Indiana House approves bill tying state funding to immigration enforcement
The Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday tying state funding for local governmental bodies to their cooperation in the enforcement of federal immigration law despite arguments from some Democrats who said they could not support the measure.
House Bill 1531 passed the full chamber with a 64-26 vote after a brief discussion involving Union City Republican State Rep. J.D. Prescott, whose name is on the bill, and Democrats who sit on the House judiciary committee with him. The bill will now move to the Senate.
The sweeping measure addresses the enforcement of federal immigration law by state and local government, law enforcement and businesses. A section requiring schools to report information on undocumented students was removed before HB 1531 made its way to the House floor. Prescott worked with the attorney general's office to craft the 14-section bill.
It does not impact legal immigration, he said.
Prescott previously said the bill addresses "bad-actor" employers who engage in labor trafficking by hiring people unauthorized to work in the United States over Hoosiers and holds governmental agencies accountable if they restrict the enforcement of immigration orders. It also strengthens Attorney General Todd Rokita's ability to enforce existing Indiana law banning sanctuary cities.
Dozens of people spoke out against the bill on Monday as the House's judiciary committee weighed the measure. Clergy, educators, nonprofit workers and others argued the bill encourages discrimination, racial profiling and contributes to an atmosphere of hostility toward immigrants. After that meeting, some expressed disappointment that the committee still voted to send the measure to the full House for a vote.
More: Bill penalizing cities and law enforcement for not enforcing immigration laws advances
There were no outward displays of approval or disapproval from people watching the House discussion from the hallway on Thursday.
Neither the Indiana Chamber nor the Indiana Sheriffs' Association has taken a favorable position on the bill.
Rep. Maureen Bauer, D-South Bend, told the full House she is concerned about how the bill was crafted and its impact on already-stretched law enforcement agencies. "The enforcement of federal immigration laws is intensive and costly," she said, noting the bill threatens essential funding of local governments for up to a year and even jeopardizes dedicated federal grants.
More: Indianapolis police chief: Immigration sweeps 'not our role'
Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, questioned whether the bill actually penalized businesses for recruiting and hiring undocumented workers or if the civil enforcement mechanism in the bill gives them a slap on the wrist. "It doesn't go after the actual cause of most of the illegal immigration seen in the state of Indiana," he said.
Both are members of the judiciary committee.
Rep. Victoria Garcia Wilburn, D-Fishers. told the full House she could not support the bill due to its potential unintended consequences. Garcia Wilburn, another judiciary committee member, said the bill threatens Hoosier hospitality and the idea of Indiana as a welcoming state. It needs more work, Garcia Wilburn said.
"We need to proceed with caution, ladies and gentlemen," she said. "When our constituents are communicating to us 'they are against all immigration,' I'm worried about the message this body is sending."
Contact IndyStar investigative reporter Alexandria Burris at aburris@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana House passes immigration bill tying state money to enforcement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up
Tesla faces fresh risks to a big income stream: sales of regulatory credits to other automakers under vehicle emissions and efficiency rules. Why it matters: Tesla's credit sales were $595 million last quarter and totaled $3.36 billion in the five quarters through Q1 of 2025. The credits are awarded to companies like Tesla that exceed emissions standards. Producers of gas-powered vehicles buy them to help meet various CO2 and mileage standards. The latest: Republicans on the Senate's commerce committee late last week proposed ending civil penalties under the Transportation Department's fuel economy rules. It's part of the committee's portion of the budget "reconciliation" bill — the top GOP and White House legislative priority. The provision would "modestly" cut auto prices by ending penalties on automakers that now "design cars to conform to the wishes of DC bureaucrats rather than consumers," a GOP summary states. The intrigue:"This Senate action would effectively end the market for CAFE credits," Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, tells Axios via email. Dan Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, noted: "Why buy credits if Trump gives you a get out of CAFE free card?" Driving the news: Separately, DOT on Friday issued an "interpretive rule" that bars consideration of EVs when it sets these mileage rules. It's a step toward crafting replacement standards, DOT said. This paves the way for less aggressive requirements — and less need for buying credits. State of play: Several buckets of credits benefit Tesla, the dominant U.S. EV seller. EPA emissions standards, Transportation Department fuel economy mandates, and California's ambitious clean cars program all provide opportunities. European emissions rules also generate credits. The big picture: The regulatory credit market was already facing risks before all the news late last week. EPA is planning to rescind Biden-era EPA carbon emissions rules for model years 2027 and onward. The House-passed reconciliation bill and the Senate GOP proposal would also nix them. And the House bill pulls back Biden-era DOT mileage rules. Both chambers have passed measures that end EPA's approval of California's auto emissions rules. Threat level: Potential loss of credit revenues comes at a perilous time for Tesla. Its sales have slumped in recent quarters, and CEO Elon Musk's rightward turn and alliance with Trump are among the reasons why, analysts say. The House plan ends $7,500 consumer purchase subsidies for EVs under the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. By the numbers: Credit revenues exceeded Tesla's overall profit last quarter — in other words, it would have been in the red without them. Yes, Q1 was atypically weak for Tesla, but consider Q4 of 2024, when Tesla reported $2.13 billion in profits that were helped along by $692 million in credit sales. In Q3, those numbers were $2.17B and $739M, respectively. Friction point: More broadly, the meltdown of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's relationship with Trump also creates new and unpredictable risks for the billionaire entrepreneur's business empire.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Democrats Have an Authenticity Gap
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Since President Donald Trump's victory last fall, Democrats have been trying to reengage with male voters, find a 'Joe Rogan of the left,' and even fund a whole left-leaning 'manosphere.' Young men—Rogan's core audience—were among the voting blocs that definitively moved toward the GOP in 2024, as a comprehensive postmortem by the data firm Catalist recently illustrated. In response, many powerful liberal figures have obsessively returned to the same idea: If we can't compete with their influential manosphere, why not construct our own? One high-profile progressive group, the Speaking With American Men project, is embarking on a two-year, $20 million mission to build 'year-round engagement in online and offline spaces Democrats have long ignored—investing in creators, trusted messengers, and upstream cultural content,' though its leaders say they're not looking for a liberal Rogan. Another effort, AND Media (AND being an acronym for 'Achieve Narrative Dominance'), has raised $7 million and, according to The New York Times, is looking to amass many times that amount over the next four years to back voices that will break with 'the current didactic, hall monitor style of Democratic politics that turns off younger audiences.' But in recent conversations with people in all corners of Democratic politics—far-left Bernie bros, seasoned centrists of the D.C. establishment, and rising new voices in progressive media—I came away with the sense that Democrats don't have simply a podcast-dude issue, one that could be solved with fresh money, new YouTube channels, and a bunch of studio mics. The party has struggled to capitalize on Trump's second-term missteps. It has yet to settle on a unifying message or vision of the future. Given this absence, such a tactical, top-down fix as deputizing a liberal Rogan looks tempting. The big problem is: That fix is both improbable and illogical. [Read: Democrats have a man problem] The party's 'podcast problem' is a microcosm of a much larger likability issue. 'We are a little bit, you know, too front-of-the-classroom,' Jon Lovett, a former Obama speechwriter and a co-host of Pod Save America, told me. In a sense, the show's production company, Crooked Media, already tested the 'make your own media ecosystem' proposition: Five years after its independent founding in 2017, Crooked announced that it had received funding from an investment firm run by the Democratic megadonor George Soros. Lovett seemed less skeptical of the new initiatives than other Democrats I interviewed, but also acknowledged some limitations. 'We believe how important it is to invest in progressive media,' Lovett told me. 'But in the same way you can't strategize ways to be authentic, you can't buy organic support.' The limits of this approach have already become clear. 'If you're trying to identify and cultivate and create this idea of a 'liberal Joe Rogan,' by definition, you're manufacturing something that's not authentic,' Brendan McPhillips, who served as campaign manager during John Fetterman's successful Pennsylvania Senate bid in 2022, told me. 'This fucking insane goose chase that these elite donors want to pursue to create some liberal oasis of new media is just really harebrained and misguided.' Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and other prominent voices in the existing manosphere are not inherently political and, even when they do touch politics, don't adhere to GOP or conservative orthodoxy. Although Rogan and Von did attend Trump's second inauguration, both have also been enamored with Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont; and recently, Von delivered an emotional monologue about the destruction in Gaza, drawing ire from many of his listeners on the right. In short, these guys are guided not by ideology, but by their own curiosity and gut instinct. Fluidity in belief is central to their appeal, and helps explain their cross-party success. Their audiences also blossomed over time, not after the stroke of a donor's pen. Throughout my interviews, I heard constant lamentations over the inescapable 'D.C. speak' in both Democratic politics and the left-leaning press. 'Normal people aren't out here talking about and paying attention to the kind of things that tie senior Democratic strategists up in knots,' McPhillips, who lives in Philadelphia, told me. You can't read white papers and study what goes on in the states from afar, he argued; you have to be there at eye level, living among real people, talking like a real person. What politicians have been advised to do for decades—stick to short cable-news hits, repeat the same few points over and over—are habits that today's voters find, in the words of a senior official who worked both in the Joe Biden White House and on the Kamala Harris campaign, 'repulsive.' Although this person, who asked for anonymity in order to speak freely about party strategy, discounted the premise of finding a 'Rogan of the left' as a fool's errand, they did say that, from now through 2028, Democrats should try to infiltrate sports-focused podcasts, paying particular attention to YouTube. This operative has come to view the current moment less as center-left versus center-right, and more as a larger battle of institutionalists versus anti-institutionalists: 'The psyche of a liberal in this moment is institution defense.' Also: fear. Too many Democrats, they believe, approach every public conversation and media interview with a level of trepidation about what they're saying—not in fear of Trump, but in fear of the wrath of their own potential voters. During her 2024 campaign, Harris reportedly feared the potential blowback within her own team from sitting down with Rogan. 'There was a backlash with some of our progressive staff that didn't want her to be on' his show, Jennifer Palmieri, who advised the second gentleman Doug Emhoff, said a week after the election. (Palmieri later revised her comments.) This year, some progressives have found a way to break through. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who's proved capable of acing a hostile Fox News interview, has now grown facial scruff and has been popping up on the podcast circuit. Several Democrats I spoke with praised both Buttigieg's recent media tour—his appearance on the brash bro show Flagrant was singled out—and Sanders's ability to win over certain manosphere hosts. 'They're able to do that because they have the confidence and the skill to go on a program like that and just be themselves, and people believe what they say because they're being honest,' McPhillips told me. On the Fighting Oligarchy Tour, and in his frequent podcast appearances, Sanders has positioned himself as an accessible and righteously angry force. Faiz Shakir, Sanders's 2020 campaign manager and now an adviser to the senator, told me that Democrats 'are too far removed from organic and interesting conversations that people want to hear about, and have become too reliant on a one-way push at people about the things we want to tell them,' rather than actually listening to voters. Although he himself is a Harvard alumnus who lives and works in D.C., Shakir criticized the Democratic Party's perpetually buttoned-up ethos, the opposite of an unstructured podcast hang. He spoke about the power of anger—the defining emotion of the past political decade—as something that many Democrats don't know how to wield effectively. 'If you're angry, you're uncouth,' Shakir said. 'Calm down! That's not professional!' Unless Democrats stop worrying about politely conforming to pre-Trump communication mores, he believes the chasm with voters will continue to exist, hypothetical new-media ecosystem be damned. [John Hendrickson: Jake and Logan Paul hit the limits of the manosphere] Two things can be true at the same time: Many centrist Democrats may be too timid or genteel, and lack the moxie to speak with the anger that resonates with voters. But the cause of men's alienation from liberal politics cannot be distilled simply into perceptions of gentility. Nor is voicing rage a plausible way to hack the manosphere. When it comes to podcasts—the medium of the moment—a different emotion reigns: curiosity. Hosts such as Rogan and Von succeed across party lines not because they're indignant, but because they're inquisitive and, crucially, persuadable. Their talent is to seem real and relatable without trying. Throughout my conversations, I asked why liberals have not organically produced a figure of Rogan's magnitude and influence. No one really had an answer. But one thing became abundantly clear: No amount of strategic parsing will let Democrats fake their way through this moment. You can't buy authentic communication. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio senators work to ensure groups like LifeWise can send items back with students
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Senate proposed requiring school districts to allow organizations like LifeWise to send trinkets, candy and other materials with students when they return to school. The Ohio Senate adjusted Ohio's release time for religious instruction law in its recently released draft of the state budget. Under the Senate's changes, public districts would have to allow RTRI organizations to send materials back with students and permit instruction on a near-weekly basis. The Spectrum: Lt. Gov. Tressel; Ohio budget; defense contractor setting up in central Ohio RTRI refers to legal religious instruction that occurs during the school day, off school property and with parental permission. Ohio's RTRI law recently changed; as of April 9, all public school districts have to allow religious release time, although districts have a lot of freedom in what those policies look like. If the budget passes in its current form, public districts like Columbus City Schools will have to adjust its policies. The Senate budget says districts must allow a minimum of 33 religious release lessons per school year and that schools' RTRI policies are not allowed to 'prohibit students from bringing external educational and program materials into school.' Several central Ohio schools have implemented policies prohibiting organizations from sending students back with trinkets, candy or materials to minimize disruptions. When Ohio's biggest school district, Columbus City Schools, banned organizations from distributing materials to take back to school, LifeWise founder and CEO Joel Penton said not distributing materials would not affect how families choose to participate in LifeWise. In April, LifeWise initiated a lawsuit over policies like CCS's. See previous coverage of CCS's policy change in the video player above. LifeWise, a Hilliard-based RTRI organization that has expanded biblical education nationwide, sued Ohio educational consultant firm Neola for its sample policies, which included an option ban on distributing materials. Using First Liberty Institute's legal team, LifeWise alleged Neola's sample RTRI policies violated the First Amendment. Ohio State announces every student will use AI in class Neola senior advisor Patrick Corbett told NBC4 in April that Neola shared the policy with its hundreds of clients, all Ohio public school districts, that then chose which parts to include. LifeWise warned Neola that school districts that choose to adopt the policies it was challenging would open themselves up to lawsuits. NBC4 reached out to LifeWise for comment on the Senate budget but was referred to Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty, who represents LifeWise in its Neola case. Dys said since April, Neola has acknowledged the concerns and agreed to share them with their clients, although Neola client CCS's policy remains unchanged. Dys said he is glad to see Ohio take a stand against those policies in the state budget. 'Ohio is to be commended for its commitment to accommodate the schedules of its students to give parents the opportunity to seek a program of outside religious instruction,' Dys said. The state budget draft also acknowledges RTRI organizations' concerns about districts limiting how often students can go to those programs. These were the closest races in Ohio's primary election A school year in Ohio lasts around 36-40 weeks, with the state mandating 910 hours of instruction for K-6 grades and 1,001 for grades 7-12, with districts meeting those requirements on their own schedules. By requiring school districts to permit at least 33 RTRI sessions each year, the budget would ensure students can attend on a near-weekly basis. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost warned school districts in April against stopping RTRI groups from distributing materials or severely limiting how frequently students can attend. He agreed that banning materials could constitute a First Amendment violation and that limiting meetings could be interpreted as not properly complying with the law. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
