Where to Draw the Line: Tensions Between State and Federal Immigration Policies

By Sam Triplett. 

As part of a flurry of executive orders following his inauguration, President Trump announced several new immigration policies that reverse course from those of the Biden administration. While the efficacy and, in some cases, legality of these policies remain to be seen, it is clear that the Trump administration wants to set up a framework for more stringent rules. Naturally, Arizona plays an important part in any conversation about immigration. Several of the state’s leaders have thus far expressed trepidation about some of the new policies, setting up a potential clash with federal guidelines on this divisive issue.

President Trump’s Goals

At the most basic level, Trump’s orders aim to prevent undocumented individuals from entering the country while expediting and increasing deportations of unlawful migrants to the United States. He already expanded the scope of “expedited removals,” which now apply to any undocumented migrant in the country who cannot prove they have lived here for more than 2 years. Additionally, Trump used the Constitution—which allows governmental action to protect against foreign invasion—and the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend all entries of undocumented persons at the border. Furthermore, one action mandated border patrol agents to turn away unlawful migrants without granting them asylum hearings. Although asylum restrictions were becoming more prevalent under the Biden Administration, this goes a step further, especially when viewed in light of the return of the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy. President Trump also eliminated the CBP One program, an app which allowed migrants to schedule appointments with U.S. border patrol agents and streamline the entry process. These policy reversals have left hundreds of thousands of migrants stranded on the Mexican side of the border.

Putting aside the President’s objectives, it is actually the methods by which they will be carried out that are more worrisome for people. First, Trump wants to expand the powers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in multiple ways. One is to allow raids in areas that were previously deemed “sensitive,” such as schools, hospitals, and religious buildings. Another is to permit ICE to delegate enforcement to local agencies. The expansion of ICE has already been in the news because some raids have allegedly been conducted without warrants and U.S. citizens have been illegally detained. The military has also gotten more involved, with the relocation of 1,500 active-duty troops to the border (an increase of 60%) and the use of military aircraft to deport migrants.

Perhaps the most controversial of these orders has been the President’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, a right rooted in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The order states that babies of undocumented immigrants and of those in the United States on temporary visas would not automatically obtain U.S. citizenship.

Arizona’s Response

Given the political affiliations of several of Arizona’s current leaders, it is no surprise that they are at odds with the President about his immigration objectives. Governor Katie Hobbs’s response has attempted to re-center attention on her policies of the last few years: keeping drugs out of the state through the Task Force SAFE Program, assisting local law enforcement in their efforts to secure the border, and keeping a path open to citizenship for DREAMers. The last point in particular will likely cause the most friction between federal and state policies here in Arizona. Furthermore, Governor Hobbs has already said that she will not allocate state resources to help carry out federal immigration raids. Unfortunately, the lack of communication and cohesion between the two sides will make it more difficult for any Arizonan to have a clear picture of what the border situation looks like.

Several of Arizona’s leaders—Governor Hobbs, Senator Ruben Gallego, and Attorney General Kris Mayes—responded strongly and swiftly to President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Mayes joined three other state attorneys general in a federal suit to block this specific order, claiming that President Trump does not have the authority to override the Constitution. A federal judge in Washington agreed and temporarily blocked the order until he could consider whether a long-term injunction is necessary. Notably, there are several local leaders in Arizona who disagree with this approach to President Trump’s order, so it will be interesting to see how the state politicians communicate with each other.

What Happens Next?

On a national scale, it remains to be seen whether President Trump will be able to fully achieve his immigration goals. There are certainly fewer border entries and more deportations than there were before January 20, but Trump’s administration may hit some large obstacles in the future. The sheer size of their policies requires considerable manpower and money, which does not align with President Trump’s other goals of cutting government spending and hiring fewer workers. There are also several constitutional questions—about birthright citizenship and suspension of migrant entries, for example—that will need to be answered by the courts before any clear picture materializes.

As for Arizona, the state will likely never escape the limelight when it comes to immigration. The state’s current leaders are not receptive to President Trump’s policies and, so far, have been willing to stand up for what they believe in. But this could change if Trump compels the states to carry out his executive orders how he sees fit—another constitutional question that could end up in the courts. Also, Arizona is a purple state at the moment, so leadership changes during the next election season could alter the state’s current approach to immigration. It is still too early to tell what policies will stick around, but it will be an important conversation to follow.