House committee gives due-pass to bill requiring state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement after heated debate

A House Government Committee in Phoenix voted to give HB 2099 a due-pass recommendation on Jan. 29, 2025, after a contested hearing that split committee members and public testimony.

Representative Bianca Martinez, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure would require the governor and attorney general to "enforce, administer and cooperate with President Trump's federal actions, orders and programs related to enforcing federal immigration law." Martinez cited press reports and remarks by Governor Katie Hobbs to argue there are mixed signals from the governor’s office. "HB 2099 does this: it mandates that the governor uphold her commitment by enforcing, administrating, and cooperating with President Trump's federal actions," Martinez said, adding that Proposition 314, passed by voters in 2024 with about 62.6% support, showed public demand for enforcement.

Supporters framed the bill as necessary to protect public safety and to remove dangerous criminals and illegal drugs from Arizona streets. Nathan Duwell, Arizona state director for Heritage Action for America, cited federal enforcement statistics and claimed the state bears costs from unauthorized migration. Testimony in favor also included citizens who described family or community impacts of drug-related deaths and crime.

Opponents, including Marilyn Rodriguez of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona, urged the committee to vote no. Rodriguez said the bill "would effectively turn Arizona into a passive executor of federal dictates on immigration policy regardless of their prudence, legality, or cost." She warned the text could compel state law-enforcement bodies and the National Guard to take on federal immigration duties and could divert resources from education, health care and local services. "The bill includes no limit on the amount of state law enforcement that could be levied and taxpayers would ultimately foot the bill," Rodriguez said.

Committee members pressed witnesses on constitutional questions and operational details. Several members pointed out the federal government has primary authority over immigration; others said the state ought to use available tools to secure the border and confront drug trafficking. Representative Saúl Hamilton and others cautioned against conflating civil immigration violations with criminal conduct. The ACLU witness and others raised the possibility that some federal orders could be unconstitutional and argued the bill could remove the governor’s discretion to refuse unlawful directives.

The hearing included discussion of specific legal references and voter actions: witnesses cited the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that the federal government "shall protect each [s]tate against invasion," federal statutes discussed in testimony (as cited in the hearing), and Proposition 314 (2024). Representatives also debated the practical effects on local law enforcement and tribal or indigenous communities.

Outcome: The committee voted to give HB 2099 a due-pass recommendation by voice/roll call. The committee reported the bill 4-3 in favor (four ayes, three nays). Committee members who spoke in favor emphasized state security and voter mandates; those opposed cited constitutional concerns and fiscal and operational risks to state and local services.

Next steps: The bill was reported out of committee with a due-pass recommendation and will proceed in the legislative process. Lawmakers and stakeholders signaled continuing debate over the bill’s language and its implications for state resources and civil liberties.