2024-11
EMERGENCY RESOLUTION:
Opposition to Arizona Bill HCR2060, Now Proposition 314
Sponsored by
Sen. Catherine Miranda (AZ) and Sen. Anna Hernández (AZ)
Reported to the Caucus by the NHCSL Immigration Task Force
Rep. Louis Ruiz (KS), Chair
Unanimously approved by the NHCSL Executive Committee on behalf of the entire Caucus on July 13, 2024
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the Arizona Legislature, on a party-line vote, adopted HCR2060 (now Proposition 314), which sidesteps the Governor’s otherwise certain veto by calling a referendum to create or toughen immigration-related crimes and to empower state courts to order persons to leave the United States to Mexico or to their nation of origin, all based on an imaginary “public safety crisis” allegedly “due to weaknesses in immigration enforcement,” that it spuriously construes as the state of Arizona “being ‘actually invaded’ as defined in article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution;”[1] and,
WHEREAS, this language is intentional and has the potential to create a harmful and malicious narrative, furthermore, it frames a humanitarian and logistical challenge in military terms to justify an extreme response; and,
WHEREAS, it is apparent from the text of HCR2060 that its drafters understand that even if the referendum passes it would be unconstitutional, and a mere nullity without the consent of Congress,[2] unless Arizona were actually being invaded in the constitutional sense, which is why they included a declaration of invasion in the language; and,
WHEREAS, the constitutional concept of invasion is inextricably tied to violence, insurrections, rebellions and military responses, not law-enforcement or judicial;[3] and,
WHEREAS, there is no “invasion” of any sort at the southern border,[4] much less is there one in the constitutional sense. Mexico is an ally of the United States. It is our top trading partner as of last year.[5] In fact, Mexico is Arizona’s largest export market, by over triple.[6] None of that would be possible if there were an invasion coming from or through Mexico. Asylum seekers and refugees are not invaders and are not here to cause disturbance or disruption[7], and nearly half of migrants encountered at the Southern border are families;[8] and,
WHEREAS, the text of HCR2060 further attempts to subvert the constitutional intent by declaring that its “determination of invasion… may only be revoked by referendum or by legislation,” as if invasion were a legislative determination rather than a factual and extraordinary exception allowed by the Constitution; and,
WHEREAS, the text of HCR2060, specifically section 13-4295.01(E), is also an unconstitutional attack on the powers of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States, because it attempts to limit[9] their legally granted authority to parole classes of migrants, potentially attempting to subvert DACA and President Biden’s Executive Order of June 18, 2024 to keep families together;[10] and,
WHEREAS, as not to divide our community, the focus should be on passing legislation that helps asylum seekers and immigrants have a clear pathway to citizenship in the US[11]; and,
WHEREAS, by allowing any law enforcement officer to enforce its provisions, HCR2060 is putting communities of color across the state at an even greater risk of harassment and arrest by local and state police than currently present,[12] while also deterring Hispanic families from calling the police to report crimes and cooperating with law enforcement out of fear of detention and deportation[13]; and,
WHEREAS, HCR2060 does not view individuals who entered the US through a humanitarian parole program as having a lawful status, despite these individuals fleeing a humanitarian crisis in their home country;[14] and,
WHEREAS, promoting the arrest, detention, and removal of individuals with parole status would revictimize individuals and families who often have fled war, natural disaster, or some other urgent emergency to gain temporary status in the US; and,
WHEREAS, individuals who enter through the parole programs are vetted for national security and criminal history before arrival, which alleviates pressure on ports of entry and Border Patrol agents, who would otherwise do the vetting[15]; and,
WHEREAS, it also reduces reliance on our asylum system because it allows them to temporarily enter the US for humanitarian and/or public interest reasons; and,
WHEREAS, requiring migrants to be removed regardless of their legal status is ultimately detrimental to Arizona[16]; and,
WHEREAS, 56% of Americans say creating more opportunities for people to immigrate to the US legally would make the situation at the border better;[17] and,
WHEREAS, this bill does not address this solution and neglects the fact that there are alternative ways a person is eligible for immigration relief yet not having completed the process granting them lawful status as required under the bill at the time; and,
WHEREAS, it also violates peoples' due process rights by allowing Arizona to deport people even if they qualify for and/or are pursuing legal immigration status under federal law.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators opposes HCR2060, now Proposition 314, and any similar acts in any other states, and calls on states to create more productive and beneficial immigration laws while keeping the well-being of migrants a priority.
AT THE REQUEST OF THE NHCSL IMMIGRATION TASK FORCE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS PROCEES OUTLINED IN THE BYLAWS, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS RESOLUTION ON JULY 13, 2024, AT ITS MEETING IN SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA.
[1] Arizona. House Concurrent Resolution 2060. 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, 2024
[2] Green v. Biddle, 21 US 1, 43 (1823).
[3] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 26, 28 and 29.
[4] Maanvi Singh, At the Arizona-Mexico border, residents are fed up: ‘The politicians are creating the mayhem’ (The Guardian, July 3, 2024). Eddie Jones, There's no 'invasion' at the US-Mexico border. I know. I design our ports of entry. (USA Today, June 3, 2024). Gloria Oladipo, US-Mexico border crossings fall to three-year low after Biden’s executive order (The Guardian, July 1, 2024).
[5]“Arizona-Mexico.” Arizona Business Know How – Arizona Commerce Authority Helps With Business Development,
[6] Maricopa Association of Governments. "Arizona Export Economy Report." 2022,
[7] International Rescue Committee. "Migrants, Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Immigrants: What’s the Difference?" International Rescue Committee, 22 June 2018, updated 17 June 2024.
[8] Gramlich, John. "Migrant Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico Border Hit a Record High at the End of 2023." Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 15 Feb. 2024,
[9] Section 13-4295.01(E).
[10] FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Keep Families Together
[11] NHCSL Resolution 2019-15
[12] American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. "The Racial Divide of Prosecutions in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office." ACLU of Arizona.
[13] Theodore, Nik. Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement. University of Illinois at Chicago, 2013. PolicyLink.
[14] Arizona. House Concurrent Resolution 2060. 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, 2024
[15] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. "Fact Sheet: DHS Announces New Process to Promote the Unity and Stability of Families." Department of Homeland Security, 17 June 2024.
[16] American Immigration Council. Immigrants in Arizona. American Immigration Council, 6 Aug. 2020.
[17] Pew Research Center. "How Americans View the Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border, Its Causes and Consequences." Pew Research Center, 15 Feb. 2024.