Arizona Passes Immigration Crackdown Measure That Will Invite Unaccountable Policing
Proposition 314 will allow state and local police to enforce immigration law—and shield them from lawsuits over misconduct related to that enforcement.

Arizona voters have approved Proposition 314, which will increase the role of state and local law enforcement in immigration policy. Arizona joins a growing list of states that are venturing into the business of border enforcement, an authority that has traditionally fallen under the federal government's purview—and it will likely see increased taxpayer costs and police misconduct as a result.
Proposition 314 makes unauthorized border crossing a state crime, granting local and state law enforcement the power to arrest and deport migrants. A migrant who crosses into Arizona outside of a lawful port of entry will be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor (or a class 6 felony for repeat offenses). A state judge will be able to order a migrant's deportation. Other components of the initiative increase or introduce penalties for the sale of deadly fentanyl and the use of false documentation to apply for public benefits.
A similar proposal passed the Arizona Legislature earlier this year, but Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it. That bill, and Proposition 314, were modeled after Texas' Senate Bill 4. The Arizona ballot initiative's text specifies that a migrant can't "be prosecuted for any of these crimes until a similar law in the state of Texas or…in any other state has been in effect for at least 60 consecutive days" after voters approved Proposition 314.
Proposition 314 calls to mind another controversial Arizona immigration measure: Senate Bill 1070, which the Supreme Court gutted in 2012. It did so on the basis that key provisions of the bill were preempted by federal law—a challenge that Proposition 314 will likely face.
Questions of state vs. federal immigration authority aside, Arizona can expect negative consequences from Proposition 314's implementation. It will be costly, as it will require new investments in the transportation and detention of charged migrants. It could very well lead to racial profiling as officers seek to identify people who crossed the border illegally. "Sheriffs in four Arizona counties that sit along the border with Mexico" told The Guardian that "they will face problems enforcing the new law," citing concerns about discriminatory and expensive enforcement, the outlet reported in September.
Like Texas' S.B. 4, Proposition 314 shields the police from lawsuits for actions they take to enforce the measure. State and local officers, employees, and contractors will have "civil immunity under state law for an action taken to enforce the laws that prohibit" migrants from entering Arizona outside lawful ports of entry. That will amount to more policing with less accountability.
Even though Arizona voters have approved Proposition 314, its full implementation isn't assured. Texas' S.B. 4 is on hold, and the Arizona initiative's border-crossing provision can't take effect until S.B. 4 or a similar law in another state has been deemed constitutional and implemented for 60 days.
Still, Proposition 314 now looms over Arizona—and so do the financial, legal, and ethical costs its border crackdown would bring.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Probably best that the criminal aliens just surrender now and turn themselves over for deportation.
Like the saying goes: "If you make the police chase you..."
How about if we reform the immigration system such that peaceful people who aren't violating anyone's rights can come here legally?
Peaceful people don't cross illegally, Jeff. Peaceful people don't scurry and hide in boltholes when they know they're not supposed to be here any longer.
They're not peaceful people, Jeff. This is the grand lie the Democrats constantly trying to sell - and it's clear that the American people aren't buying it anymore. The illegals are criminal aliens. Period. No if's and's or's or but's. If they had any desire whatsoever to impress their peacefulness on us, and their intent of not violating anyone's rights, they'd ask for permission instead of forgiveness to enter this country. Instead, their very first act on American soil is a crime.
That is not peaceful.
Round 'em up, thump their skulls if they resist, tear apart their families, and deport anyone who doesn't belong here. Period. I am the most anti-spending Independent voter you'll ever meet. Yet, I would happily devote almost the entirety of the federal budget to this effort. I would shut down federally funded schools and hospitals and even non-essential military/judicial installations. I would fire every single civil government employee. I would withhold the paychecks of every elected official, and entitlement-payment of every citizen in any way shape or form on the dole. And I would take every dime of that and redirect it to tripling the pay of any enforcement agent assigned to arrest/deportation efforts, and fund however many pop-up detention and immigration review centers are needed to start processing the illegals out of this country 50,000/day.
And in a year, we'd have our nation back.
Then - and only then, Jeff - could we start meaningfully talking about "reforming the immigration system." I am perfectly fine with such reform proposals - but NOT until we address and resolve the immediate issue.
You, otoh, sound like a doctor who would like to talk about managing a patient's diabetes while the surgeon has him on the table trying to save his heart or kidneys or foot. You gotta deal with the present problem before you address the long-term care. It's that simple.
They are as much 'criminals' as anyone else who violates unjust laws. They are as much 'criminals' as the guy smoking pot in his basement. Their 'crime' is, AT MOST, trespassing. Why do you consider this to be such a grave violation of the law so as to justify the extreme response, including killing them? (Gee I thought you were not in favor of murdering migrants. Guess I was wrong.)
And in a year, we’d have our nation back.
They are A PART OF our nation. You and your team are the ones desiring to tear it apart with your mass deportation fantasies. The overwhelming majority of migrants come here seeking better lives for themselves. They take shitty jobs that entitled Americans won't do, they start families, they contribute to their communities. They aren't harming anyone.
Oh, but I can hear it now. BUT WHATABOUT LAKEN RILEY???????
If the Border Patrol spends its efforts actually trying to stop the 'bad hombres' from coming here, instead of hassling peaceful grandmas who are not a threat to anyone, then there will be fewer violent crimes committed by migrants.
The tragedy of victims like Laken Riley is really about how the Border Patrol is tasked to do the wrong job.
Hey Fatfuck, how’s your day going? Mine is just awesome. Although I suspect it isn’t quite so awesome for Marxist pedophiles masquerading in libertarian blubbersuits.
Is it? Hmmmmmm?
They are as much ‘criminals’ as anyone else who violates unjust laws.
You can whine about the law itself as much as you want. It doesn't change the fact that it IS the law - and that America operates under Rule of Law, even when it's poor law, and that every single man woman and child in this nation is expected to follow it.
You want to change the law, then change the law. But until you do, you - YOU PERSONALLY JEFF, I WANT TO SEE YOU SAY IT - must acknowledge that these people are criminal aliens.
Say it.
Their ‘crime’ is, AT MOST, trespassing.
Should a trespasser be ejected from your property, Jeff? Forcibly, if need be, under State authority, if he refuses to leave of his own accord?
YOUR property.
Why do you consider this to be such a grave violation of the law so as to justify the extreme response, including killing them? (Gee I thought you were not in favor of murdering migrants. Guess I was wrong.)
The extreme response is limited to those who do not willfully submit to arrest and deportation. If they resist - whether by hiding or running or fighting or whatever else - then the response becomes warranted. Necessary, even.
I know you want to try and equate this to indiscriminately murdering border jumpers - not "migrants" - as they illegally cross but you will not be able to connect those two.
We should not have to chase trespassers off our property with two hands tied behind our back, Jeff. If they won't leave of their own volition, then force may become necessary.
They are A PART OF our nation.
No they're not. If they had any desire for that - again, permission, not forgiveness.
You and your team
I don't have a team.
The overwhelming majority of migrants come here seeking better lives for themselves.
No, they come here seeking criminal activity. It's literally the very first thing they do when they reach our border. And what they then persist in while pretending that they're doing us a favor.
Yeah I've heard enough of your team's excuse-making for the bad behavior of your team that I don't buy your whole Judge Dredd schtick of THE LAW'S THE LAW. You only apply that standard when you want to apply it to the powerless people that you don't like. But when it comes to, say, Jan. 6 rioters, or Trump himself, then oh no, it's "lawfare" and "political prisoners" and "unjust prosecution". So I don't for one minute believe that you actually hold the law to be some sacred text. It is instead a convenient cudgel to be used against the people that you don't like.
Should a trespasser be ejected from your property, Jeff?
My private property? Yes. But what if I invite a migrant onto my private property. Should the state eject that migrant from my property against my wishes, because that migrant doesn't have the 'correct papers'? In this case, the migrant is NOT trespassing, is he?
Or do you consider the entire nation to be one collective of property owned by the state? That would be rather socialist of you.
No, they come here seeking criminal activity.
This is the same bullshit tactic that your team always pulls. You inflate the 'crime' that they actually commit to ridiculous levels in order to imply that they are somehow morally comparable to rapists and murderers. Sorry, but even if I were to agree that illegal immigration was a legitimate crime, it is not even in the same league as genuine violent crimes that violate people's rights, such as murder and rape. That you and your team try to equate all of these crimes together as somehow morally the same shows your lack of honest argumentation.
But what if I invite a migrant onto my private property.
Unless you live on literal borderland, and I know you don’t, how’d he get there without the initial trespass?
You want to change the law, then change the law. But until you do, you – YOU PERSONALLY JEFF, I WANT TO SEE YOU SAY IT – must acknowledge that these people are criminal aliens.
Say it.
I’m not playing with you any more until you make this one simple admission. You can reply until you’re blue in the face, and I will keep coming back and coming back and coming back to this point over and over. Your only way out of this corner is to not reply, which itself will be the admission.
This is the same bullshit tactic that your team always pulls. You inflate the ‘crime’ that they actually commit
Is it a crime, or isn't it.
Also, language.
They are just as much 'criminals' as the guy smoking pot in his basement. Which is, not at all. I'm not going to indulge your fantasy that peaceful migrants are morally equivalent to violent thugs. They are not.
How’d he get there without the initial trespass?
On public roads. There is no such thing as "trespassing" on public roads.
You want to change the law, then change the law. But until you do, you – YOU PERSONALLY JEFF, I WANT TO SEE YOU SAY IT – must acknowledge that these people are criminal aliens.
Say it.
You are not saying anything false by making this simple admission, Jeff. You are not betraying an ideology or violating any ethical principle.
You are simply acknowledging the reality of the situation. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
I get it. You don’t like reality and you don’t want to operate within it. Too bad. If you refuse to do so, then you’re not having this – or any other – conversation in good faith.
And yes, I have a very simple response to your “public roads” nonsense (because “public” also has a circumscribed definition in a nation state) – but you will not get it until you acknowledge that you’re dealing in good faith, rational intent, and reality.
So say it. Say that they’re criminal aliens. Not "peaceful thugs," not "violent migrants," but something more simple and encompassing: criminal aliens. Because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE.
Again, they are as much ‘criminals’ as the guy smoking pot in the basement. I reject your categorization of them as somehow akin to violent thugs by attaching a defamatory label on them. I recognize them for *who they actually are*, which is, overwhelmingly, peaceful migrants trying to find better lives for themselves and their families. THAT is operating in reality, not obsessing over how the law classifies them or how you want to associate them with rapists and murderers. I’m not going to play that game.
Perhaps you care to admit that migrants are, overwhelmingly, not committing violent crimes and are generally living their lives without being a bother to anyone else. Perhaps you would care to admit that migrants are really no different than yourself.
Again, they are as much ‘criminals’ as the guy smoking pot in the basement.
And if that’s against the law, then what does that make him?
You want to change the law, then change the law. But until you do, you – YOU PERSONALLY JEFF, I WANT TO SEE YOU SAY IT – must acknowledge that these people are criminal aliens.
Say it.
I reject your categorization of them as somehow akin to violent thugs
I’ve not once said that. You did. But I certainly did not.
by attaching a defamatory label on them
It’s not defamatory when it’s 100% true.
Perhaps you care to admit that migrants are, overwhelmingly, not committing violent crimes
But they ARE committing a crime simply by being here. True or False.
The constitution mandates sovereign borders and places the responsibility for them in the hands of the federal government. Case closed.
So unless you can get the constitution changed, fuck off. And good luck with that, since the American people wouldn’t even elect that retarded cackling cunt. hell, your open borders bullshit helped flip the senate in the right direction.
So seethe harder you fat bitch. Things are about to get real fucking bad for you.
We are a constitutional republic. Our constitution defines what is “just” and “unjust” and preventing the free movement of people across country borders has not been considered “unjust” except by a handful of people with questionable intelligence.
If you truly think it’s unjust for a country to secure its borders, then get a constitutional amendment passed saying so.
Good luck. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but pretty sure the last 40 years of open border policies have wrecked your case.
Our constitution defines what is “just” and “unjust”
bzzt - that might work on a conservative forum, but that does not work here. Timeless principles of liberty decide what is "just" and "unjust", not the Constitution.
Better bring your lunch box today Tubby. Going to be a long day.
Oh don't worry, I am more than happy to blame you and your team for every crappy thing that Trump does in the next four years. I will be more than happy to say "I told you so."
chemjeff, don't be like the dog learning calculus. 😉
(that analogy of yours was excellent; I use it)
Blame away. Your tears will be delicious.
How is that possible when Leftists like you and Fiona argue everything in bad faith?
How about we stop spending taxpayer money to fly them here, to feed them, to house them and give them medical services. How many of these so-called peaceful people do you think will continue to stay and new ones come if they find out the gravy train is over?
Not nearly enough as far as Pedo Jeffy is concerned.
Do you support any limits, Jeff? Must the US accept 20 million people who can't support themselves?
I don't like some of the law, but it's better that the states get some control over illegal immigration. Even normie democrats are upset over illegal immigration. Maybe Reason could get a clue.
Arizona has had such high costs from the problem for literal decades. Southern Arizona lost around 40% of trauma 1 centers due to costs of uncompensated care for illegals. Welfare abuse by illegals is abundant. Students of illegals costs 3x the cost of English speaking students. Jails are over represented in Arizona by illegals. Car insurance rates are higher than national average from uninsured drivers.
All violations of the NAP causing excess costs to Arizona.
What Jeff won't mention is the percentage if Latinos that also voted for this amendment.
Jeff is an open borders Marxist. He doesn't care if you or others assume a cost for his wishes.
The entire immigration system is broken and should be torn out root and branch.
To the extent that the law makes it a crime for peaceful people to travel freely without violating anyone’s rights, that law is unjust.
The immigration system should be focused first and foremost on protecting liberty, just as this should be the focus of every government activity.
The government should create an immigration system that *facilitates* the free movement of peaceful people, not hinder it. At most, free and peaceful people should undergo a background check and undergo a simple health screening. If they pass, they should be given a work permit and permission to travel about the country.
That would free up border patrol resources to focus on the genuinely ‘bad hombres’ instead of sending them to hassle penniless Guatemalans who have done nothing wrong.
It wouldn’t mean that borders would be erased. It would mean, instead, that borders represent what they ought to represent: the extent of a sovereign’s jurisdiction. By contrast, borders shouldn’t represent a prison wall to keep people in or out. That is a subversion of a government’s proper role to protect liberty.
The entire immigration system is broken and should be torn out root and branch.
After we've triaged the crisis, you mean.
Agreed 100%. Get the patient stable so he doesn't die on the table, then address the symptoms for a long-term health plan.
To the extent that the law makes it a crime for peaceful people to travel freely without violating anyone’s rights, that law is unjust.
So, you don't agree even slightly that any nation should have borders. Confirm/deny.
Notice Jeff also avoids the welfare/cost issue. He supports global welfare, government taking from Americans to pay for others. The open borders Marxist policy.
I know he does. But that's neither here nor there.
Right now he's already in a corner he can't get out of. No need to provide him rabbit holes to escape down.
He's going to dodge, I'm going to punch him. He's going to juke, I'm going to punch him again. He's going to try and slip, and tomorrow he'll probably piss blood for his effort.
This is the end of Jeff.
Or, if he has even a single functioning brain cell, the beginning.
He doesn't. But I'm going to enjoy watching you punch him repeatedly. Ahhhhh, schadenfreude.
Good luck. He will never admit to principles, logical argument construction, or basic facts. I've been down this road with Jeff. He is a religious acolyte. Facts don't matter to him.
He will try to change definitions, appeal to morality, appeal to emotion, or whatever other rhetorical trick he can muster to push his religious belief regarding open borders.
What are your principles with respect to immigration, Jesse?
You demand private property rights for your own property, but you want to collectivize the entire nation's property and treat it all as one big plot of communal land when it comes to immigration. So a migrant coming here without government papers is "trespassing" even on public roads, even if the migrant is coming with permission from property owners.
You demand the right of free association for yourself but you deny it to those who wish to associate with foreigners.
You bemoan intrusive government regulations on businesses, yet you are eager to impose intrusive government regulations on businesses if it is about stopping immigration.
You complain about the public costs of immigration, yet you dishonestly attribute the costs associated with *enforcement* as 'welfare' that the immigrants receive, and condemn them for spending that they literally have no control over.
You spend endless hours bitching and moaning about the welfare costs of immigrants while you spend next to zero time complaining about the welfare costs of native-born citizens, even though the latter completely dwarf the former.
You cite debunked and fraudulent studies that 'show' immigrants are horrible people, and you refuse to admit the flaws in those studies. You just repeat them for propaganda purposes, hoping that no one reading will actually investigate how shoddy those studies are.
Your only principle here appears to be that you believe in a hierarchy of liberty. Only those at the top of the hierarchy are entitled to liberty. Naturally, that includes you and your team, since you consider yourselves to be "Real Muricans". At the very bottom of the hierarchy are the foreigners and migrants. They don't deserve squat. In the middle is everyone else, who get liberty only depending on how magnanimous you and your team decide to be.
"Liberty for me but not for thee" is your only principle Jesse, and it is the guiding principle of the modern Republican Party.
Nope, Jesse cites solid sources and then you lie and post discredited unsupported crap. Then you pretend you were never discredited. Rinse and repeat. Except it doesn’t matter how much you lie. You lost, and you lost big. This hurts you, and we wish to go on, hurting you.
So again, seethe harder you fat bitch. Everyone here knows that you’re just a pinko pedophile in a libertarian blubber suit.
lol at you with the boxing analogies. Why don't you try using argumentation skills instead of fighting skills.
Your vision of America is fundamentally collectivist and - dare I say it - communist. The entire nation is not collectively owned by the state and the people collectively do not have the right to dictate to every private property owner whom they may invite onto their property.
If you want to invite your friend into your house, should your neighbors get veto power over that invitation? If not, why does the situation change if that friend is *gasp* a foreigner and not a citizen?
How many illegals have you invited, Jeff? Are they all staying on your property?
Given his girth, I doubt there’s much extra room in his mom’s basement. Plus, Pedo Jeffy doesn’t share food.
Notice Jeff also avoids the welfare/cost issue.
You mean, the totally separate issue that you and your team deliberately conflate together with immigration so as to use one to disparage the other?
There is the bad faith we all know and despise from you.
I’m not interested in indulging your own team’s dishonesty anymore.
Let’s take this example from Jesse’s rant above:
Southern Arizona lost around 40% of trauma 1 centers due to costs of uncompensated care for illegals.
So, he thinks that the problem here is the presence of the illegals consuming all of this care at the hospitals. If the illegals were only deported, then the problem would be solved! Right?
However, in virtually every other context, Jesse and just about everyone else here would correctly recognize that the real culprit here is the government mandate that forces hospitals to just eat these costs associated with uncompensated care. These costs of course are then passed on to everyone else in various ways. End the mandate, and then taxpayers like Jesse won’t be burdened with paying for the care.
But somehow, when it’s about care for illegals, the libertarian solution goes away, and it’s back to just kicking out the illegals as the ‘solution’ to the problem.
That is what I mean when you all deliberately conflate different issues, so as to use one to disparage the other.
It isn’t ’totally separate’. And it doesn’t matter what you think. We won the argument. No more illegals. And this time wall gets built.
So why don’t you jump in the Trumpmobile, head down to Trumptown, have a bucket load of Trumpburgers, and chill the fuck out?
Or just do the smart thing, and get on the Trump train.
So, you don’t agree even slightly that any nation should have borders.
As I wrote:
You want to treat borders like prison walls. I don't.
You don’t believe in SOVEREIGN borders. Well, tough shit. That isn't how our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC works.
So you seethe as hard as you want. The borders are going to be controlled again, in accordance with our constitution.
After the border is addressed, and mass deportations underway, it will be time for Congress to address immigration. We should absolutely increase quotas, and narrow qualifications to come here.
We want chemists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, rocket scientists and people like that coming here to build the America of tomorrow.
We don't need landscapers, terrorist wannabes, criminals coming into the country. They go home.
There's not going to be mass deportations. As Rick James mentioned yesterday, the moment that a 70 year old grandma is caught on tape being dragged out of her house by ICE, public opinion will turn decisively away from 'mass deportations'.
This is starting to sound like the usual excuse for why the Trumpertarians can never get around to supporting free migration - 'first end the welfare state'. Well guess what, the welfare state is not going to be ended anytime soon.
So once we've established that your team's fantasies are not going to come to being, we then have to deal with reality that millions of peaceful migrants are here, they are not going away anytime soon, and we can either continue to treat them like an underclass or we can treat them with the human dignity and respect that they are owed.
It won’t. People are sick of your open borders bullshit. In fact, if I were running the DoJ, I would look at how complicit neo Marxists like you are in violating federal law, and deal with you accordingly.
We want chemists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, rocket scientists and people like that coming here to build the America of tomorrow.
We don’t need landscapers, terrorist wannabes, criminals coming into the country. They go home.
Maybe we shouldn't have top men trying to decide who is the proper migrant that should be coming here and who is the improper migrant that shouldn't be coming here.
It’s our right to make that decision. You don’t like it, pass a constitutional amendment.
Controlling borders has been considered a just act of government since the beginning of government.
Oh, the government certainly has the authority to have Top Men in charge deciding who is a 'good' immigrant and who is a 'bad' immigrant. I'd like to know why having Top Men in charge of immigration is such a great thing, but having Top Men in charge of other things is not such a great thing.
Seethe harder Fatfuck. Seethe harder. It’s all going to get better from here. Maybe not for you though.
Controlling borders has been considered a just act of government since the beginning of government.
I agree! The issue isn't whether the government *should* control borders. The issue is HOW the government should control borders. I propose that the government controls borders by facilitating the free migration of peaceful people. Set up a system in which migrants have to pass a simple background check and health screening, and if they do, they get to move about the country freely without any further hassle. That is how the government should control the borders. The government should NOT control the borders by treating them like prison walls.
No.
Nope. We’re going to follow the law, and no open borders bullshit. Time to start booting all the illegals. And if subversive filth like you get in the way, it will be necessary to prosecute you to the fullness extent of the law.
As an Arizona resident, we do need landscapers. Many, many of them.
Have plenty of legal ones. At the same price.
Well, Commenter_XY didn't mention anything about them being illegal. Also, it's interesting that he lumps landscapers in with "terrorist wannabes and criminals".
You think you made a point but you did not. You stated we need landscapers. I stated we have them. Your point was wrong. I could call 50 different places today and get a new landscaper. Legal citizens doing the job. There is no benefit from importing more.
Why? 'Xeroscaping' is just 'leave your front yard a desert;)
To the extent that the law makes it a crime for peaceful people to travel freely without violating anyone’s rights, that law is unjust.
Jeffsarc just can't help but through his teeth. People can generally travel quite freely in the United States. It's not that hard to visit the US, for 90 days. What isn't easy is relocating to the US without permission. Go cry into your pillow.
The immigration system should be focused first and foremost on protecting liberty, just as this should be the focus of every government activity.
Protecting the liberty of its citizens.
the extent of a sovereign’s jurisdiction
Except that sovereign jurisdiction ought to not include the right to have rules about who may try to come live within that jurisdiction. Right? Fuck off, jeffsarc globalist collectivist.
Protecting the liberty of its citizens.
Does that include the liberty of citizens to freely associate with others, including foreigners?
Except that sovereign jurisdiction ought to not include the right to have rules about who may try to come live within that jurisdiction.
No, just very simple rules, that facilitate migration instead of hinder it. Simple rules like "can you pass a background check" and "are you ill". But that's it.
Nope. We don’t need endless economic migrants. A million or so a year is plenty. Immigration is for the benefit of the citizen, not foreigners. We give zero fucks about your ‘open society’ Sorosite neo Marxist dreams. Everyone here knows you’re just a pinko in a libertarian blubber suit.
So really, it’s time for you to go. If you know what’s good for you.
Just because an uninvited foreigner doesn't like our laws, does not mean that the system is broken. We reserve the right to invite in who we want and keep the rest out.
You ok with squatters and party crashers? Do you lock your doors at night? We as a country have the right to lock our borders.
Goddamn straight.
Fuck off, Fiona. We want our godsdamned cities back down here in the border states. You open borders cunts thought you could just fuck around forever. Now you're finding out that's not the case.
I take great pleasure in that Fiona, Boehm, Sullum, Binion, etc. are all in great agony today. They deserve that.
When I read the description of this law, I assumed that it meant that local law enforcement would be able to arrest and deport them if they are detained in the commission of a crime.
The sheriffs make it sound like they'll need to send patrols out to the borders to watch for crossers. I don't buy that.
The law just makes it a crime for an illegal to *illegally* claim benefits and to enter the country illegally - so if a local cop was, for some reason, patrolling the desert, and found a troop he could investigate and potentially arrest someone and charge them under state law (rather than calling BP)
It certainly doesn't (as many are claiming) allow cops to investigate immigration status freely. No random stops and business sweeps like Arpaio was doing.
The "financial, legal, and ethical costs" of illegal immigration far outway the costs of preventing it. Don't worry, Fiona, you can still go to the Home Depot parking lot and hire your gardeners and maids.
It's over Fiona. Brace yourself.
It will be a bumpy ride ahead!
Whats pathetic is D.C. Democrats being so incompetent the State has to do their job for them even with D.C. STEALING by-far more taxes than the State.
>Proposition 314 will allow state and local police to enforce immigration law—and shield them from lawsuits over misconduct related to that enforcement.
Harrigan, once again, demonstrates no understanding of the topic.
1. 314 doesn’t allow state police to enforce immigration law. It makes a couple things illegal under state law.
https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%202060%20-%202024.pdf
“. . . who is not lawfully present in the United States and who submits false documentation when both applying for public benefits and during the employment eligibility verification .”
2. There is, literally, nothing in the proposition that would provide any more shielding to cops than they have already.
Is this because she was too lazy to read the prop or because she’s lying? And if she’s lying, what’s the point as the election is over and very few people in AZ even read Reason?
And if she’s lying, what’s the point as the election is over and very few people in AZ even read Reason?
After Shikha Dalmia and “Don’t say gay” I can only assume it’s to stand around a burning pile of Koch’s money and greet the new editors.
I’m sure Shitty Shikha is having a wonderful day.
>Arizona can expect negative consequences from Proposition 314's implementation. It will be costly, as it will require new investments in the transportation and detention of charged migrants. It could very well lead to racial profiling as officers seek to identify people who crossed the border illegally. "Sheriffs in four Arizona counties that sit along the border with Mexico" told The Guardian that "they will face problems enforcing the new law," citing concerns about discriminatory and expensive enforcement, the outlet reported in September.
1. We face negative consequences from the enforcement *of all* law - murder, theft, speeding, etc. The question isn't 'will this cost anything' the question is 'will this cost less than the status quo?"
2. No, it doesn't require cops to do racial profiling. There is nothing requiring cops to investigate brown-skinned-people 'just in case' they crossed the border illegally. Any more than there's a requirement for cops to investigate whether or not I've sped any time in the last month. Normal rules of PC apply.
3. Its also not going to require cops to patrol the desert. But if they find an illegal - or (and this is the part of the law that is ignored) find one that has been committing benefits fraud - then they're empowered to arrest and deport them.