Shared research study link
Arizona Voters on Border Policy and State Priorities
Understand how Arizona voters view border issues alongside other state priorities, and what messaging resonates
Study Overview
Updated Jan 30, 2026
Research question: How Arizona voters weigh border issues against other state priorities, what a “reasonable” border policy and trust cues look like, and which non-border needs should rise in focus.
Who: Six Arizona voters (ages 23–87) from Mesa, Tucson/tribal‑adjacent, and rural areas-a school administrator retiree, a family caregiver near tribal lands, a manufacturing leader, a non‑citizen tech PM, a vocational student, and a community volunteer.
What they said: Immigration is constantly visible but not the top daily concern; immediate pressures dominate-healthcare costs, housing/rent, utilities (water/heat/power), reliable transit/infrastructure, and job stability. Main insights: A “reasonable” border policy is firm and humane with measurable operations: staffed ports of entry, surge judges/caseworkers targeting 60–90‑day decisions with faster work permits, employer‑side enforcement (E‑Verify with penalties) and legal seasonal visas, targeted anti‑smuggling, and reimbursements for local schools, hospitals, and towns.
Trust drivers for Democrats: verifiable delivery-say enforcement plainly, show up in border communities, publish monthly bilingual dashboards with KPIs and timelines, honor tribal consultation and privacy guardrails, and provide non‑digital access-while avoiding theatrical grandstanding. Beyond the border: Priorities are water policy tied to growth and reuse, heat resilience (24/7 cooling centers and shaded stops), grid reliability with fair summer rates, housing and permitting reform (ADUs, faster permits), accessible primary/behavioral/dental care, dependable transit, workforce/CTE pipelines, and rural broadband, all with clear SLAs and funding.
Takeaways: adopt a Firm‑Humane‑Fast 90‑day plan, launch a bilingual monthly “Border & Basics” dashboard, back E‑Verify plus faster adjudication/work permits, secure reimbursements for border communities, formalize tribal consultation and privacy rules, and deliver visible basics (shade‑at‑stops microgrants and a no‑shutoffs heat lifeline) before peak heat.
Who: Six Arizona voters (ages 23–87) from Mesa, Tucson/tribal‑adjacent, and rural areas-a school administrator retiree, a family caregiver near tribal lands, a manufacturing leader, a non‑citizen tech PM, a vocational student, and a community volunteer.
What they said: Immigration is constantly visible but not the top daily concern; immediate pressures dominate-healthcare costs, housing/rent, utilities (water/heat/power), reliable transit/infrastructure, and job stability. Main insights: A “reasonable” border policy is firm and humane with measurable operations: staffed ports of entry, surge judges/caseworkers targeting 60–90‑day decisions with faster work permits, employer‑side enforcement (E‑Verify with penalties) and legal seasonal visas, targeted anti‑smuggling, and reimbursements for local schools, hospitals, and towns.
Trust drivers for Democrats: verifiable delivery-say enforcement plainly, show up in border communities, publish monthly bilingual dashboards with KPIs and timelines, honor tribal consultation and privacy guardrails, and provide non‑digital access-while avoiding theatrical grandstanding. Beyond the border: Priorities are water policy tied to growth and reuse, heat resilience (24/7 cooling centers and shaded stops), grid reliability with fair summer rates, housing and permitting reform (ADUs, faster permits), accessible primary/behavioral/dental care, dependable transit, workforce/CTE pipelines, and rural broadband, all with clear SLAs and funding.
Takeaways: adopt a Firm‑Humane‑Fast 90‑day plan, launch a bilingual monthly “Border & Basics” dashboard, back E‑Verify plus faster adjudication/work permits, secure reimbursements for border communities, formalize tribal consultation and privacy rules, and deliver visible basics (shade‑at‑stops microgrants and a no‑shutoffs heat lifeline) before peak heat.
Participant Snapshots
6 profiles
Natalie Bustamante
Natalie Bustamante, 26, is a Mesa, AZ-based product operations manager at a remote cybersecurity SaaS. High-earning (~$170k), pragmatic and privacy-conscious, she saves aggressively, lives simply, runs and hikes with her rescue dog, and aims for product man…
Dawnya Villalpando
Dawnya Villalpando, 61, a Hispanic U.S. citizen in Mesa, AZ, is a bilingual client services manager working hybrid. Married and community-minded, she prioritizes health, faith, and reliability; volunteers, cooks lighter staples, streams, and prefers easy-to…
Tom Krysko
61-year-old Phoenix aerospace engineering leader. Married, no kids. Pragmatic, data-first, rides a motorcycle, mentors robotics, cooks Southwest meals, invests for retirement, and buys durable, heat-ready gear with clear ROI and strong support.
Anthony Parker
48-year-old Indigenous man in Tucson, single and uninsured, living rent-free while caretaking. Offline-first and cash-oriented. Former courier, faith-anchored volunteer. Chooses durable, low-commitment solutions with in-person support and transparent, month…
Betty Mccarthy
Widowed 87-year-old school office worker in Mesa, AZ. Lives alone, budgets carefully, values reliability and clarity. Tech-cautious but capable. Community-focused, heat-aware, and routine-driven. Buys for longevity, support, and ease of use.
Nicholas Garcia
A 23-year-old bilingual HVAC student in rural Arizona, Nicholas Garcia rents with roommates, uses public healthcare, budgets carefully, and values faith, family, durability, and honest service, aiming to launch a practical, community-focused repair business.
Natalie Bustamante
Natalie Bustamante, 26, is a Mesa, AZ-based product operations manager at a remote cybersecurity SaaS. High-earning (~$170k), pragmatic and privacy-conscious, she saves aggressively, lives simply, runs and hikes with her rescue dog, and aims for product man…
Dawnya Villalpando
Dawnya Villalpando, 61, a Hispanic U.S. citizen in Mesa, AZ, is a bilingual client services manager working hybrid. Married and community-minded, she prioritizes health, faith, and reliability; volunteers, cooks lighter staples, streams, and prefers easy-to…
Tom Krysko
61-year-old Phoenix aerospace engineering leader. Married, no kids. Pragmatic, data-first, rides a motorcycle, mentors robotics, cooks Southwest meals, invests for retirement, and buys durable, heat-ready gear with clear ROI and strong support.
Anthony Parker
48-year-old Indigenous man in Tucson, single and uninsured, living rent-free while caretaking. Offline-first and cash-oriented. Former courier, faith-anchored volunteer. Chooses durable, low-commitment solutions with in-person support and transparent, month…
Betty Mccarthy
Widowed 87-year-old school office worker in Mesa, AZ. Lives alone, budgets carefully, values reliability and clarity. Tech-cautious but capable. Community-focused, heat-aware, and routine-driven. Buys for longevity, support, and ease of use.
Nicholas Garcia
A 23-year-old bilingual HVAC student in rural Arizona, Nicholas Garcia rents with roommates, uses public healthcare, budgets carefully, and values faith, family, durability, and honest service, aiming to launch a practical, community-focused repair business.
Overview
0 participants
Sex / Gender
Race / Ethnicity
Locale (Top)
Occupations (Top)
Demographic Overview
No agents selected
| Age bucket | Male count | Female count |
|---|
Participant locations
No agents selected
Participant Incomes
US benchmark scaled to group size
| Income bucket | Participants | US households |
|---|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)
Media Ingestion
Connections appear when personas follow many of the same sources, highlighting overlapping media diets.
Questions and Responses
3 questions
Response Summaries
3 questions
Word Cloud
Question Summary
Preparing summary…
Summary
Themes
| Theme | Count | Example Participant | Example Quote |
|---|
Outliers
| Agent | Snippet | Reason |
|---|
Analyzing correlations…
Generating correlations…
Taking longer than usual
Persona Correlations
Analyzing correlations…
Overview
Across 18 Arizona respondents, border dynamics are widely observed at the local level (checkpoints, church/pantry impacts, school translations, employer paperwork, strain on hospitals/shelters) but are not typically the top daily concern. Voters across ages, incomes, geographies and civic status converge on pragmatic expectations: concrete, measurable solutions (faster adjudication/work permits, targeted anti-smuggling enforcement, employer accountability), operational support and reimbursement for border communities, and investment in non-border state priorities (water/heat resilience, housing affordability, reliable power/transit, healthcare cost transparency, workforce/CTE). Effective messaging is plain-language, operational, bilingual where appropriate, and includes timelines, budgets and public metrics; theatrical enforcement or fear-based fundraising erodes trust. Important modifiers: tribal-sovereignty concerns require consultation and tailored approaches in tribal-adjacent areas; privacy and surveillance safeguards matter especially to non-citizen and tech-sector respondents. Overall, voters favor a balanced posture - firm action against exploiters and smugglers coupled with humane on-the-ground care and transparent, accountable implementation backed by measurable KPIs.
Total responses: 18
Key Segments
| Segment | Attributes | Insight | Supporting Agents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Older Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, community-connected |
|
Experiences border impacts through community channels (pantries/churches) and workplace HR friction; prioritizes humane, orderly policies that speed legal work authorization, enforce employer accountability, and deliver bilingual outreach and one-page operational plans rather than enforcement theater. | Dawnya Villalpando |
| Older white retirees / school administrators |
|
Sees border effects as episodic background (attendance/translators) but prioritizes water/heat, school funding/staffing, and predictable household supports; responds to detailed accountability (quarterly reports, budgets) and rejects political brinkmanship. | Betty Mccarthy |
| Rural, young Hispanic men / vocational students |
|
Border is a lived background (checkpoints, community aid) but immediate priorities are infrastructure (roads, internet), trade-school access, heat safety and reliable services; favors order at the border with humane treatment and practical legal work pathways rather than punitive spectacle. | Nicholas Garcia |
| Operationally-focused, higher-income engineers / business leaders |
|
Treats border and state challenges as operational bottlenecks; demands measurable KPIs (adjudication targets, port staffing SLAs), maintenance-first investments and workforce pipelines (CTE); prefers 'firm, fair, fast' solutions and messaging that translates policy into implementable deliverables. | Tom Krysko |
| Low-income, community caregiver / tribal-area resident |
|
Directly experiences checkpoints and sovereignty friction; emphasizes reliable basic services (water, power, transit), requirement for tribal consultation in border operations, and practical non-digital access to services. Skeptical of political spectacle and wants locally-targeted, immediate supports. | Anthony Parker |
| Young, tech-sector, non-citizen professionals |
|
Combines support for faster case processing and clear enforcement rules with strong privacy guardrails around surveillance and data; values transparency (dashboards) and humane treatment while supporting employer accountability and quick resolution of no-case claims. | Natalie Bustamante |
Shared Mindsets
| Trait | Signal | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Border is locally salient but not the top daily priority | Respondents frequently observe border impacts in daily life (checkpoints, community aid, school front offices) but prioritize immediate household and community needs (healthcare costs, heat/water, housing, transit reliability) over abstract border politics. | Dawnya Villalpando, Anthony Parker, Natalie Bustamante, Nicholas Garcia, Tom Krysko, Betty Mccarthy |
| Preference for practical, measurable policy | Voters across segments prefer concrete plans with timelines, budgets, KPIs and public dashboards rather than ideological rhetoric or photo-op enforcement; accountability builds trust. | Tom Krysko, Natalie Bustamante, Betty Mccarthy, Dawnya Villalpando, Anthony Parker |
| Blend of enforcement and humane care | Majority want firm action against smugglers, exploitative employers and organized abuse while simultaneously insisting on humane treatment at points of contact (medical checks, water/shade, family protections). | Dawnya Villalpando, Nicholas Garcia, Anthony Parker, Natalie Bustamante, Betty Mccarthy |
| Employer-side accountability | Strong cross-demographic support for meaningful employer verification (E-Verify/enforcement) and legal seasonal work options to reduce informal hiring and labor-market exploitation. | Tom Krysko, Natalie Bustamante, Nicholas Garcia, Dawnya Villalpando |
| Local-services funding & operational support | Respondents expect state/federal reimbursement and capacity-building for hospitals, schools, shelters, caseworkers and NGOs in border communities rather than shifting costs onto local residents. | Betty Mccarthy, Dawnya Villalpando, Anthony Parker, Nicholas Garcia |
| Statewide non-border priorities persist | Water management, heat resilience (cooling centers), housing affordability, reliable grid/transit, healthcare access/cost transparency, and workforce/CTE investments consistently rank as top governance priorities alongside any border response. | Tom Krysko, Natalie Bustamante, Betty Mccarthy, Anthony Parker, Nicholas Garcia, Dawnya Villalpando |
| Messaging preferences favor specificity and local language | Plain-language, bilingual outreach, in-person town halls and short implementation briefs (dates/dollars/KPIs) are far more persuasive than national talking points, fear-based fundraising, or spectacle-driven enforcement. | Betty Mccarthy, Dawnya Villalpando, Anthony Parker, Tom Krysko, Natalie Bustamante |
Divergences
| Segment | Contrast | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Tribal-area / tribal-sovereignty residents vs. general operational framing | Tribal-area respondents treat sovereignty and formal tribal consultation as non-negotiable operational constraints, while other segments emphasize statewide operational KPIs and enforcement-plans that ignore tribal consultation risk local rejection. | Anthony Parker, Tom Krysko, Nicholas Garcia |
| Young tech-sector non-citizens vs. typical young tech profiles | This non-citizen tech respondent combines strong privacy and transparency demands around surveillance with support for firm enforcement and quick resolution of no-case claims - a cross-cutting stance that diverges from the typical privacy-only or pro-immigrant-advocacy posture. | Natalie Bustamante |
| Operationally-focused high-income leaders vs. low-income caregivers | Engineers/business leaders frame problems through KPIs, SLAs and long-term maintenance; low-income caregivers prioritize immediate, tangible service reliability (water, power, transit) and non-digital access paths - messaging that is highly technical may under- resonate with the latter without translation to immediate household impacts. | Tom Krysko, Anthony Parker, Betty Mccarthy |
| Older retirees / school administrators vs. border-centric advocates | Older school-administration respondents view border impacts as episodic operational strain (translators, attendance) and prioritize pensions/healthcare and school funding; they are less driven by border-first messaging and more persuaded by stable budgets and accountability measures. | Betty Mccarthy, Dawnya Villalpando |
Creating recommendations…
Generating recommendations…
Taking longer than usual
Recommendations & Next Steps
Preparing recommendations…
Overview
Arizona voters see the border every day but don’t rank it as their top daily concern; they want firm enforcement paired with humane, measurable processes, and they reward leaders who deliver boring, verifiable basics (water, heat resilience, housing, grid, healthcare, transit) with dates, dollars, and dashboards. Action: adopt a "Firm, Humane, Fast" posture, shift from slogans to operations, publish KPIs, and show receipts while advancing a basics-first state agenda. Messaging should be plain-language, bilingual, and grounded in local specifics (tribal consultation, ports of entry, employer accountability, privacy guardrails).
Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)
| # | Action | Why | Owner | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Publish a 1-page "Firm, Humane, Fast" border brief with 90-day deliverables | Trust is built by verifiable delivery, not rhetoric; respondents want dates, owners, budgets, and tradeoffs stated plainly. | Policy Director | Low | High |
| 2 | Launch a bilingual monthly "Border & Basics" dashboard | Voters asked for transparent metrics (crossings, processing times, removals, fentanyl seizures) plus basics outputs (cooling-center hours, shaded stops). | Data & Digital | Med | High |
| 3 | Border-community listening circuit with published notes (Nogales, Yuma, Sells, South Tucson) | Showing up locally and reporting back builds credibility; faith/NGO partners are trusted implementers. | Coalitions Lead | Med | High |
| 4 | Shade-at-Stops microgrants (adopt 10 priority bus stops before peak heat) | Heat resilience at transit stops was a top tangible ask; visible, low-cost proof of focus on daily life. | Field Operations | Med | High |
| 5 | Heat-month utility lifeline pledge (no shutoffs ≥105°F + clear hardship paths) | Predictable summer bills/lifelines ranked above border salience; signals we’re tackling what actually keeps people up at night. | Policy & Gov Affairs | Low | High |
| 6 | Comms kit: "Say enforcement and humanity" + bilingual scripts and privacy guardrails | Respondents want plain talk that pairs enforcement with humane standards; also flagged data/privacy concerns. | Comms Director | Low | Med |
Initiatives (30–90 days)
| # | Initiative | Description | Owner | Timeline | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Border Operations Accountability Program | Treat border ops like a service with SLAs:
|
Policy Director | 0–3 months stand-up; 3–12 months continuous publish-and-adjust | DHS/CBP data access, Local NGOs & faith partners, County/City officials, Legal review for data/privacy language |
| 2 | Heat & Water Basics Package | Deliver the nonpartisan basics voters prioritized:
|
Policy & Gov Affairs | 0–3 months pledges; 3–9 months implementation with visible outputs before peak heat | Cities/Counties, Utilities/Commission, State water agencies, Community organizations |
| 3 | Employer Accountability + Legal Work Channels | Align labor reality with order and fairness:
|
Business & Workforce Lead | 3–9 months to secure signatories and policy endorsements; 9–12 months to publish compliance outcomes | Industry associations, Labor groups, Federal partners, Legal counsel |
| 4 | Tribal Sovereignty & Non‑Digital Access Protocol | Bake local realities into operations:
|
Coalitions Lead | 0–6 months MOUs and access standards; 6–12 months oversight cadence published | Tribal governments, Civil rights counsel, Law enforcement partners, State agencies |
| 5 | Rural Connectivity & Transit Reliability Push | Fix the daily frictions:
|
Infrastructure Program Manager | 3–6 months pilots; 6–12 months expansion with SLA reporting | ISPs & middle-mile projects, Transit agencies, County boards, Grant funding |
KPIs to Track
| # | KPI | Definition | Target | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Border dashboard on-time publication | Share of months where the bilingual dashboard is published with complete metrics by the 10th of the month | 100% on-time for 12 consecutive months | Monthly |
| 2 | Community trust shift on border handling | Net change in "trust Democrat on the border" among AZ likely voters (in-house or vendor poll, bilingual) | +8 pts by month 6; +12 pts by month 12 | Quarterly |
| 3 | Heat resilience outputs delivered | Cumulative shaded/benched bus stops installed and cooling-center seat-hours added before July | 50 shaded/benched stops and 250,000 seat-hours by June 30 | Monthly (Mar–Sep) |
| 4 | Border reimbursements influenced | Dollars committed to AZ towns, hospitals, schools that our advocacy supported (letters, testimony, coalition asks) | $20M committed by 12 months | Quarterly |
| 5 | Employer compact participation | Number of AZ employers publicly adopting E‑Verify with wage/standards commitments | 100 employers by month 12 | Monthly |
| 6 | Comms discipline score | Percent of earned/owned content that pairs enforcement plus humane proof points and cites at least one metric | ≥90% compliance | Weekly QA sample |
Risks & Mitigations
| # | Risk | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Perceived rightward tilt alienates base if enforcement is emphasized without safeguards | Always pair enforcement with humane standards, privacy guardrails, and NGO/faith partnerships; show both in every artifact | Comms Director |
| 2 | Overpromising on federal operations or timelines we don’t control | Label advocacy vs. execution clearly; set targets as ranges; publish dependencies and adjust publicly when blocked | Policy Director |
| 3 | Data volatility (metrics worsen before they improve) undermines dashboard credibility | Commit to candor, add context notes, and publish corrective actions within 14 days; avoid cherry-picking | Data & Digital |
| 4 | Tokenized tribal engagement damages trust and invites backlash | Sign MOUs with timelines, resource commitments, and named liaisons; honor consultation outcomes even when inconvenient | Coalitions Lead |
| 5 | Execution capacity shortfalls for heat/transit quick wins | Use microgrants, standard designs, and pre-approved vendors; phase delivery and publish a simple Gantt with contingencies | Infrastructure Program Manager |
Timeline
0–30 days:
- Publish 1-page border brief; launch comms kit; schedule listening circuit; announce lifeline pledge
30–90 days:
- First bilingual dashboard live; initial shaded/benched stops installed; town hall notes published; tribal consultation sessions begin
90–180 days:
- Expand cooling-center hours; employer compact signatories announced; rural connectivity and transit pilots launched; reimbursements advocacy yields first commitments
6–12 months:
- Dashboard continuity (12/12 on time); scale shade/benches to 50+; utility and water-policy wins documented; quarterly report cards show course corrections
- Publish 1-page border brief; launch comms kit; schedule listening circuit; announce lifeline pledge
30–90 days:
- First bilingual dashboard live; initial shaded/benched stops installed; town hall notes published; tribal consultation sessions begin
90–180 days:
- Expand cooling-center hours; employer compact signatories announced; rural connectivity and transit pilots launched; reimbursements advocacy yields first commitments
6–12 months:
- Dashboard continuity (12/12 on time); scale shade/benches to 50+; utility and water-policy wins documented; quarterly report cards show course corrections
Research Study Narrative
Arizona Voters on Border Policy and State Priorities: Synthesis and Recommendations
Objective and context. Across 18 Arizona respondents, we set out to understand how voters weigh border issues alongside other state priorities and what messaging earns trust. The throughline: the border is visible and emotionally salient but not the top day-to-day concern. Immediate, material pressures dominate-healthcare costs, housing/rent, utilities and heat, reliable transit/infrastructure, and job stability/wages. As Dawnya Villalpando put it, “it touches my day-to-day, but it is not my number one,” while Betty Mccarthy emphasized being “far more pressed by: water and heat … school funding … cost of living.”
Where border impacts are felt. Practical effects concentrate in a few lanes: employer paperwork and hiring friction (Tom Krysko: I‑9/E‑Verify/visa bottlenecks), tactical risk management among non‑citizens (Natalie Bustamante: meticulous document tracking and cash buffer), and community-level disruption (Anthony Parker: attendance drops at churches/pantries; “helicopters at odd hours”). Respondents are fatigued by grandstanding and prefer predictable, humane, operational fixes that reduce disruption.
What “reasonable” looks like-and what builds trust
- Firm enforcement paired with humane treatment. “Say enforcement out loud without flinching. Then do it. Basic humanity: shade, water, medical checks, keep families together.” (Betty)
- Speed and capacity. Surge judges/asylum officers to cut case time to 60–90 days; set and publish the takt time and staff to it. (Tom)
- Employer accountability + legal work channels. Back E‑Verify and penalties; expand realistic seasonal visas aligned to labor demand. (Natalie)
- Ports over photo ops. Fix and staff crossings, lanes, scanners, radios, lighting. (Anthony)
- Transparency. Monthly dashboards/report cards on crossings, processing times, removals, fentanyl seizures, and costs-with course corrections when targets are missed. (Natalie)
Beyond the border, voters want basics delivered. Priorities that respondents say are drowned out by border politics: water policy tied to growth and reuse (“Do real drought math.” -Natalie), heat resilience (24/7 summer cooling centers; real shade/benches at bus stops -Anthony), grid reliability and fair utility rules (predictable summer rates -Natalie), housing affordability and permitting reform (ADUs/faster permits -Natalie), accessible primary/behavioral/dental care (“AHCCCS networks that aren’t a scavenger hunt.” -Dawnya), dependable transit, workforce/CTE pipelines, and rural broadband (fiber to towns; fixed wireless fails in wind -Nicholas Garcia).
Persona correlations and nuances
- Older Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, community-connected (Dawnya). Sees border through churches/pantries and HR friction; wants humane order, faster work authorization, bilingual one-page plans.
- Older retirees/school admin (Betty). Border is episodic background; prioritizes water/heat and school staffing; responds to budgets, timelines, and report cards.
- Operational business leaders (Tom). Frames issues as bottlenecks; demands KPIs/SLAs, port staffing, adjudication targets, and maintenance-first spend.
- Tribal-area caregiver (Anthony). Requires formal tribal consultation; emphasizes service reliability, environmental/cultural protections, and non-digital access.
- Young non-citizen tech (Natalie). Supports firm/fast decisions with privacy guardrails; values public dashboards and employer enforcement.
Recommendations
- Adopt a “Firm, Humane, Fast” posture with plain-language, bilingual messaging anchored in operations (dates, owners, budgets).
- Shift from slogans to delivery: publish monthly border/basics dashboards; show receipts; reimburse border communities.
- Back employer enforcement and legal work channels; focus on ports of entry maintenance/staffing.
- Institutionalize tribal consultation and embed privacy/surveillance safeguards.
- Lead a basics-first package on heat (24/7 cooling centers, shade-at-stops), water (reuse, pricing tied to growth), grid reliability, housing/permits, healthcare access, transit, and rural broadband.
Quick wins respondents will notice: 1-page border brief with 90‑day deliverables; bilingual monthly “Border & Basics” dashboard; border‑community listening circuit with published notes; shade‑at‑stops microgrants; heat‑month utility lifeline pledge.
Risks and guardrails
- Base alienation from enforcement emphasis: always pair enforcement with humane standards, NGO/faith partners, and privacy guardrails.
- Overpromising on federal ops: label advocacy vs execution; set ranges; publish dependencies and adjustments.
- Data volatility: commit to candor with context notes and corrective actions; avoid cherry‑picking.
- Tokenized tribal engagement: formal MOUs with timelines/resources; honor outcomes.
Next steps and measurement
- 0–30 days: Publish 1‑page brief; announce lifeline pledge; schedule listening tour.
- 30–90 days: First dashboard live; initial shaded/benched stops; town hall notes; begin tribal sessions.
- 90–180 days: Expand cooling-center hours; announce employer compact signatories; launch rural connectivity/transit pilots.
- 6–12 months: Maintain 12/12 on‑time dashboards; scale shade to 50+ stops; document water/utility wins.
- KPIs: 100% on‑time dashboards; +8 pts trust by month 6 (+12 by month 12); 50 shaded stops and 250,000 seat‑hours by June 30; $20M in border reimbursements influenced; 100 employers in the compact by month 12.
Recommended Follow-up Questions
Updated Jan 30, 2026
-
Imagine Arizona has 100 budget points to allocate this year. Please distribute them across: border enforcement operations; asylum/case processing capacity; reimbursements to local schools/hospitals/towns; housing affordability; healthcare access; water/heat resilience; roads/transit. Total must equal 100.numeric Quantifies real trade-offs to guide budget emphasis and message weighting.
-
Which messengers would you trust most to provide accurate updates about border operations and local impacts? Rank your top three: local sheriffs; Border Patrol/CBP officials; city mayors; hospital leaders; school superintendents; tribal leaders; small business owners; immigration judges; faith leaders; community nonprofits; the Governor; the President.rank Identifies credible voices for message delivery and partnership outreach.
-
Below are short statements about border policy and community impact. In each set, select the most convincing and the least convincing. (Statements will vary across enforcement, humane treatment, transparency/metrics, employer verification, faster work authorization, anti-smuggling, and local reimbursements.)maxdiff Reveals which frames persuade to shape ads, speeches, and mail.
-
For each policy component, which level of government should be primarily responsible? Components: staffing ports of entry; asylum adjudication timelines; employer verification and penalties; funding local reimbursements; anti-smuggling enforcement; humanitarian shelter coordination. Levels: federal; state; county/city; shared; not sure.matrix Clarifies ownership to inform pledges, coordination, and accountability.
-
Which single outcome is the best indicator that border policy is working? Choose one: average asylum decision time; unauthorized crossing attempts; wait times at ports of entry; number of work permits issued after screening; dollars reimbursed to local services; smuggling network disruptions/arrests; share of employers passing audits; community shelter capacity stability.single select Sets the headline metric for dashboards and progress reporting.
-
Which funding approaches, if any, would you support to pay for expanded border operations and local reimbursements? Select all that apply: federal appropriations; state general-fund reallocation; temporary state surcharge on short‑term rentals; targeted employer fees for repeat violations; visa/border‑crossing fee adjustments; state bonds; none of the above; not sure.multi select Tests viable pay-fors to avoid backlash and choose funding vehicles.
Recommend fielding with larger, balanced quotas by party ID and border proximity to validate trade-offs and messaging effects.
Study Overview
Updated Jan 30, 2026
Research question: How Arizona voters weigh border issues against other state priorities, what a “reasonable” border policy and trust cues look like, and which non-border needs should rise in focus.
Who: Six Arizona voters (ages 23–87) from Mesa, Tucson/tribal‑adjacent, and rural areas-a school administrator retiree, a family caregiver near tribal lands, a manufacturing leader, a non‑citizen tech PM, a vocational student, and a community volunteer.
What they said: Immigration is constantly visible but not the top daily concern; immediate pressures dominate-healthcare costs, housing/rent, utilities (water/heat/power), reliable transit/infrastructure, and job stability. Main insights: A “reasonable” border policy is firm and humane with measurable operations: staffed ports of entry, surge judges/caseworkers targeting 60–90‑day decisions with faster work permits, employer‑side enforcement (E‑Verify with penalties) and legal seasonal visas, targeted anti‑smuggling, and reimbursements for local schools, hospitals, and towns.
Trust drivers for Democrats: verifiable delivery-say enforcement plainly, show up in border communities, publish monthly bilingual dashboards with KPIs and timelines, honor tribal consultation and privacy guardrails, and provide non‑digital access-while avoiding theatrical grandstanding. Beyond the border: Priorities are water policy tied to growth and reuse, heat resilience (24/7 cooling centers and shaded stops), grid reliability with fair summer rates, housing and permitting reform (ADUs, faster permits), accessible primary/behavioral/dental care, dependable transit, workforce/CTE pipelines, and rural broadband, all with clear SLAs and funding.
Takeaways: adopt a Firm‑Humane‑Fast 90‑day plan, launch a bilingual monthly “Border & Basics” dashboard, back E‑Verify plus faster adjudication/work permits, secure reimbursements for border communities, formalize tribal consultation and privacy rules, and deliver visible basics (shade‑at‑stops microgrants and a no‑shutoffs heat lifeline) before peak heat.
Who: Six Arizona voters (ages 23–87) from Mesa, Tucson/tribal‑adjacent, and rural areas-a school administrator retiree, a family caregiver near tribal lands, a manufacturing leader, a non‑citizen tech PM, a vocational student, and a community volunteer.
What they said: Immigration is constantly visible but not the top daily concern; immediate pressures dominate-healthcare costs, housing/rent, utilities (water/heat/power), reliable transit/infrastructure, and job stability. Main insights: A “reasonable” border policy is firm and humane with measurable operations: staffed ports of entry, surge judges/caseworkers targeting 60–90‑day decisions with faster work permits, employer‑side enforcement (E‑Verify with penalties) and legal seasonal visas, targeted anti‑smuggling, and reimbursements for local schools, hospitals, and towns.
Trust drivers for Democrats: verifiable delivery-say enforcement plainly, show up in border communities, publish monthly bilingual dashboards with KPIs and timelines, honor tribal consultation and privacy guardrails, and provide non‑digital access-while avoiding theatrical grandstanding. Beyond the border: Priorities are water policy tied to growth and reuse, heat resilience (24/7 cooling centers and shaded stops), grid reliability with fair summer rates, housing and permitting reform (ADUs, faster permits), accessible primary/behavioral/dental care, dependable transit, workforce/CTE pipelines, and rural broadband, all with clear SLAs and funding.
Takeaways: adopt a Firm‑Humane‑Fast 90‑day plan, launch a bilingual monthly “Border & Basics” dashboard, back E‑Verify plus faster adjudication/work permits, secure reimbursements for border communities, formalize tribal consultation and privacy rules, and deliver visible basics (shade‑at‑stops microgrants and a no‑shutoffs heat lifeline) before peak heat.
Awaiting responses…
Usually takes — seconds
Taking longer than usual
Question
0 responses
Waiting…
| Name | Response | Info |
|---|