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
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces $1,000 government-funded accounts for American babies
Donald Trump unveiled a federal program Monday providing $1,000 government-funded investment accounts for American babies, getting backing from top business leaders who said they plan to contribute billions more to an initiative tied to 'the big beautiful bill'. At a White House roundtable with over a dozen CEOs, including from Uber, Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies, Trump relayed the details of 'Trump accounts' – tax-deferred investment accounts tracking stock market performance for children born between 2025 and 2029. 'For every US citizen born after December 31, 2024, before January 1, 2029, the federal government will make a one-time contribution of $1,000 into a tax-deferred account that will track the overall stock market,' Trump said. The accounts will be controlled by guardians and allow additional private contributions up to $5,000 annually. Trump called it 'a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation'. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is built on falsehoods about low-income families | Brigid Schulte and Haley Swenson CEOs from major companies including Michael Dell, Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, and Vladimir Tenev of Robinhood committed billions for employees' children's accounts. Trump praised the executives as 'really the greatest business minds we have today' who are 'committed to contributing millions of dollars to the Trump account'. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, also at the roundtable, championed the program, saying: 'It's a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one. Republicans are proud to be the party we always have been. It supports life and families, prosperity and opportunity.' The program passed the House as part of a massive budget bill but faces stiffer Senate Republican resistance over the broader package. The accounts cannot be implemented as a standalone program and depend entirely on passage of what Trump calls the 'one big, beautiful bill' that is 'among the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history', claiming it's 'fully funded through targeted reforms' including welfare changes and a proposed remittance tax. However, the congressional budget office last week found the bill would also add $2.4tn to the national debt over the next decade while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. The CBO analysis showed the bill, which passed the House by a single vote and no Democratic support, would leave 10.9 million more Americans without healthcare by 2034. The treasury-funded accounts, previously called 'Maga accounts' resemble existing 529 college plans but with lower contribution limits – leading some financial advisers to say the Trump accounts may not offer the best investment incentives. The move is also not without precedent: the United Kingdom operated a similar Child Trust Fund with government seed funding from 2002-2011 before discontinuing the program, while Singapore runs the Baby Bonus Scheme that includes government-matched savings accounts for children. Trump was optimistic about returns, saying beneficiaries would 'really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies into the future'. Johnson warned that failure to pass the legislation would result in 'the largest tax increase in American history' and pushed for swift congressional action on what he called 'pro-growth legislation' that would 'help every single American'. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill
Jun. 10—ALBANY — The New York state legislature has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a program supporters are calling "medical aid in dying." On Monday evening, with just a few days left for voting for the scheduled legislative session, the state Senate voted to pass its copy of the legislation. The state Assembly passed it earlier this year, and the bill now awaits Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul's decision to sign, veto or amend the legislation. Under the terms of the bill, people with a terminal illness who have an estimated six months or less before their disease will kill them can ask their physician for a prescription for life-ending drugs, which they can take home and consume on their own. The legislation has some protections, requiring a physician to evaluate the patient's ability to make decisions and refer them for psychiatric evaluation if there are questions over capacity. Patients have to make an oral and written request for the life-ending drugs, and the request be witnessed by two adults who are not closely related to the patient or likely to benefit after their death. It also permits medical professionals to recuse themselves from requests for medically assisted suicide, ordering them to refer requests they refuse to other doctors. Supporters of the bill say it will give New Yorkers suffering from terminal illnesses a safe, humane way to end their lives. They point to cases where terminally ill people have chosen to stop eating or drinking or chosen to end their lives in other, not legally sanctioned ways. Opponents of the bill raise concerns over the message it sends to sick people, that they should choose death rather than fight for their health, as well as practical concerns over whether the medication that would be prescribed could be a health hazard if not properly stored. They also expressed concerns over the bill's approach to how the death will be recorded. Under the bill's terms, someone who takes advantage of the program would have their cause of death listed as their terminal illness, not the ingestion of life-ending drugs. They also raised concerns over the lack of post-dispensation tracking for the lethal drugs, raising concerns they could be misused. The bill has circulated in Albany for nearly a decade, going most years without a floor vote in either chamber. Just last year, it lacked majority support in the Senate, but a successful lobbying effort this year pushed it to approval in the Assembly and now in the Senate. Debate stretched into Monday evening, with detractors in the Senate expressing concern. Sen. Steven D. Rhoads, R-Nassau, questioned why the bill doesn't include a specific requirement that doctors review a patient's medical records before prescribing the medication. "There is nothing in the bill that requires that," he said during floor debate. But proponents of the bill said it's a meaningful step towards medical autonomy and the right to choose — Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said that some identified gaps in the bill will be filled in the regulation-crafting process with the state Department of Health, which will be tasked with overseeing the implementation and authorization necessary to allow New York doctors and pharmacies to dispense these lethal medications. The lobbying isn't over yet. A major opponent of the bill, the New York State Catholic Conference, took to the halls of the Capitol on Monday in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill's chances in the Senate. Their effort was unsuccessful, but they've continued to push the governor to reject the bill. Sen. Mark C. Walczyk, R-Sackets Harbor, said in a statement that he was sad to see the bill pass. "I have tremendous sympathy for those with terminal illnesses and respect families who face end-of-life decisions," Walczyk said in a statement. "This legislation lacks critical protections for the vulnerable, structurally incentivizes suicide, and devalues human life. We need only look at the examples of states and nations that have promoted this policy. Instead of providing an option for individuals to end their lives, we should focus on improving health care for the vulnerable and enhancing hospice and palliative care for the terminally ill to ensure that every New Yorker has access to compassionate support during their most vulnerable moments, rather than offering a misguided solution that encourages despair."
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole
Senate Republicans are proposing the elimination of penalties for not abiding by certain fuel efficiency standards. These penalties would render regulatory credits, an incentive for auto companies to abide by the standards, essentially useless. Tesla relies on these credits for a chunk of its revenue, racking up $2.67 billion from them in 2024. As Tesla stock sputters following CEO Elon Musk's feud with President Donald Trump, the EV maker is facing yet another threat from the administration. Republicans are doubling down on efforts to weaken carbon emission standards for the auto industry, which have provided opportunities for companies producing eco-friendly vehicles, such as Tesla, to receive and sell regulatory credits for profit. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation proposed last week eliminating penalties for companies not meeting certain economy fuel standards set to mitigate carbon emissions. The proposal is included in the committee's portion of Trump's sweeping budget bill. After Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were introduced in 1975 as a means of setting standards for fuel efficiency, a credits program emerged following lobbying efforts from auto companies looking to be paid to produce lower emission vehicles. Auto companies that produce a certain amount of energy-efficient cars are given a number of credits, depending on how eco-friendly their manufactured vehicles are. Companies are required to have a certain number of credits annually. While Tesla is able to easily attain these credits as a producer of cars that don't run on gas, other manufacturers, like Ford and Stellantis, are not. Therefore, they buy credits from Tesla, who can sell those credits for practically 100% profit. The Senate committee's proposal would eliminate certain CAFE penalties, rendering the need to have credits useless, Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, told Fortune in an email. 'It also would essentially turn the CAFE standards into nothing more than a reporting requirement with no consequences for automakers who fail to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell,' he said. The committee argued the provision would 'modestly' bring down the cost of cars by eliminating CAFE penalties. These CAFE credits have been a boon for Tesla, which has been battered by CEO Musk's controversial involvement in—and departure from—the Trump administration. The EV-maker made $2.76 billion from regulatory credits in fiscal 2024 and $595 million in the first quarter of 2025, according to earnings reports. Tesla reported $420 million in net income the same quarter, meaning without the regulatory credit, the company would not have been profitable. 'A key element of Tesla's profitability has been its ability to generate credits because it makes zero emissions, and sell those credits to more polluting car companies like GM and Ford and Stellantis—primarily gas-guzzlers that don't really want to make clean cars,' Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Fortune. 'By taking away these credits, they're taking away a key element of Tesla's profitability,' he added. Tesla did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. The Senate committee's proposal is one of several efforts by the Trump administration to cut auto sustainability standards. Last month the Senate passed legislation blocking a California effort to ban gas-powered vehicles and mandate sales of only zero-emission cars and light trucks by 2035. The bill, should it be signed by the president, would take a $2 billion bite out of Tesla's revenue, according to JPMorgan analysts. Also in Trump's massive budget bill is the elimination at the end of this year of tax credits up to $7,500 for buyers of certain Tesla and other EV models, which would cost $1.2 billion of Tesla's full-year profit, the analysts calculated. Tesla's credit headaches extend across the Atlantic Ocean. Regulatory credits are common in Europe and Asia, and the European Union, for example, gives credits to European automakers who sell a certain number of zero-emission cars. But as Tesla sales crater overseas—including falling by 49% in April—the EV maker may not be able to reach the number of sales necessary to gain credits. As of April, Tesla—grouped with Ford and Stellantis in a manufacturing pool to achieve the EU's emission standards—are still short of the target, according to a report from the International Council on Clean Transportation. Poor sales could jeopardize Tesla's ability to rack up credits. 'If things go bad for Tesla and they don't sell enough cars this year, they might not have enough credits for what they promised Stellantis and the others,' ICCT managing director Peter Mock told Politico in March. 'Tesla is under pressure.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
