Arizona’s 2026 legislative session is set to break records for the most bills introduced in the state’s history and it comes as no surprise that immigration has been one of the hottest topics.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have introduced numerous bills related to immigration enforcement, border security, protesting and documenting law enforcement activity.
“What I’m seeing is duplicative federal bills,” said Rep. Mariana Sandoval (D-Goodyear). “[Republicans] want to codify whatever the federal government is doing at the state level.”
In an interview with CALÓ News, she said state and local governments should not be in the business of enforcing federal immigration laws, saying it undermines community trust, public safety and local control.
Here are some of the anti-immigration bills moving, stalling or dying this session.
Senate Bill 1520
Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff) and Sen. Mark Finchem (R-Prescott), the bill would require Arizona state agencies to share information upon request with the federal government about people who are in the country without legal status or who have overstayed a visa. The law would expire in 2028 unless renewed.
Wayne Wauneka, a Diné behavioral health worker, said the bill, “creates a system built on fear and surveillance instead of care and community.” He said it would prevent people from reaching out and receiving necessary mental and behavioral health services.
The bill passed through the Senate Military Affairs and Border Security committee along party lines and now heads to the Senate Rules Committee.
Senate Bill 1635
This bill, sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) would make it a misdemeanor offense for “unlawful alerting,” making it a crime to knowingly warn someone about law enforcement activity in their area if the intent is to “hinder, delay or prevent” an arrest.
The bill applies to electronic messages, verbal statements, gestures or other forms of intentional signaling. Violations would be prosecuted by the attorney general or county attorneys and classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Organizations like Puente Movement for Migrant Justice and legislators like Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-Phoenix) have become known for alerting the community of Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in their area. The bill does not directly mention ICE monitoring, but advocates say it is meant to stop exactly that.
It is currently held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as its initial hearing was postponed.
House Bill 2904
Sponsored by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear), the bill declares fentanyl trafficking a public health crisis and directs the Arizona Department of Health Services to address it, stopping fentanyl overdoses by beefing up border security and addressing public health.
“Thank God we have a president that has focused on having a secure border,” Montenegro said during a committee hearing. “But that doesn’t always happen, and in those instances, we as a state have a responsibility to our citizens to make sure that we are protecting them.”
Noah Schramm, a policy strategist with the ACLU of Arizona, argued that the bill uses ambiguous language, like “unlawful invasion,” that does not exist in state law, and could lead to “even higher incarceration rates for low-level offenders,” without addressing the opioid epidemic.
The bill passed along party lines and now heads to the House Rules Committee for a vote.
Senate Bill 1055
Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff), the bill would require local authorities to alert ICE when someone without legal status is arrested, intending to enforce established laws and protect ICE agents.
“When this is not carried out, it puts an undue burden on the safety and the well-being of law enforcement,” she said. “Then ICE does not have to go looking and put themselves in danger in neighborhoods.”
ACLU’s Schramm said the bill “is a way of strong-arming state and local law enforcement into using their limited resources to help ICE.” He also said the current statute does not obligate law enforcement to prolong arrests solely for determining immigration status.
The bill passed through committee and now heads to the Senate floor for a vote.
Other bills to watch
- HB 2689: Requires hospitals receiving certain state funds to ask patients to self-report their citizenship or immigration status (without affecting care or sharing personal identities) and submit aggregate quarterly and annual reports to the state, analyzing totals and the financial impact of uncompensated care for those without legal status.
- SB 1421: Bars banks and check cashers from accepting certain IDs issued to undocumented immigrants and prohibits loans that rely on an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number for identification. It also requires proof of lawful presence before sending money abroad, with oversight and penalties enforced by the state — a potential setback for those relying on remittances.
- HB 2416; SB 1707; SB 1157: Appropriations bills providing millions of dollars for security along the southern border.
- HB 2811: Expands the crime of obstructing governmental operations to include using or threatening violence to hinder a lawful arrest and makes that conduct a Class 5 felony instead of a misdemeanor.
- SB 1152: Requires state and local agencies to verify immigration status before providing certain public benefits and to report suspected immigration violations to federal authorities. It also makes people with pending asylum applications ineligible for those benefits.
- SB 1474: Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to train officers on immigration enforcement and bans policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It also empowers the Attorney General to take legal action against local governments that restrict that cooperation.
- SB 1457: Allows state funds to be used for advanced air mobility and purchasing aircraft for border security purposes, with priority given to counties along the international border.
Sandoval said the surge in immigration-related bills reflects sharply different approaches at the Capitol. Some lawmakers seek to mirror federal enforcement efforts, while others focus on retaining local control.
She said the debate ultimately comes down to community voice and participation, arguing that influence comes from collective action and that residents who are able should engage in the process and make their priorities known.
To track and monitor bills yourself, visit https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview. The site provides updates on votes, fact sheets and original and amended bill texts.
A Breakdown of Anti-Immigration Bills Moving Through the Arizona Legislature in 2026 was originally published by CALÓ News, shared by Arizona Luminaria, and is republished with permission.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.