GOP’s Controversial ‘Arizona ICE Act’ Passes Initial Test, Uniting Local Police with Immigration Enforcement

In Arizona, Republicans are pushing forward with a controversial proposal that mandates local police to align with federal immigration enforcement, despite concerns from Latino communities and families affected by such policies. The proposal comes in the wake of a high-profile case involving Marlon Parris, an Iraq war veteran and legal permanent resident who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under questionable circumstances.

Tanisha Hartwell-Parris, Marlon’s wife, testified before the Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee, urging lawmakers to reconsider Senate Bill 1164. She highlighted her husband’s ongoing detention despite having documentation permitting his stay, raising alarms about the implications for individuals without such resources.

In 2011, Marlon faced a nonviolent drug charge but was granted a “Letter of no interest” by the Department of Homeland Security, recognizing his military service. However, following changes in federal policy after Trump’s election, his situation dramatically shifted. Tanisha believes that the current political climate has made low-priority individuals like Marlon targets for deportation.

The Arizona ICE Act, as proposed, requires law enforcement agencies to actively facilitate the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Critics warn that this could undermine public safety, as police may become less approachable to immigrant communities fearful of deportation.

This act would also enable ICE to request extended detainment of individuals suspected of being undocumented, regardless of their legal standing or whether they have been convicted of any crime. Currently, police can choose whether to comply with such requests, but the bill seeks to change that flexibility.

Legal experts caution against the potential constitutional violations that could arise from the mandate. Douglas Kouffie, representing Marlon, emphasized that such measures could infringe on due process rights. “In this country, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” he stated, highlighting the risks of detaining individuals based solely on suspicions.

Opposition to the bill is evident, with frequent public protests echoing concerns about its effects on mixed-status families. Democrats on the committee are unified in their stance against the legislation, arguing that it could lead to increased fear within vulnerable communities, ultimately hindering crime reporting.

Despite the pushback, Republican lawmakers insist that strengthening cooperation with federal immigration officials is essential for public safety. They underscore the necessity to address crime committed by undocumented individuals, citing specific criminal cases to bolster their arguments.

Following the committee hearing, advocates gathered outside the chambers to voice their dissent, some labeling this initiative the “Arizona Families Deportation Agenda.” Activists emphasize the need for comprehensive federal immigration reform rather than state-level enforcement actions that could disrupt families and local economies.

As debates continue, former Democratic legislator Raquel Terán rallied supporters, advocating for persistent mobilization against the proposed legislation. “We keep going, we are here and we’re not leaving,” she declared, receiving enthusiastic support from the crowd.