The American Immigration Council does not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. We aim to provide an analysis of the election’s impact on the U.S. immigration system.
On Election Day, voters gathered in cities and states across the country to cast their votes on immigration-related issues, including protections, integration, and non-referendum.
Here are the results for some key voting measures.
Arizona Proposition 314
In Arizona, the passage of Proposition 314, also known as the Border Security Act, has raised significant concerns about its potential negative impact on the future of the state’s immigrant communities and economy.
The bill contains two major provisions. The first would create a state crime for entering Arizona during a port of entry, allowing local police to detain, imprison, and deport people suspected of entering the United States without authorization. It is something. The second would require employers and public benefits agencies to use E-Verify to verify an individual’s immigration status for public benefits and employment eligibility (according to the American Civil Liberties Union). Using E-Verify to verify immigration status is “invasive, costly, and inaccurate” and causes an unnecessary waste of government resources.
Touted as a measure to improve safety and address border security concerns, Proposition 314 was fueled by misinformation and harmful rhetoric.
Like many efforts aimed at passing harmful policies, proponents of Prop. 314 cited concerns about border security and unsubstantiated links between immigration and increased fentanyl trafficking. It has raised concerns about public safety by linking it to crime and drug trafficking.
However, research shows that there is no link between increased immigration and increased crime. In fact, immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S.-born residents. The proposed attempt to link immigrants to fentanyl trafficking is particularly unfounded, as data from the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection show that fentanyl is primarily smuggled into the country through legal ports of entry. A U.S. citizen, not an immigrant.
Provisions that make it a state crime to enter Arizona between ports of entry would only go into effect if a similar policy is in place in another state for 60 consecutive days, such as Texas’ SB4, but this law It passed with a 25% margin. This is undoubtedly a setback for Arizona’s immigrant communities, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about immigrants while failing to provide meaningful solutions to Arizona’s communities.
Eight states target non-referendum votes
Eight states passed ballot measures restricting non-referendum voting, which research also found to be false. Even though the federal government was already addressing this issue under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, these measures would be passed to eight states by adding language specifying that only U.S. citizens could vote. It amends the Constitution.
Measures in Missouri and Wisconsin also restrict local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote in some local elections, as has been the case in cities such as San Francisco. Similarly, voters in Santa Ana, California, rejected an amendment that would have allowed non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.
Despite claiming to protect elections, these efforts risk disenfranchising naturalized citizen voters and have even resulted in U.S.-born citizens being removed from voter rolls.
Comprehensive voting measures
Meanwhile, some communities have passed comprehensive ballot measures.
In Denver, two ballot measures will improve the city’s ability to better serve members of the immigrant and refugee community and hire a diverse emergency response workforce. Measure 2S codified the city’s Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs, and Reference Question 2T removed the requirement that firefighters, police officers and other first responders be U.S. citizens.
Dallas’ Proposition H would remove the requirement that members of city boards and commissions be registered voters, voters, and tax-eligible citizens, resulting in better representation of Dallas’ immigrant communities in local government. It became possible.
In New York State, Proposition 1: The Equal Rights Amendment amended the state constitution to add protections against unequal treatment based on categories such as ethnicity and national origin, among other things.
Looking to the future
Looking ahead to 2025, we know that state and local governments will continue to actively address immigration issues. As of mid-2024, the American Immigration Council tracks more than 700 immigration-related state bills, and states across the country are advancing many welcoming policies. Although we expect state and local conditions to be affected by the domestic immigration debate, there are reasons for optimism.
As the year draws to a close, communities continue to take pro-immigration measures, and it is clear that many states and local governments will continue to demonstrate resiliency and commitment to protecting immigrant communities and promoting immigrant inclusion this year and next. Even if the federal government doesn’t.
Filed under: Arizona, Vote
