

"This is truly a border security bill," said Petersen, the top Republican in the Arizona Senate. "It allows law enforcement to, if they see somebody crossing the border illegally, they’re able to arrest them, detain them and put them through the judicial process."

Petersen explained that the bill addresses three key issues; border security, addressing the fentanyl crisis in the state and making sure that those who are receiving government benefits are in the country legally.

The Arizona lawmaker also stressed that the new bill is much different than SB 1070, a controversial 2010 immigration law in the state that was partially struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012.

That bill allowed law enforcement in any part of the state to be questioned about their immigration status, Petersen explained, while this bill is more narrowly focused on securing the border.


By putting the question in front of the voters, Arizona Republicans could effectively bypass the state’s Democratic governor, who vetoed a similar bill in March that made it a state crime to illegally cross the border.

"This bill does not secure our border. On the contrary, it will be harmful for businesses and communities in our state and a burden for law enforcement personnel," Hobbs said at the time. "I know there’s frustration about the federal government’s failure to secure our border, but this bill is not the solution."

Hobbs has also indicated that she does not support the new effort, according to a report from AZ Family.

"We’re certainly going to continue addressing the situation, working with border communities, and the coalition that we have built whether or not, whether this measure makes it to the ballot or not," Hobbs said.

But Petersen believes the new legislation is the best way to tackle the issue, arguing the governor has not offered any concrete plans to tackle the border crisis, instead vetoing every bill the Republican-led legislature has put on her desk.

"We’ve done 10 bills in the last two years to deal with border security and she has vetoed all of them," he said. "We’re going to send it to the voters for them to decide in November."


Petersen believes the bill will have a good chance of passing once in front of voters, noting that the border crisis is the number one concern of many of the constituents he and his colleagues represent.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs holds up an immigration bill she vetoed

Do you think the GOP would move on their stance towards amnesty for illegal aliens if there were riders placed on their eligibility to vote, become full citizens, and/or obtain social services?

Based on their criminal background?

Not a "gotcha" thing, just curious about the conversation. Like if you were allowed int he country via emergency amnesty, you couldn't become a full citizen or receive social services until at least 2 years after a person, in line at the time of your request for asylum was received, is approved? Just tossing it out there, not arguing that point, just everyone talks about improving the system, but no one says how, except enforcing the current laws.

I know and acknowledge the current asylum laws are not being followed and abused.

[*pally*]

Maybe actually passing the border bill at the federal level would be both helpful and Constitutional.

Bypassing the governor doesn't make this "law" any more Constitutional than the previous ones they tried to pass.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-10-2024, 06:23 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe actually passing the border bill at the federal level would be both helpful and Constitutional.

Bypassing the governor doesn't make this "law" any more Constitutional than the previous ones they tried to pass.

The problem with passing border bills at the Federal level is that so many are afraid of upsetting one group or another in their constituents. It really should be a State by State vote for laws applicable to the immigration problems in the affected States.

[*pally*]

(05-10-2024, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The problem with passing border bills at the Federal level is that so many are afraid of upsetting one group or another in their constituents. It really should be a State by State vote for laws applicable to the immigration problems in the affected States.

well, the Founders gave the power to enforce and regulate immigration to the Federal government not the states

[HarleyDog]

(05-10-2024, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The problem with passing border bills at the Federal level is that so many are afraid of upsetting one group or another in their constituents. It really should be a State by State vote for laws applicable to the immigration problems in the affected States.

This would be great if the proposals were only about the border, and the language was written correctly.

[Luvnit2]

(05-10-2024, 06:23 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe actually passing the border bill at the federal level would be both helpful and Constitutional.

Bypassing the governor doesn't make this "law" any more Constitutional than the previous ones they tried to pass.

Will you feel differently if you owned a house close to or on the Arizona/Mexico border?

Why are these people penalized when our government refuses to enforce immigration law? They are helpless. 

[Luvnit2]

(05-10-2024, 07:22 PM)pally Wrote: well, the Founders gave the power to enforce and regulate immigration to the Federal government not the states

The Supreme Court gave states back the power to regulate abortion law. Yet, you oppose it. Using your statement, it appears you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. For the record, I hate the new Arizona abortion law, but it is up to Arizona now and the federal government and federal elections are ruled out in an attempted fix.

The Founders wrote the constitution also a long time ago.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-10-2024, 07:26 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: This would be great if the proposals were only about the border, and the language was written correctly.

Yeah, I'm not sure that we'll ever see a "clean" bill ever get passed again. Although, I really wish that Congress would create a law where every single bill must be clean, and not include items not pertaining to the "title" of the bill. 

[*pally*]

(05-10-2024, 07:38 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The Supreme Court gave states back the power to regulate abortion law. Yet, you oppose it. Using your statement, it appears you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. For the record, I hate the new Arizona abortion law, but it is up to Arizona now and the federal government and federal elections are ruled out in an attempted fix.

The Founders wrote the constitution also a long time ago.

So because the founders write the constitution a long time ago, does that mean each state is free to regulate the 2nd amendment to reflect today’s weaponry and society? Or are you just talking out of both sides of your mouth?


The constitution specifically gives regulation of borders to the federal government.

As abortion was not specifically covered in the constitution it fell into a nebulous position. 2 different Supreme Courts rules differently. I happen to believe Roe was the correct decision not Dobbs. I do not believe that legality of healthcare should depend on where you live. But that is a personal opinion

[masonbengals fan]

(05-10-2024, 07:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, I'm not sure that we'll ever see a "clean" bill ever get passed again. Although, I really wish that Congress would create a law where every single bill must be clean, and not include items not pertaining to the "title" of the bill. 

 I totally agree. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2024, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The problem with passing border bills at the Federal level is that so many are afraid of upsetting one group or another in their constituents. It really should be a State by State vote for laws applicable to the immigration problems in the affected States.

(05-10-2024, 07:22 PM)pally Wrote: well, the Founders gave the power to enforce and regulate immigration to the Federal government not the states

Well, it goes a bit beyond that. There is also a matter of contradictory laws. A lot of those people right now are calling "illegal" are those going through the amnesty system and are present in the US legally at this moment. One their amnesty case is processed, they either get residency or get shipped home or elsewhere. The problem is that our system for processing these claims is bogged down and it takes a long time for them to go through the process. This is due in large part to a lack of funding.

So, if a state tries to enforce their understanding of the immigration policy, you could run into people with permission to be in the country being imprisoned. In addition to this, the deportation of migrants requires international agreements. We cannot just dump people across the border into Mexico because that was the last country they were in before they got here. That is against several federal and international laws. Our country establishes agreements with countries we deport to because if the country does not accept them, then we cannot force people to go there. That is an invasion of that nation's sovereignty. One of the reasons these agreements came about was because of our role in creating some of the Latin American gangs a few decades back.

We shipped imprisoned immigrants back to their countries and did not work out all the details. The countries that received them were not prepared for the criminality that these people had gained in the US and their networks grew, grew to the point of nearly or downright running the country they went back to. Those situations have exacerbated the situations in these countries and is one of the reasons we have seen so many border crossings in recent years.

Anyway, states do not have the authority or capability to enter into negotiations with other countries for deportations. So, if they look to enforce immigration laws in their own states then they will be taking on a burden of indefinite imprisonment in their state system, which creates a huge burden on their budgetary issues.

[*Nately120*]

(05-11-2024, 10:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it goes a bit beyond that. There is also a matter of contradictory laws. A lot of those people right now are calling "illegal" are those going through the amnesty system and are present in the US legally at this moment. One their amnesty case is processed, they either get residency or get shipped home or elsewhere. The problem is that our system for processing these claims is bogged down and it takes a long time for them to go through the process. This is due in large part to a lack of funding.

So, if a state tries to enforce their understanding of the immigration policy, you could run into people with permission to be in the country being imprisoned. In addition to this, the deportation of migrants requires international agreements. We cannot just dump people across the border into Mexico because that was the last country they were in before they got here. That is against several federal and international laws. Our country establishes agreements with countries we deport to because if the country does not accept them, then we cannot force people to go there. That is an invasion of that nation's sovereignty. One of the reasons these agreements came about was because of our role in creating some of the Latin American gangs a few decades back.

We shipped imprisoned immigrants back to their countries and did not work out all the details. The countries that received them were not prepared for the criminality that these people had gained in the US and their networks grew, grew to the point of nearly or downright running the country they went back to. Those situations have exacerbated the situations in these countries and is one of the reasons we have seen so many border crossings in recent years.

Anyway, states do not have the authority or capability to enter into negotiations with other countries for deportations. So, if they look to enforce immigration laws in their own states then they will be taking on a burden of indefinite imprisonment in their state system, which creates a huge burden on their budgetary issues.

Thanks for the info and that sounds complicated.  Another complicated thing turned into a one sentence talking point to rile up the masses and gain political clout for self-enrichment.  Neat.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2024, 07:22 PM)pally Wrote: well, the Founders gave the power to enforce and regulate immigration to the Federal government not the states

Are you talking about the old white men? Aren’t they antiquated or something?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-11-2024, 10:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it goes a bit beyond that. There is also a matter of contradictory laws. A lot of those people right now are calling "illegal" are those going through the amnesty system and are present in the US legally at this moment. One their amnesty case is processed, they either get residency or get shipped home or elsewhere. The problem is that our system for processing these claims is bogged down and it takes a long time for them to go through the process. This is due in large part to a lack of funding.

So, if a state tries to enforce their understanding of the immigration policy, you could run into people with permission to be in the country being imprisoned. In addition to this, the deportation of migrants requires international agreements. We cannot just dump people across the border into Mexico because that was the last country they were in before they got here. That is against several federal and international laws. Our country establishes agreements with countries we deport to because if the country does not accept them, then we cannot force people to go there. That is an invasion of that nation's sovereignty. One of the reasons these agreements came about was because of our role in creating some of the Latin American gangs a few decades back.

We shipped imprisoned immigrants back to their countries and did not work out all the details. The countries that received them were not prepared for the criminality that these people had gained in the US and their networks grew, grew to the point of nearly or downright running the country they went back to. Those situations have exacerbated the situations in these countries and is one of the reasons we have seen so many border crossings in recent years.

Anyway, states do not have the authority or capability to enter into negotiations with other countries for deportations. So, if they look to enforce immigration laws in their own states then they will be taking on a burden of indefinite imprisonment in their state system, which creates a huge burden on their budgetary issues.

Short term problem with long term gain. Less illegal immigration will occur if there is stricter punishments for it. Plus the states could put more pressure on the Gov to get those people sent back home. You know the reasons why the home countries don't want them back. 


With the new app that they have rolled out, if i understand it, you should apply online from your home country, then if you are approved you can move. Seems the smarter kind of way to go about it than showing up at the border expecting to be let in.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

Even with the rabble rousing over illegal aliens, the US is still very pro immigration when compared to the rest of the world.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-14-2024, 03:07 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Even with the rabble rousing over illegal aliens, the US is still very pro immigration when compared to the rest of the world.

and some EU countries are starting to pass laws limiting how much $ they give to immigrants.

[Belsnickel]

(05-14-2024, 03:07 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Even with the rabble rousing over illegal aliens, the US is still very pro immigration when compared to the rest of the world.

This isn't surprising. One of the things that makes the US unique in this is that it is built on immigration; it is a part of our identity. That is not the case for most countries.

Edit to add: I am actually most shocked at Japan's numbers.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-14-2024, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Edit to add: I am actually most shocked at Japan's numbers.

Shocking to me too, but I wonder if it's because of how much of an aging population they have there that they simply starting to get desperate for more young labor force. 

Also important distinction to note about Japan is they're saying let them come here, but they're certainly NOT saying to give them rights like home ownership or the ability to get a credit/debit card... or to not treat them as outsiders. Lol

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-14-2024, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This isn't surprising. One of the things that makes the US unique in this is that it is built on immigration; it is a part of our identity. That is not the case for most countries.

Edit to add: I am actually most shocked at Japan's numbers.

(05-15-2024, 04:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Shocking to me too, but I wonder if it's because of how much of an aging population they have there that they simply starting to get desperate for more young labor force. 

Also important distinction to note about Japan is they're saying let them come here, but they're certainly NOT saying to give them rights like home ownership or the ability to get a credit/debit card... or to not treat them as outsiders. Lol

Why is that shocking?
Japan has been like that for years. Their actual acceptance rate is very low.

They do let people in, but unlike us, they follow really strict rules and let in mainly what they need for the workforce.
They are not an ex-pat friendly nation like most of the other Asian nations.

I think alot of it has to do with Western vs Eastern workplace values. They don't want their workforce to mix because of cultural values.