Arizona Republicans want to pay police bounties for immigrant deportations
Arizona police departments would be incentivized to target people they believe are undocumented under a Republican bid to award them a $2,500 bounty for every arrest that ends in a deportation.
The move represents the GOP legislative majority's latest foray into immigration policy, which has taken on a decidedly hostile tone in the wake of President Donald Trump's election victory and his stated goal of deporting millions of immigrants.
And it goes far beyond what Republican lawmakers in Arizona have ever attempted, including the controversial SB1070 in 2010, the 'show me your papers' law that spawned boycotts of Arizona and ultimately cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Sponsored by Sen. Jake Hoffman, the leader of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus who has built a reputation for hard-ball politics and controversial proposals, Senate Bill 1111 would set up an 'Arizona Deportations Fund.' That fund would be used to disburse bounties of $2,500 to law enforcement agencies every time the arrest of an undocumented person leads to their removal from the country by federal officials.
Originally, the bill called for that money to be divided up among the arresting officers as compensation for their involvement in the deportation of unauthorized immigrants, but Hoffman modified it so that the money is sent instead to the police department or sheriff's office they work for.
Immigrant rights advocates argue that the effect remains the same: Paying law enforcement agencies to arrest people suspected of being in the country illegally essentially transforms Arizona's police departments into bounty hunting agencies, incentivizing them to prioritize enforcing federal immigration laws over state laws.
Noah Schramm, the border policy strategist for the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, warned lawmakers on the Senate Government Committee — which Hoffman chairs — that it would spell disaster for the constitutional rights of Arizonans, no matter their citizenship status.
'It will supercharge racial profiling across the state,' he said.
Lena Avalos, an organizer with Living United for Change in Arizona, a progressive pro-immigrant organization, denounced the bill as 'hateful, racist legislation' and criticized GOP lawmakers for seeking to facilitate deportations instead of resolving pressing issues the state faces.
'Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of rent, keeping our schools open and making sure that Arizonans can keep their health care, we are here discussing different ways to spend taxpayer dollars on criminalizing communities of color,' she said, shortly before being cut off by Hoffman for what he said were comments that strayed from the bill's intent.
Democratic politicians want illegal aliens to vote, they want illegal aliens to be counted in our census so that the district lines can be drawn in favor of Democratic politicians.
– Sen. Jake Hoffman, invoking the racist Great Replacement theory to support his SB1111
The Republican framed his proposal as restoring lost funding sent abroad by undocumented Arizonans. The money for the $2,500 bounties would be raised from increasing taxes on foreign wire transfers, which immigrants often use to send remittances back to family in their countries of origin.
'We are losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year in economic activity to foreign nations,' he said. 'Hundreds of millions of dollars are being sent out of our economy to the economy of foreign nations by those who are in this country illegally, who have broken our laws and are now exploiting the benefits of this great economy, the benefits of this great nation to prop up failing foreign governments.'
Billions of dollars in remittances are sent every year from the U.S. to other countries, including those in Latin America. In 2023, Mexico alone received more than $63 billion in remittances.
Anti-immigrant politicians have long aimed their ire at people who send money back to family members in their native countries. During his first presidency, Trump threatened to tax remittances to pay for the border wall, and long before that, in 2009, Oklahoma lawmakers approved a $5 tax on foreign wire transfers under $500 with collected revenues being sent to the state Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Hoffman's proposal far outstrips Oklahoma's law, levying a $25 tax — on top of current foreign wire transfer fees — on every sum below $500 and an additional 5% of any amount exceeding that threshold. And while Arizonans with lawful status who file taxes would be able to recoup those fees during tax season, undocumented people — who don't file income taxes — would essentially be forced to fund deportations.
Western Union, the most popular financial services firm for wire transfers, is opposed to the bill.
Democrats on the committee questioned the fairness of punishing migrants for using the money they earned. Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, pointed out that sometimes people travelling through the state stop to send remittances, and students at Arizona's public universities who don't file their taxes in the state might also wire money to their relatives in other countries.
Bravo added that there's nothing wrong with seeking to help family members who live outside the U.S., and said he himself has sent remittances to his wife, who at the time hadn't yet become a legal permanent resident and lived in Mexico.
'The American Dream isn't just about preparing yourself for success, it's also about bringing up your family with you, and if people have worked hard and earned this hard earned money, I don't see anything wrong with them supporting loved ones abroad,' he said.
Hoffman also dismissed concerns that the bill would incentivize police officers to make racially biased arrests, saying that it doesn't change how law enforcement agencies should carry out their duties and leaves in place current protocols that protect Arizonans' due process rights.
But even without the law on the books, police departments across the state have been found guilty of detaining people based on their ethnicity. A 2011 investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice found that officers with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department stopped Latino Arizonans nine times more often than non-Latino drivers in some parts of the county. And just last year, after a three-year investigation, the DOJ concluded in a 126-page report that Phoenix Police Department officers engaged in rampant discrimination against Black, Hispanic and Native American people, and routinely violated people's civil and constitutional rights.
Some law enforcement groups have spoken out against the bill. The Arizona Police Association, which is the state's largest law enforcement advocacy organization and is made up of more than 12,000 law enforcement officers, is opposed tocreating a bounty system for cops. Joe Clure, the group's executive director, said it doesn't support the 'monetizing' of arrest decisions under any circumstances.
Currently, there appear to be no similar laws or state-funded policies on the books that reward police departments for how many arrests are made of a particular group. Bart Graves, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Public Safety, said no bounty program exists for the agency that is dependent on an officer or agency's everyday actions. Richie Taylor, a spokesman for the Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, said the office does award some bonuses for law enforcement agencies, but those are based on retention and performance outcomes. He added that Mayes is opposed to the bill, which she derided as a political 'stunt.'
It will supercharge racial profiling across the state.
– Noah Schramm, ACLU of Arizona
The Senate Government Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, passed SB1111 along party lines. Democrats on the panel denounced the bill as an attack on immigrants and sharply criticized Republicans for advancing discriminatory legislation.
Sen. Lauren Kuby, a freshman Democrat from Tempe, said it was an 'ugly' and 'hateful' bill. Her voice shook as she shared the story of meeting with a 17-year-old student in her district from a mixed status family.
'She and her family have their bags packed, ready to leave if they need to leave and escape the country, escape persecution, escape this terror that is being visited upon them,' Kuby recounted. 'She told me that, when she's in school, she worries when she gets a phone call from her mother that it's not her mom just seeing what her plans are for the day. She's worried it's going to be a message from her mother that her grandfather's been taken, or that her sister's been deported.'
Republicans, meanwhile, dismissed concerns about the bill's impact on the state's immigrant communities. Sen. Wendy Rogers, who regularly traffics in hard-line anti-immigrant rhetoric and spoke at a white nationalist conference in 2022, called for taking the 'emotionalism' out of the conversation. She said the bill doesn't stop people from sending remittances home, it merely raises the fees to do so.
Rogers, a Republican from Flagstaff, also used nativist terms to characterize undocumented immigrants as an 'invasion.'
Hoffman, too, invoked invasion terminology and alluded to the racist Great Replacement theory — which has spawned violence in America and around the globe — accusing Democrats of supporting undocumented people with the intent of ousting Republicans from power.
'There is an effort afoot in this nation to take it over through invasion,' he said. 'Democratic politicians want illegal aliens to vote, they want illegal aliens to be counted in our census so that the district lines can be drawn in favor of Democratic politicians.'
Anti-immigrant politicians have long framed unauthorized immigration as an invasion to push draconian policies. But the terminology isn't just wielded in statehouses: it has also been widely adopted by nativist movements and white supremacist terrorists, like the El Paso shooter who targeted Mexicans at a Walmart in 2019.
The bill next goes before the full state Senate for consideration, where it is expected to be supported by the Republicans that hold a majority in the chamber. If that happens, and if the state House of Representatives — which Republicans also control — also passes it, SB1111 would almost certainly meet a swift veto from Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has already panned it.
The Democrat has been a strong advocate for increasing funding for communities and law enforcement agencies along the border instead of taking a hostile approach. And while she has previously voiced support for anti-immigrant proposals at the federal level, she has been dismissive of state-led policy changes that immigrant rights groups oppose. Christian Slater, Hobbs' spokesman, said she's prepared to reject it if it lands on her desk.
'There's no way in hell the Governor signs a tax hike into law, especially one that puts a bounty on the heads of innocent people who have worked hard, paid taxes and lived in their communities for decades,' he said. 'Arizonans want border security, they don't want to turn hard working law enforcement officers into bounty hunters.'
And while Republicans, including Hoffman, have criticized Hobbs as weak on border security and unwilling to work with them on the issue despite acknowledging it as critical, Slater said Hobbs is simply not going to cave to 'political messaging games.'
'She's going to work with anybody in order to deliver real border security, and that includes President Trump,' Slater said. 'She's also going to stand up and tell people when they're getting it wrong.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi
President Trump's announcement this week of a shortened window of '10 to 12 days' for Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine reflects a continued evolution in his rhetoric. His growing frustration with Moscow and his willingness to speak plainly about Russia's escalation send a signal that many in the U.S. and Europe have been waiting to hear. But while the shift in tone signals growing frustration, it has not translated into action. Russia reads the action as a continued pause in pressure, which it has used to intensify its offensive against Ukrainian homes and hospitals. Russian forces are now making their fastest territorial gains in more than a year, and their attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Swarm tactics using Iranian-designed Shahed drones, now mass-produced and adapted inside Russia with Chinese parts, are overwhelming Ukraine's air defenses at an alarming rate. In just one day last month, Russia launched 728 drones, decoys and missiles in a single coordinated wave. Ukrainian interceptors and radar crews are doing heroic work, but they are stretched to the limit. The U.S. has tools at its disposal that remain unused. For months, a bipartisan sanctions bill, co-authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and backed by 85 senators, a veto-proof majority, has been ready to move. The legislation would impose steep secondary tariffs on countries like China, India and Brazil that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, and would significantly raise the cost of doing business with Moscow. But in July, Senate leadership pulled the bill from consideration after President Trump suggested he would act if Russia failed to move toward peace within 50 days. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would 'hold off' on advancing the bill, signaling that Congress would defer to Trump's timeline. House leaders followed suit. That decision was a mistake. While it is encouraging to see President Trump express increasing resolve, deferring congressional action in the hope that Putin will suddenly negotiate has only given Moscow more time and space to escalate. Every week of delay is a missed opportunity to tighten the financial pressure on Putin's war machine. And the clock is not just ticking in Ukraine. The broader contest involves China, too. Beijing's role in this war has become increasingly visible. Chinese companies are supplying entire weapons systems, not just components. Chinese-made drones and decoys are helping Russia saturate Ukrainian airspace. Chinese officials have even welcomed delegations from occupied Ukrainian territories and continue to sell heavy machinery to companies operating there. European officials report that China's foreign minister recently told the EU that Beijing does not want Russia to lose the war and fears that a Russian defeat would allow the U.S. to focus more squarely on Asia. Ukraine has responded accordingly. In early July, Kyiv arrested two Chinese nationals on espionage charges after they allegedly attempted to steal information about Ukraine's Neptune missile program. Days earlier, President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions on five Chinese firms accused of supporting the Russian war effort. These are not symbolic gestures, they are signs that Ukraine is increasingly realistic about the stakes and about China's alignment with Moscow. Support for Ukraine is not a distraction from U.S. competition with China. It is a critical part of it. Weakening Putin's military capacity weakens a key pillar of China's global strategy. And allowing Russia to continue its aggression without consequence would embolden Beijing's worst instincts from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea. To its credit, the Trump administration has begun voicing stronger concerns about Beijing's role. In the recently concluded round of trade talks, senior U.S. officials reportedly raised objections to China's purchase of sanctioned Russian oil and its sale of more than $15 billion worth of dual-use technology to Moscow. These are important warnings — but without follow-through, they risk being absorbed into the pattern of delay that Moscow and Beijing are already exploiting. The Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill should move forward. It represents the most serious effort yet to impose real costs not only on Russia, but on the network of countries (especially China) helping it survive sanctions. It complements, rather than competes with, the administration's efforts to pressure Moscow. And it sends a message that the U.S. is serious about backing up its warnings with action. Countdowns can be useful. They create urgency. But urgency without follow-through is no substitute for strategy. What matters now is not how many days remain on the clock, but whether we are using each one to act. Jane Harman is a former nine-term congresswoman from California and former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who most recently served as chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. She is the author of 'Insanity Defense: Why Our Failure to Confront Hard National Security Problems Makes Us Less Safe.'
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Texas state House panel advances gerrymandered congressional map
Advertisement But in the end, Republicans on the committee voted to deliver the map that had been called for by President Donald Trump, who said last month that he hoped to get five more Republicans in the House. Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas' 38 congressional seats. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Todd Hunter, a Republican state representative of Corpus Christi who sponsored the legislation for the map, said the new lines had been drawn 'for partisan purposes,' not based on race, and that the resulting map was 'completely transparent, and it's lawful.' The map now must be considered in a committee on calendars, which was set to meet Sunday. A first vote by the full Texas House could come as early as Monday or Tuesday. The state Senate must also approve the new map, or propose its own. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has indicated support for redistricting, though he has not commented on the new map, which he can sign into law or veto. Advertisement Texas Democrats could prevent the House from approving the map by failing to show up, denying the quorum needed for any legislative action. But doing so comes with political and practical risks: Republican leaders in the Texas House fast-tracked the redistricting legislation before introducing any bills responding to the deadly floods in the Texas Hill Country -- putting Democrats in the position of potentially walking out on legislation that addresses needs caused by the flooding. And the Texas House adopted rules that call for fines of $500 per day for any member who is absent without approval, a measure adopted after Democratic members broke quorum during a 2021 legislative fight over voting and redistricting. Nationally, Republicans have looked at redistricting in Texas -- and potentially in other states where the party has control of the government, such as Missouri and Indiana -- as a means to preserve a slim Republican majority in the U.S. House after next year's midterm elections, which have historically gone against the party holding the presidency. In response, Democratic leaders in California, Illinois and New York have said they were considering redrawing their states' maps to create additional seats for Democrats to win, and offset any Republican gains in Texas. Last month, Democratic members of the Texas House traveled to California and Illinois to meet with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov. JB Pritzker and discuss those possibilities. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Saturday that his party was ready to fight this change. 'If Republicans want a showdown, the DNC, Texas Democrats and Democrats across the country have one thing to say: We will give you a showdown,' he said. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
an hour ago
Office of Special Counsel says it's opened Hatch Act probe of Jack Smith
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed Saturday that it has opened an investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith and whether he violated the Hatch Act through his criminal investigations into President Donald Trump. The investigation follows a referral from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas earlier this week that asked the OSC to investigate Smith for his investigative and prosecutorial activities prior to the 2024 election which Cotton argued were intended to harm Trump's political prospects. Both Smith and former Attorney General Merrick Garland repeatedly maintained prior to departing office that none of the actions taken in either the classified documents investigation or the probe of Trump's efforts to subvert his 2020 election loss were driven by politics. A spokesperson for Smith's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday on the OSC probe. The OSC is an independent agency that is not empowered to investigate criminal matters - it is separate from the Special Counsel post that Smith formerly served in under the Justice Department. OSC primarily operates as an agency to assist government whistleblowers in reporting allegations of waste or wrongdoing, and also enforces the Hatch Act which places restrictions of government employees from engaging in partisan political activities. It's unclear what course of action the OSC would even have to take against Smith if its investigation did determine he violated the Hatch Act, given Smith is no longer a government employee. While it could refer its findings to DOJ, the department has already publicly said that it is investigating Smith and other prosecutors who pursued Trump through its so-called "Weaponization Working Group" that is being led by former interim DC U.S. attorney Ed Martin. The announcement of the investigation also comes as the administration has found itself under increased scrutiny over its handling of the release of filings relating to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — with top officials from across the administration appearing eager to change the subject.
