Arizona border fund debate reignites fight over state role in immigration enforcement

Last year, after a brief political
tussle over whether the money could be spent on immigration enforcement,
Gov. Katie Hobbs and lawmakers set aside $18 million for law
enforcement agencies to carry out drug interdiction. 

This year, Hobbs and Republican
legislators want to increase that funding, but Democrats remain wary
about whether it will amount to the state helping aid President Donald
Trump’s mass deportation campaign. 

At issue is the state law that
governs the grant program known as the “local border support” fund. It
earmarks money every fiscal year for law enforcement agencies to pay for
officer positions that are focused on stopping drug trafficking, human
smuggling and “illegal immigration or other border-related crimes.”
Similarly, city, town or county leaders can apply to recoup the costs
that come from prosecuting and arresting people accused of drug
trafficking, human smuggling or “illegal immigration.” 

The language was a source of friction for Democratic lawmakers last year,
who balked at the risk of underwriting local efforts to detain
unauthorized immigrants. But the fund was ultimately wrapped into budget
negotiations and marginally increased from $17 million approved in 2024
to $18 million. That slight increase was a sharp departure, however,
from the $50 million sought by Republicans and the $23 million Hobbs, a
Democrat, had initially proposed. 

Hobbs, unlike Democratic legislators, has no qualms with the language in state law and is once again pushing for $23 million.

The governor’s proposal actually calls for more than the $20 million that Republican lawmakers
are seeking. During a debate about the fund in the Senate Military
Affairs and Border Security Committee on Monday, a representative for
Arizona Sheriffs’ Association, which is in support of the increase,
assured lawmakers that the money isn’t used to target immigrants. 

“Every single penny that is allocated
for local border support every year is spent every year,” said Jen
Marson, a lobbyist for the association. “And, also, if you talk to DPS,
almost all of the dollars is used for drug interdiction, because,
unfortunately, all of our counties in Arizona are border counties when
it comes to drugs.” 

The Arizona Department of Public
Safety is charged with distributing the money in the fund to agencies or
local governments to pay for eligible initiatives. Marson noted that a
large portion of the grants help subsidize K9 units or law enforcement
task forces aimed at stopping the flow of drugs in their communities. 

Democrats on the legislative panel
were skeptical that the money hasn’t in some way advanced anti-immigrant
goals. Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, requested a breakdown of how
each grant over the past two years has been used. She pressed Marson on
her claims that no money has been spent on enforcing federal immigration
laws. 

Marson replied that wading into immigration enforcement isn’t something sheriffs have wanted to use the money for. 

“The goal of the sheriffs is to use these funds to enforce state laws,” she said. 

Arizona doesn’t have the power to
enforce federal immigration laws. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court said
as much when it struck down much of SB1070, the state’s “show me your
papers” law that allowed police officers to pull people over to
investigate their immigration status. 

But two years ago, Republican
lawmakers put the question to voters in Proposition 314, which would let
police officers arrest migrants they suspect crossed the border without
authorization anywhere but at a port of entry. More than 60% of voters
agreed, though the law won’t go into effect until the U.S. Supreme Court
reverses course on its earlier ruling that states don’t have the
ability to enforce federal laws. 

The passage of Prop. 314, which for
some immigrant rights advocates represents a ticking time bomb in the
face of a high court dominated by far-right conservatives that has
embraced overturning precedent. And with the Trump administration’s
aggressive mass deportation campaign having the general support of local
law enforcement officials, Democratic lawmakers are largely unwilling
to back an increase in funding for the local border support grant
program without a change to ensure it won’t be used to target
immigrants. 

But that’s a nonstarter with
Republicans, who control the state legislature and decide which
proposals get sent to the governor’s desk. And with Hobbs herself
unconcerned about the language, the opposition from Democrats is
unlikely to yield any results. 

Jo Ann Caruthers urged Republicans to
vote against the proposal to increase the local border support fund.
She warned that the language creates a loophole that could help pay for
law enforcement actions that contribute to the Trump administration’s
violent anti-immigrant agenda. 

“That money could be going into
health care, into funding our schools, in making public spaces safe,”
she said. “Arizonans deserve a place where we can afford to live in and
thrive, where our tax dollars are invested back into our communities,
not against them.”  

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff,
angrily rebutted that the money goes towards drug interdiction, which
benefits the state’s health care system and public safety. And Sen. Tim
Dunn, R-Yuma, pointed out that the language has been in place since at
least 2021, and the program has been funded year over year despite
that. 

“We’re hung up on those two words
that are in there, but that’s not the focus,” he said. “That hasn’t been
the focus since 2021, since we’ve been using the language.” 

But Democrats on the panel remained unconvinced that the potential to bolster immigration enforcement doesn’t exist. 

“The reality is that the bill
includes language on immigration enforcement,” said Sen. Sally Ann
Gonzales, D-Tucson, shortly before voting against the funding increase.

“Thats what it’s all about for us, is
those exact two words,” echoed Miranda. “So, you’re going to continue
to hear questions on: ‘What does that mean?’”  

The proposal moved forward with a 4-3
vote, with every Democrat in opposition. It will next be considered by
the full state Senate and, if it wins the approval of the GOP majority,
will be sent to the governor.