Arizona ICE Act Sparks Protests Amidst Heated Debate on Local Police’s Immigration Role

The Arizona Immigration, Cooperation, and Enforcement Act, SB1164, has ignited significant debate between proponents of stricter border security and community advocates pushing for immigrant protections.

Introduced by Sen. Warren Petersen, R-Queen Creek, and co-sponsored by Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, the bill aims to align state law enforcement agencies with federal immigration laws. Since its first presentation in January, it has drawn consistent backlash from community groups, who argue that it jeopardizes immigrant safety and overburdens local law enforcement.

During a Senate Military Affairs and Border Security meeting, Petersen outlined the bill’s key provisions, which include a mandate for law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainers and restrictions preventing local agencies from obstructing federal immigration laws. Notably, the bill prohibits any county or city from enacting policies that might impede cooperation with federal authorities.

This legislative push occurred shortly after President Donald Trump took office and implemented numerous executive orders regarding immigration policy. Cities like Phoenix have established guidelines minimizing detainment solely to verify immigration status, raising concerns about potential conflicts with SB1164.

Opposition has been vocal. Hundreds of protesters gathered at the Arizona Capitol, rallying against the bill during the “Keep Families Together” event just days before Petersen’s presentation. Despite attempts to voice their concerns at the Senate hearing, many were turned away, highlighting the tensions surrounding this issue. A video circulating on social media captured these protesters trying to enter the state Senate, underscoring the palpable dissent.

Raquel Terán, a former Arizona legislator, voiced concerns over family separations potentially resulting from SB1164. She stressed that increased interactions between law enforcement and immigrant communities could lead to heightened fear and separation among families. Currently, she directs Proyecto Progreso, a community organization actively opposing the bill.

During the committee hearing, members expressed skepticism. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, highlighted the detrimental impact the bill could have on relationships between law enforcement and the Latino community. Miranda questioned Petersen on the potential regression this bill could incite, noting the progress made in community policing.

Tanisha Hartwell-Parris presented a personal account of the bill’s implications, sharing her husband’s situation with ICE, even after he was assured he could remain in the country. This testimony illustrated the potential fallout for individuals lacking comprehensive documentation.

Tyler Montague, policy adviser for the American Business Immigration Coalition, criticized the bill’s economic ramifications, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of its broader impacts. While acknowledging the need to address dangerous criminals, he expressed concern over numerous pitfalls in the proposed legislation.

Despite the outcry, the Senate committee advanced SB1164 with a 4-3 vote, reflecting a divided response. Supporters argue that in light of federal actions on border security, the bill is essential for safeguarding Arizonans. State Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise, stated, “We need to be working in partnership to protect the citizens.”