No middle ground: Lawmakers sharply split on effects of immigration ballot measure

(This story was updated to add new information, photos and a video embed.)

A heated, hourlong debate between two lawmakers emphasized the polarizing views over a Republican immigration measure voters will see on the ballot in November.

The Secure the Border Act, which will appear on ballots as Proposition 314, drew biting criticism from opponents before Republicans passed it on party lines earlier this year as a legislative ballot referral. Voters will decide whether it should become state law.

Thursday's debate, sponsored by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, was livestreamed on azcentral.com and other sites. Arizona Republic immigration reporter Rafael Carranza and talk show host Steve Goldstein served as moderators.

The event echoed previous rhetorical battles over the measure. Sen. John Kavanagh, a Republican from Fountain Hills and former East Coast peace officer, argued in favor it. Rep. Analise Ortiz, a Phoenix Democrat and former American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona strategist who's set to join Kavanagh in the state Senate next year, provided the counterpoint.

Ortiz seized on arguments by opponents the law would cause police to terrorize the immigrant community.

"Proposition 314 will return us to a time where I could be arrested and detained and questioned because of the color of my skin or the suspicion that I do not belong in the state where I was born and raised," she said.

She claimed it would result in women and children being held in Arizona prisons, a concept Kavanagh ridiculed, saying children of detained adults would go into foster care.

From his point of view, the measure would save migrant women and children from human traffickers and drug addiction by curbing the ills of illegal immigration in general.

While she cited studies and the director of Arizona's prison system stating the measure would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars per year, Kavanagh said there, too, the opposite would be true.

"How many hundreds of millions of dollars will we save in benefits we're not giving to them in law enforcement costs, in hospital costs?" he said. "Illegal immigration is extremely expensive, and if these people aren't in the country, we don't bear those expenses."

The measure would do several things Republicans believe will help with border problems. Its prime feature would make crossing the border illegally a state-prosecutable misdemeanor, allowing local and state police to detain and arrest migrants and local judges to dismiss charges when migrants self-deport.

Those provisions couldn't take effect until a similar law in Texas has been in effect for at least 60 days. The Texas law is mired in litigation after being sued by the Biden administration.

The measure also would make it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to submit false information to obtain federal benefits and boost state use of federal programs to stymie ineligible immigrants from collecting state benefits. It would also increase the time in prison for people who sell fentanyl that kills someone.

Opponents have compared the measure with SB 1070, a 2010 anti-illegal immigration measure despised by civil rights organizations and partially struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Critics worry police would stretch the law's authority in a way that discriminates against the state's Latino residents, despite efforts in the legislative process to address those concerns. Some police and sheriff's agencies protested the unfunded mandate for enforcement efforts inherent in the measure.

Ortiz urged voters to reject the measure, citing its "blatant" unconstitutionality, its costs and its cruelty to undocumented Arizona residents. Stymieing the immigrant community only would slow the economy, hurting all Arizonans in the end, she argued.

"The immigrant community — they work hard, they pay their taxes," she said, calling immigrants the "backbone of Arizona's economy in critical industries that already face labor shortages."

Kavanagh repeatedly accused Ortiz of misrepresenting the measure. It was "laser focused" on allowing law officers to go after criminals operating between ports of entry and could not be used for general roundups of undocumented immigrants, as Ortiz suggested, he said.

Yet he also touted the provisions that would hinder undocumented immigrants already living in Arizona from receiving benefits or working.

"Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for benefits for illegal aliens," he said.

Kavanagh said Ortiz's "emotionalism" was an attempt to distort the actual effects of the measure. But when Goldstein pushed on him later in the debate to discuss how the issue was not an emotional one, Kavanagh said it was.

"Emotional is watching 5,000 people in a caravan on TV coming up to the country to, I guess I'll use the word, invade," he said. "Yeah. And it is emotional and people should be emotional. This is a serious crisis."

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Prop 314: John Kavanagh, Analise Ortiz debate AZ immigration measure