Foes of a Republican-backed border-security referendum say the “rushed” legislative process may have negative consequences for asylum seekers and mixed status families.
On top of that, pro-immigration organizations across the state are gearing up for an awareness campaign as the ballot referral approaches its final hurdle in the Legislature.
Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, said one of the largest failures of the proposal is how it would set up state immigration policy to clash with federal immigration law.
In breaking down individual provisions within the measure, Bravo said “it’s a lot more complicated” than just the risk of racial profiling.
“Most were focusing on the risks of racial profiling, and I thought that was just very limited,” Bravo said. “This has become so much more. The bill still poses great risk to impact mixed status families.”
As a sitting member of the Senate Rules committee, Bravo said he has constitutional concerns relating to the measure since it was first drafted. His concerns go beyond the expected legal challenges due to the proposal’s similarity to Texas’ SB4, which is actively being litigated in federal court.
The measure might violate the single-subject rule, Bravo said. Legislation is constitutionally required to “embrace but one subject and matters properly connected,” also requiring a bill’s short title be reflective of its contents.
“We’re not in a position to welcome lawsuits,” Bravo said.
The proposal faced some challenges in the Senate, resulting in a watered down version of the measure that still won’t earn a single Democrat vote. Named the “Secure the Border Act,” the measure would make it a state crime to enter the country illegally, or not through an official port of entry. It would also greenlight officers to arrest individuals they find to have entered the country illegally, while granting law enforcement civil immunity from any action taken to enforce the proposed law.
The most recent version of HCR2060 specified that if it became law, individuals could not be retroactively prosecuted for having entered the U.S. illegally before it was passed.
The measure also drew opposition because it would require that electronic verification of citizenship or “E-verify” be used by employers to ensure employment eligibility.
Backlash from the legislation’s initial form and the severe penalty it would set up for E-verify requirements resulted in a tweak that reduced the charges for first-time offenders. As it stands, the measure would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor to violate E-verify requirements the first time, but a Class 6 felony for repeat offenders.
Bringing reform to the E-verify program might have been a good start when it comes to immigration policy in the state, Bravo said. Though his stance on the measure has stood firm on the basis that immigration policy is an issue to be left to the federal government, he said there was not much opportunity to find a true bipartisan solution.
“I was thinking, in the future, perhaps we reform our participation with that program or we try to get the government to implement something that's more accurate,” Bravo said. “We went the entire different direction on that, they're doubling down by wanting to strengthen the state's participation in E-verify, and I think that will continue to be a turn-off to business communities.”
Mario Montoya is the research analyst and coalition consultant for Aliento, a group that serves mixed immigration status families and DACA recipients.
Aspects of the legislation’s language are at odds with the operation of parole programs that exist for individuals seeking asylum, Montoya said.
Page five of the measure said that an individual would lack lawful presence if they are “paroled pursuant to a programmatic grant of parole, including under any parole program not created under notice-and-comment rulemaking that establishes specific characteristics under which an alien would be entitled to parole.” Violating this would be a Class 1 misdemeanor on first offense and a Class 6 felony on any subsequent offenses.
“This could completely harm them in the future for their asylum seeking claims any pathway to citizenship for them can be completely destroyed,” Montoya said. “It would really put these individuals in a place where even though at a federal level they do have that lawful presence, here at the state level, we're telling them that they don't and then we're also stamping their criminal record with a misdemeanor that could affect their path to citizenship.”
Humanitarian programs that assist individuals in the asylum seeking process would be jeopardized by this measure, Montoya said. It could prevent individuals from attending court proceedings for their asylum cases, he continued.
“We were born out of the ashes of SB1070”
Chris Gilfillan is the political director for Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, an organization which has advocated for a variety of social change since its inception in 2010.
“We were born out of the ashes of SB1070,” Gilfillan said.
Since the introduction of HCR2060, opponents have said the measure is similar to SB1070, an immigration-related proposal which passed 14 years ago and became widely known as the “show-me-your-papers bill.”
Even with the amendments in place that Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, pushed for before the measure passed out of the Senate, LUCHA strongly opposes it in any form, Gilfillan said.
“It (HCR2060) puts asylum seekers at odds with the state government,” Gilfillan said.
The measure is set to receive a vote in the House on June 4, where it will likely be passed by the Republican majority.
LUCHA is rallying against the measure on Saturday and applying pressure to Republican representatives who live in split districts ahead of the House vote, Gilfillan said.
On top of that, the group is proactively gearing up for an awareness campaign in the case that the measure does pass, Gilfillan said.
“I think that the effort would be focused on ensuring there is a public awareness campaign of the harmful immigration policy that would harm Arizona in a very large and terrible way,” Gilfillan said.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0