New AZ Legislation Cracks Down on Illegal Immigrants Breaking the Law

By Lorin McLain

Arizona is once again on the forefront of cracking down on illegal immigration. One proposal that passed through a state senate committee last week would make it mandatory to give the toughest punishments to immigrants breaking the law who are in the country illegally. Another bill punishes any municipality that passes a sanctuary-city policy benefitting immigrants.

The bills are the toughest pieces of legislation targeting illegal immigrants since SB 1070, which requires law enforcement to determine a person’s immigration status during a routine stop. The law set off protests, lawsuits, and general animosity toward Arizona in many cases. Since then, the Republican-dominated legislature has generally avoided pursuing new immigration law.

Maricopa Republican Steve Smith chairs the committee that passed the measures last week. Senator Lupe Contreras is the only Latino on the committee and the only member to vote against both of them. Contreras said he was concerned it could conflict with equal protection guaranteed under the constitution. Smith argues immigrants in the country don’t have equal protection under the law.

Smith said the bill mandating punishment to the fullest extent of the law was inspired by a case last year involving an immigrant who was in the country illegally and killed a 21-year-old convenience store clerk over a pack of cigarettes. The immigrant was out on bail for a separate crime. He said the bill would only ensure that people who already broke immigration laws are punished if they break state laws.

The other bill that penalizes municipalities that pass a sanctuary-city policy would do so by withholding state revenue. SB 1070 already makes it illegal for cities to pass such policies, but Smith’s bill adds a punishment factor. A sanctuary-city – defined under the law – is any municipality limiting federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws and violates application requirements for public benefits that require proof of citizenship. Both proposals are going through a constitutional review before going to a vote in the full Senate.