La estructura de la comisión fue establecida mediante el “memorando de en tendimiento entre el Gobierno de la república del ecuador y el Gobierno de al repú-

In 1912 Arizona became the last of the continental 48 states to join the union. Typical of Western states, Arizona is arid and rugged, with sparsely populated rural areas and geographically large counties. Nearly 85 percent of its population lives in the two metro areas of Phoenix and Tucson, making Arizona an urban state. The federal govern- ment and 21 Indian tribes own most of Arizona’s 113,634 square miles (83 percent), so decisions and policies made in Washington affect the state significantly. As with other states along the border, the macroeconomic and political conditions in Mexico reverberate throughout Arizona.

Arizona’s population in 2006 was 6.2 million, an increase of 16 percent since the 2000 Census. The median house- hold income in 2003 was $41,963, and the per capita income was $27,232. Persons living below the poverty level constituted 14 percent of the population.

Four of Arizona’s 15 counties share the state’s 354-mile long border with Mexico. To varying degrees, Arizona coun- ties have been grappling with the consequences of proximity to Mexico for many years. The economic benefits of easy access to Arizona communities by Mexican citizens have been well documented and encouraged for years, but the social, environmental and fiscal consequences of illegal activities have come to the forefront of the public’s attention in the last decade. A tradition of county involvement in federal and state policy making led the four border counties to bring together their border counterparts in California, New Mexico and Texas. Santa Cruz County, the smallest of the four border counties in both land base and population, commissioned a precursor in 1997 to the 2000 and 2007 border impact studies; titled Border Impact: Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, its find- ings led to a state appropriation to the county in 1998. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors then distributed the study to other counties along the border, and formation of the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition followed. All four of Arizona’s border counties are founding members.

A

’

B

E

The four counties along Arizona’s 354-mile long border with Mexico have a combined population of 1.3 million. Eight ports of entry operate along the border: one in Yuma County at San Luis, two in Pima County at Lukeville and Sasabe, three in Santa Cruz County at Nogales, and two in Cochise County, at Naco and Douglas. In 2006, there were 32.9 million legal crossings and 403,493 apprehensions reported by Border Patrol. Table A1 presents border county statistics for Arizona.

Table A1: Arizona Border County Statistics

County Population /%) Square Miles /% Ports of Entry Legal Crossings /% Apprehensions (%)

Yuma 187,555/14% 5,561/25% 1 8,919,676/27% 112,764/28%

Pima 946,362/73% 9,186 /41% 2 1,421,039/4% 110,296/27%

Santa Cruz 43,080/3% 1,237/6% 3 15,876,584/49% 99,672/25%

Cochise 127,757/10% 6,169/28% 2 6,640,132/20% 80,761/20%

Total 1,304,754 22,153 8 32,857,431 403,493

Recent research indicates that there are more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the state.1 _{There were also}

more apprehensions by the Border Patrol than in California, New Mexico and Texas combined in 2004.2 _Moreover,

nearly all the marijuana sold in the United States comes through Arizona, and the DEA also reports that more meth- amphetamine is seized along the Arizona-Mexico border than anywhere else.3 _{Arizona’s governor declared a state of}

emergency in August 2005 and released $1.5 million to reimburse Arizona’s four border counties for some of their extra costs. She also established the Arizona-Sonora Border Security Council with Sonora’s governor “….because of the federal government’s inability to secure the border.”4

26 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition

C

A

C

G

Arizona county governments are subdivisions of the state but with considerable local authority. Principal revenues come from the property tax and state-shared revenues. Counties also may impose a one-half cent sales tax, develop- ment fees, and establish sub-taxing districts for jails, health care, sports stadiums, transportation, and localized ben- efit services. Counties are uniformly structured: county supervisors of three or five members; and the seven elected department heads (i.e., constitutional officers) of assessor, county attorney, clerk of superior court, county recorder, county school superintendent, sheriff, and county treasurer. They are elected on a partisan basis to four-year terms without term limits. Counties with a population of more than 200,000 may frame and adopt a home rule charter. Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties qualify, and none has yet to adopt one. All counties appoint a professional county manager, who then appoints directors of all departments that fall under the responsibility of the board of supervisors. Judicial officers—superior court judges, justices of the peace and constables—are also elected to four-year terms.

A

C

L

E

C

J

S

County governments have a state responsibility to process anyone apprehended on state felony or multiple misde- meanor charges. From apprehension to preliminary hearings, prosecution and indigent defense, pre-trial services, ad- judication, probation and detention (including a range of similar services for juvenile offenders), the county criminal justice system is complex and expensive to operate. Most parts of the system are funded through the county general fund from revenues generated locally. In all counties the major portion of the general fund is consumed by the law enforcement and criminal justice sectors. Arizona’s system at the county level typically consists of eight departments. The departments include sheriff and detention, clerk of superior court, justice of the peace and constable, county at- torney (criminal and civil), indigent defense, superior court, adult probation and juvenile court center. Each depart- ment contains multiple divisions, depending on the size of the county and the level of criminal activity.

C

A

B

C

Arizona’s four border counties incurred a combined cost of $26.6 million from the general fund to provide law enforcement and criminal justice services to undocumented immigrants. The combined cost also includes that for general government services; the percentage varies by county, as explained in each county chapter. Table A2 displays total costs to each county as well as the per capita cost.

Table A2: Costs of Undocumented Immigration by County in Arizona

County Cost /% Per Capita Cost

Yuma $7,689,505 / 29% $41.06

Pima $14,976,441 / 56% $15.83

Santa Cruz $2,205,158 / 8% $51.19

Cochise $1,719,840 / 6% $13.46

Total $26,590,944 $20.38 (avg)

C

A

B

C

D

Estimated costs to each department were determined first by conducting site visits and interviewing both elected and appointed officials. The focus of research to determine costs were on the percentage of workload that involved undocumented immigrants in 2006. Percentage estimates were gathered either by statistical records or by “experience in the field.” Most departments do not keep track of client legal status because there is no incentive to do so, no soft-

ware that provides capability, no way to know for sure, or they simply are not permitted to inquire. When reasonable workload percentages are estimated, the general fund expenditures are determined. An additional cost is factored in to account for workload burden on general government departments such as board of supervisors, county administra- tion, human resources, information technology, etc. Table A3 presents total costs by county and department.

Table A3: Costs to Arizona Border Counties by County and Department Total Cost: $26,590,944

Average Per Capita: $20.38

Department Yuma County Pima County Santa Cruz County Cochise County

Sheriff $797,379 $5,909,398 $817,000 $109,000 Detention $5,031,764 $3,289,636 $459,000 $584,000 Prosecutor $295,823 $570,611 $380,000 $26,400 Indigent Defense $582,846 $1,194,349 $101,000 $252,000 Justice Court $65,930 $863,000 $80,000 $118,200 Clerk $151,781 $70,000 $52,400 $170,300 Superior Court $435,252 $1,126,051 $127,000 $429,300 Adult Probation $105,420 $620,000 $166,000 $31,000 Juvenile Court $41,310 $1,200,646 $23,000 $480

Total $7.7 million $15 million $2.2 million $1.7 million

Sheriff and detention departments bear the greatest impact and cost of any department in the law enforcement and criminal justice system.

C

A

C

C

County boards of supervisors are constrained by comparatively high property rates as well as constitutionally-im- posed revenue and expenditure limitations and burdened property owners whose taxes go principally to school and community college districts. In other words, raising the property tax rates to fund the extra burden placed on coun- ties by criminal undocumented immigrants can be a wrenching experience and politically challenging, as property owners often assume their taxes go to the level of government that sends out the bills: the county. In fact, Arizona counties receive barely one-third of total property taxes. If taxes are not raised, other services are cut or provided at insufficient levels; for instance, sheriffs have the choice of lowering protection to citizens or helping other agencies to secure our borders. Or, in the words of some supervisors, programs that improve the quality of life and thus reduce the crime rate get undermined.

The cost imposed on all four border counties in fiscal year 1999 amounted to $19.2 million (excluding $5 million in emergency medical costs). The total cost in 2006 comes to $26.6 million, an increase of 41 percent. Assuming that the cost difference between 1999 and 2006 increased on a gradual basis, citizens in Arizona’s four border counties spent $187.3 million in eight years of services to undocumented immigrants. The burden on Arizona’s border counties placed by undocumented immigrant criminal activities has been amply acknowledged by higher levels of authority. Both of Arizona’s senators and the Southern Arizona Congressional Delegation consistently support comprehensive immigration reform and allocating more money to reimburse counties (e.g., SCAAP and SWBPI). In August 2005 Ari- zona Governor Janet Napolitano followed the steps of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and declared a state of emergency to secure $1.5 million to reimburse Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties. An editorial described these two actions as “…stepping in where federal policy has fallen short, [they] have the potential to both assist people in Arizona and New Mexico and help educate the rest of the country about the need for a sensible, comprehensive immigration policy.”5

28 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition