PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona sheriff known for crackdowns on people living in the country illegally is giving up his last major foothold in immigration enforcement efforts that won him popularity among voters but gradually were reined in by Congress and the courts.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office revealed late Wednesday that it was agreeing to disband a controversial squad that has raided businesses to arrest more than 700 immigrants who were charged with using fake or stolen IDs to get jobs.

“He has proved that when he gets involved in immigration enforcement, he tramples on the U.S. Constitution, at great expense to taxpayers and public safety,” said Cecillia Wang, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who won a racial profiling case against Arpaio’s office.

The revelation that Arpaio was voluntarily closing his criminal employment squad comes after the sheriff’s office was stripped of special federal immigration powers, found to have racially profiled Latinos in traffic stops, and investigated by federal authorities for alleged civil rights violations. The courts also have thrown out many of Arizona’s immigration laws.

Arpaio still retains limited power to confront illegal immigration, such as a civil law that imposes business-license punishments on employers who knowingly hire immigrants in the country illegally.

The sheriff’s office didn’t respond to a request Thursday to interview Arpaio. But it issued a statement saying the squad will be disbanded early next year, and that grant money used in the enforcement of the ID theft laws will be returned to the state.

The sheriff’s road to immigration enforcement began in 2005 as voter frustrations grew over the state’s status as the then-busiest in immigrant smuggling and state lawmakers started responding to their complaints about Arizona’s porous border with Mexico.

Like other local police bosses, Arpaio previously left immigration enforcement to federal authorities.

He explained his decision to enter immigration enforcement as addressing a public safety concern. And he eventually set up squads that focused on immigrant smuggling and businesses that hired immigrants.

“We don’t go after the addicts on the street,” Arpaio said in a 2005 interview about his newly formed smuggling squad, likening his immigration crackdown with his approach to investigating drug cases. “We go after the peddlers. Same philosophy.”

His supporters have said the sheriff was the only local police boss to do something about illegal immigration in the face of inadequate federal enforcement.

Critics say Arpaio picked on powerless immigrants because it was popular with voters. They said Arpaio focused too much on rank-and-file immigrants and gave too little scrutiny to smugglers and employers who hired immigrants in the country illegally.

Arpaio’s immigration efforts reached their peak around 2010 when he launched immigration patrols known as “sweeps.”

During those stings, deputies flooded part of a city — in some cases, heavily Latino areas — over several days to seek out traffic violators and other offenders.

Immigrants who were in the country illegally accounted for 57 percent of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by his office since January 2008, according to figures provided by Arpaio’s office.

But a backlash was brewing in Washington and in the courts.

In late 2009, Washington stripped some of his deputies of their power to make federal immigration arrests.

A federal judge last year ruled Arpaio’s office systematically racially profiled Latinos in traffic and special immigration patrols. The sheriff vigorously denies the court’s conclusions.

Arpaio’s now-disbanded immigrant smuggling squad recently came under scrutiny from the judge in the profiling case after allegations of misconduct surfaced this year, including whether a squad member was shaking down people who were in the country illegally.

The sheriff himself has been criticized by the profiling case’s judge for not embracing the changes needed to remedy constitutional problems with some of his agency’s traffic stops. The judge is moving closer to launching a contempt-of-court case against Arpaio for repeatedly disregarding orders in the profiling case.

Even though his involvement in immigration enforcement has gradually dwindled over the years, Arpaio still speaks up on the subject.

Last month, he filed a lawsuit that seeks to dismantle President Barack Obama’s executive order that lifts the threat of deportation from millions of immigrants living illegally in the United States.

• Immigration Issues
• Politics & Government
• illegal immigration
• immigration laws

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — Tucson police said Wednesday they will no longer fully enforce the state’s landmark immigration law that requires local police to check the immigration status of people they encounter while enforcing other laws.

Chief Roberto Villaseñor said his officers will now only check immigration status and call the U.S. Border Patrol when a person has prior serious felony convictions, poses a threat to national security or has gang affiliations.

The criteria was set out for federal immigration authorities in an executive order issued last month by President Barack Obama intended to prioritize offenders for deportation.

The Arizona law, SB 1070, requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question the status of people suspected of being in the country illegally.

The Tucson Police Department appears to be the first major law enforcement agency to announce scaled-back enforcement of the law.

Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Jonathan Howard said he did not believe his department was changing its policy regarding SB 1070 enforcement.

Villaseñor cited a provision in the law that says police should only enforce it when it is practical. He contends it is no longer practical because immigration authorities do not respond to calls by police in the vast majority of cases.

Tucson officers have placed about 11,000 calls to the Border Patrol since July on such matters and only received 94 replies, the chief said.

“So it’s really a futile effort,” he said.

Villaseñor has been a vocal opponent of the law but has said he is obligated to enforce it.

When the Tucson City Council raised concerns about school resource officers asking about the immigration status of students in high schools in September, Villaseñor said police would be breaking the law if they didn’t abide by SB 1070.

However, at a meeting Tuesday, the City Council approved an amended contract that bars police from asking students about their immigration status.

Obama’s sweeping directive allows some immigrant parents of U.S. citizens to remain in the country through a program similar to one known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which prevents the deportation of youth who were brought to the country illegally as children.

“The vast majority of people that we do charge and arrest on a daily basis are not gonna fit the criteria that would require a Border Patrol check,” Villaseñor said. “It’s a change, but I think that every agency across the state is approaching 1070 differently.”

Former state Sen. Russell Pearce, the architect of the law, said he found the new policy in Tucson to be an insulting violation of SB 1070.

“It’s nothing less than malfeasance,” he said.

Pearce said the part of the law spelling out practical enforcement applied to police officers who were in the middle of an investigation into someone’s immigration status and had to respond to a more urgent call.

“That’s not a policy to sit on your butt to do nothing,” he said.

Villaseñor said officers will stop checking the immigration status of some people by the end of the week. Police will still conduct criminal background checks and call immigration authorities if a person falls under the priorities used by federal officials.

James Lyall, an attorney for the ACLU of Arizona, said he was skeptical about the changes.

“The fundamental concern remains: Are local law enforcement stopping people for the wrong reasons, and are they holding them solely to conduct an investigation of their status?” Lyall said. “If either of those things are happening, that violates the law.”

• Immigration Issues
• Politics & Government

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Congress that began with bright hopes for immigration legislation is ending in bitter divisions on the issue even as some Republicans warn that the political imperative for acting is stronger than ever for the GOP.

In place of a legislative solution, President Barack Obama’s recent executive action to curb deportations for millions here illegally stands as the only federal response to what all lawmakers agree is a dysfunctional immigration system. Many Democrats are convinced Latino voters will reward them for Obama’s move in the 2016 presidential and Senate elections, while some Republicans fear they will have a price to pay.

“If we don’t make some down payment toward a rational solution on immigration in 2015, early 2016, good luck winning the White House,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an author of the comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support, but stalled in the GOP-led House.

With the expiration of the 113th Congress this month, that bill will officially die, along with its path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in this country illegally.

Immigration is certain to be a focus for the new, fully Republican-led Congress when it convenes in January — but there’s little expectation the GOP will make another attempt at comprehensive reforms.

Instead, GOP leaders in the House and Senate have pledged to take action to block Obama’s executive moves, setting up a battle for late February when funding expires for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration matters. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised action on a border security bill as part of that.

Whether Congress can do anything to stop Obama remains unclear, since he’s certain to veto any effort to undo his executive moves. It’s also not clear lawmakers could pass a border bill, or that Obama would sign it if they did.

While some congressional Republicans are arguing for action on piecemeal reforms, most advocates are resigned to waiting until a new president takes office in 2017 for lawmakers to make another attempt at a comprehensive overhaul that resolves the central immigration dilemma — the status of the millions here illegally.

“They had the best chance in a generation and they couldn’t get enough support from the Republican caucus,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group. “It may well be that they’re going to have to lose the White House and both chambers of Congress for us to get comprehensive immigration reform.”

When Obama won a second term in 2012 with strong Hispanic and Asian support, many national Republican leaders decided they needed to support policies that would attract those growing blocs of voters. The Republican National Committee formally embraced support for comprehensive immigration reform as a guiding principle for the GOP.

But legislative efforts stalled in the House as conservative Republicans balked at Boehner’s efforts to advance the issue. Last summer’s crisis over an influx of unaccompanied Central American minors arriving at the border caused shelter overloads and case backlogs, straining resources and creating the impression that the border was out of control — further souring political prospects for reform legislation.

In absence of congressional efforts, Obama promised he would act on his own, and he made good on that shortly after last month’s midterm elections, announcing an array of changes that will include work permits and three-year deportation stays for some 4 million immigrants here illegally. It mostly applies to those who’ve been here more than five years and have kids who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.

The move inflamed Republicans, who have been fighting about it ever since, including a failed effort by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to block Obama in a Senate floor vote this past weekend. On Tuesday the dispute spilled over into debate on Obama’s nominee to lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Sarah Saldana, the U.S. attorney in Dallas. She was confirmed 55-39 by the Senate over objections from Republicans who had initially supported her but turned against her because of her support for Obama’s executive actions.

Meanwhile, some immigration advocates complained that the steps didn’t go far enough as Obama faced criticism from both sides of the political divide.

A new Associated Press-GfK poll found that most Americans support allowing immigrants living in the country illegally a way to stay here lawfully. But only 43 percent of them think Obama was right to take executive action to make those changes, while 54 percent of them say he should have kept trying to make a deal with Republicans. Still, the poll also showed little sign of blowback for Obama. Although 57 percent disapprove of Obama’s handling of the immigration issue, that was down slightly from 63 percent in October.

A group of 24 states joined in a federal lawsuit filed in Texas alleging that Obama overstepped his constitutional powers in a way that will only worsen the humanitarian problems along the southern U.S. border. And Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in federal court in Washington, contending that the policy is a magnet for more illegal entries into the country that will impose a burden on law enforcement.

In a court filing late Monday, the Justice Department argued for dismissal of Arpaio’s case, saying he has failed to substantiate his claims.

Congressional Republicans say that Obama’s actions created an even tougher climate for immigration legislation, but many Democrats and advocates contend that Republicans were terminally stalled on the issue anyway. Some Republicans question whether immigration legislation really is a political imperative for the GOP. “It’s really mixed out there — some people want a big immigration bill, others don’t,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a supporter of reform efforts.

And two years after a “Gang of Eight” senators launched an immigration overhaul drive on Capitol Hill, some of those same players say they have no plans to initiate another such effort.

“I’m not going to start it in the Senate,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “We’ve tried that.”

___

Associated Press News Survey Specialist Emily Swanson and writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• Barack Obama