Idaho bill allowing law enforcement to engage in immigration heads to House floor
A bill meant to regulate unauthorized immigration in Idaho is headed to the Idaho House floor.
On Wednesday, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted to advance House Bill 83 to the House floor with a recommendation that it pass. The bill would create a new crime known as illegal entry. A violation of being in Idaho without proper authorization would result in a misdemeanor charge, and a second occurrence would lead to a felony charge. However, law enforcement would only be allowed to take action regarding a person's immigration status if that person is already being detained or investigated for a separate crime.
The bill is an iteration of legislation first introduced in 2024, when sponsor Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, introduced it as a replica of a controversial Texas law allowing law enforcement to detain people suspected of not having legal authorization to be in the country. Crane's bill passed the Idaho House floor, but it died when the Idaho Legislature adjourned in April.
Crane introduced the bill again on Jan. 14, but he has since redrafted it after receiving feedback from Idaho homebuilders groups and the Idaho Dairymen's Association. The new iteration says law enforcement may get involved in immigration enforcement 'only when a person is detained or investigated for suspected commission of an independent crime.'
'The purpose of this legislation is to give our state and local law enforcement agencies the ability to work with the Trump administration and the federal agents in order to curtail this issue,' Crane told the committee.
Co-sponsor Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, said the changes in the bill are to target unauthorized immigrants in Idaho who already have a criminal record, particularly people involved in gangs.
'We do not want our police to go searching through neighborhoods and (saying) 'we're looking for anybody that doesn't look like us,'' Skaug said. 'We don't want that. I spoke with our Sheriffs Association… They have no interest in that kind of enforcement, nor do they have the manpower.'
Skaug said the bill would not allow law enforcement officers to request proof of citizenship when stopping people for infractions.
'Crimes are not getting a traffic ticket,' Skaug said. 'That's an infraction. But if you're being investigated for an actual crime or charged with an actual crime, then you may be cited for the misdemeanor portion of this bill.'
Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, said he appreciates the changes that have been done to the bill, but he said he is concerned that this bill is unconstitutional, and undermines the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause which establishes immigration law as a federal matter. A lawsuit related to this bill would come at the expense of Idaho taxpayers, he said.
'There's plenty of precedent behind that,' Achilles said. 'So, how are we crafting this bill in a way where it's going to be treated differently from the Texas version that's in the courts right now?'
Skaug said he believes Idaho's bill is a better bill than Texas's bill, which immediately faced legal challenges from the U.S. Department of Justice and Immigration and immigration advocacy organizations that prevented it from taking effect, the Texas Tribune reported.
'I'm not worried about the Supremacy Clause on our bill, especially with the current administration and the changes that they're making,' Skaug said. 'I don't think we're gonna get sued by the federal government on this.'
Three people testified to the committee, all of whom were in favor, including Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris and Bob Naerebout, the director of government affairs for the Idaho Dairymen's Association.
According to the bill's fiscal note, its passage would require a $250,000 supplemental appropriation for the 2025 fiscal year, and a $1 million general fund appropriation for the 2026 fiscal year. Crane said the funds represent what it would cost law enforcement to transport unauthorized immigrants from Idaho to the southern border.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
Local school funding shouldn't have to pass Washington's political tests
Education in the U.S. has always been primarily a state and local responsibility. The U.S. Constitution leaves education to the states, which is why decisions about funding, curriculum, governance, licensure and standards have always been made primarily at the state and local levels. The federal role in education has historically been limited to targeted support, particularly for disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English learners, and teacher development. Various federal programs exist to provide additional capacity to schools that need it most. These aren't mechanisms of control, but levers of support. Yet, recent actions by the current administration have exposed something far more troubling than the myth of federal dominance: the increasing politicization of even the federal government's limited role in education. On July 1, roughly $6.8 billion in K-12 funds — primarily Title II-A (professional development), Title III (English-language learner programs) and Title IV (student support and enrichment services) — were frozen. The administration's stated reason for the freeze? A review to determine whether any of the funds had previously supported what they called radical ' left-wing ' or woke agendas. In other words, essential programs that provide professional learning for teachers, academic support for English learners and enrichment opportunities for students were halted — not because of financial mismanagement or program failure, but because of ideological suspicion. The funds were only partially released weeks later, and then ultimately restored after a public backlash. But this set a dangerous precedent that federal education funds can be weaponized to enforce political litmus tests. On the one hand, critics argue the federal government has too much influence in schools and should pull back. On the other, those same critics used the limited leverage it does have — namely funding — as a partisan cudgel. The message isn't really about local control. It's about controlling the narrative. The fear isn't just that support will be withdrawn, but that programs serving vulnerable students and supporting educators will become unstable and unreliable, depending on who is in power and what political winds are blowing. For some districts — especially in rural or under-resourced areas — federal funding for professional development is the only consistent stream of support for teacher training and leadership development. Without those dollars, districts cancel training sessions, delay school improvement initiatives and scale back on instructional coaching. These investments, drawn from the small share of federal funding schools receive, don't promote partisanship, they promote professional excellence. Similarly, funds for multilingual learners, academic enrichment and mental health services are vital to student success. Freezing these programs over political talking points doesn't protect students, it harms them. The outcome isn't ideological clarity, it's teacher and school administrator burnout, stalled progress and disrupted learning. The myth of overwhelming federal control obscures the real issue: a lack of stable, coordinated and protected systems to support the people doing the hard work of educating children. Instead of building resilience and coherence into our educational infrastructure, we're increasingly allowing national support to be swayed by partisan distrust. What makes this moment especially unsettling is that the recent freeze on federal funds wasn't a failure of law, it was a breach of trust. No one ever expected that professional development for teachers and school leaders, expanded mental health supports, or academic assistance for English learners would become the target of ideological review. That's not because rules prevented it, but because, historically, leaders of both parties understood that some areas of education should remain above the political fray. The contradiction is especially stark when those calling to eliminate the Department of Education in the name of 'local control' are the same ones now using federal dollars as political weapons. We need stronger protections against political interference in educational support. That could include bipartisan guardrails requiring congressional notification or bipartisan sign-off before any mid-year freeze of formula or entitlement programs, as well as state-level contingency funds to maintain continuity during funding disruptions. Program audits should be led by professional educators, not political appointees, and spending reviews should focus on purpose and outcomes, not ideology. In my work with school districts across the country, I've seen firsthand how fragile these systems are, and how powerful they can be when funded and prioritized. If we truly want schools to succeed, we must treat educator support — and equitable, adequate funding of education — as a shared national investment, not a partisan battleground. States already control most aspects of education. Federal involvement has always been limited and mostly financial, making up only a small percentage of total school funding — but that small share has become essential for many districts to survive. What's missing is the will to consistently and equitably invest in the people who make schools work. Rather than railing against a phantom threat of federal overreach, the conversation should shift to what really matters: ensuring stable, equitable and consistent investment in public education, free from ideological interference. It's not about who controls education. It's about who's actually supporting it. Chad McLeod is the founder of Sociis Education, an organization that partners with schools and districts to strengthen professional development and leadership capacity for educators.
The Hill
6 days ago
- The Hill
60 percent blame Trump for high costs amid expensive Air Force One, ballroom projects
The U.S. economy isn't in a recession — yet. And hopefully, it won't be. But according to Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, the number of industries cutting back on headcount is … well, concerning. Meanwhile, Americans are struggling — grappling with debt, the rising cost of living, and a general sense that their dollar just isn't going far enough. And they're not just blaming 'the economy' in the abstract. Six out of 10 Americans say the Trump administration is driving up their cost of living, according to a new Morning Consult poll. But there's one person who doesn't seem to be feeling the pinch. President Donald Trump is spending millions of dollars and accepting literal gold gifts, which feels wildly out of touch with everyday Americans. Last week, Donald Trump received a glass disc with a 24-karat gold base from Apple CEO Tim Cook. Earlier this year, he accepted a $400 million jet from the Qatari royal family, worth over 100 times more than all foreign gifts given to U.S. presidents combined since 2001. And get this: it could cost up to $1 billion to renovate. He's also reimagined the Oval Office, drenching it in gold, from the stars surrounding the presidential seal on the ceiling to the statues on the fireplace mantel. And it emerged last week that Trump intends to build an enormous $200 million ballroom for hosting official receptions — one of the biggest White House projects in more than a century. Take a look: 'So we'll start in two months maybe, two and a half months, and we'll have it completed in less than two years. It's a very incredible structure — a lot of it's interior work, it's gonna be beautiful, because normally I can build a building like that in four, five months, but it's very intricate, beautiful, beautiful — the best marbles.' And who's paying for this? White House officials say Trump and 'unspecified donors.' If it's a gift, it could raise both ethical and legal questions, potentially violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which exists to block this type of thing. Democrats are skeptical. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at a press briefing, 'Listen, I'm happy to eat my cheeseburger at my desk. I don't need a $200 million ballroom to eat it in. OK?' And many Americans feel the same. Sure, White House upgrades might look impressive. And yes, gold gifts make for great photo ops. But while the president is basking in marble and chandeliers, millions of Americans are just trying to make rent, keep groceries on the table and pay off their credit cards. When the person in the highest office is spending and receiving millions frivolously, while the rest of the country is tightening its belt, it's not just bad optics — it's a reminder of exactly how far removed our leaders can be from the lives of the people they represent.
Indianapolis Star
08-08-2025
- Indianapolis Star
Do ICE detainees have a right to due process? Micah Beckwith's immigration comments go viral
Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said in a now-viral town hall recording this week that ICE detainees at Camp Atterbury do not have a right to due process or to see a judge, and drew a comparison to the United States' response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in World War II. Immigration attorneys say this is patently false and an alarming comparison to make. "He's so absolutely wrong," said Buck Shomo, a longtime immigration attorney in central Indiana. At the town hall in Vigo County on Aug. 4, an attendee asked whether state leaders would make sure immigrant detainees at Camp Atterbury see due process. "So due process in this situation is, are you here legally?" Beckwith, a Republican, responded. When pressed about the opportunity to come before a judge, Beckwith added, "They don't have a right to see a judge." He then asked, "When the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor, did we give them due process?" During that time, Japanese citizens and non-citizens were forcibly taken to internment camps in a move that later presidencies officially declared unjust. President Ronald Reagan signed a law giving reparations to former detainees. Beckwith doubled down on his comments when reached by IndyStar on Aug. 8, reiterating that "constitutional rights don't apply to people who are here illegally." But Beckwith said noncitizens should still be treated with "dignity and respect" "I'm not saying be undignified or treat them with a lack of respect," he said. "But there's a big difference between giving somebody a day in court, paying for a lawyer for them by the people and their tax dollars." The U.S. Constitution grants due-process rights to all "persons" on American soil. There are some circumstances where noncitizens may not see a judge, immigration attorney Sarah Burrow said. For example, if a person had received a removal order in the past and then re-enters unlawfully, ICE can reinstate that removal order without the need for another hearing. There's also a process known as expedited removals. This used to be for people who are found within a certain mile-range of the border and who had only very recently crossed unlawfully. The Trump administration has expanded the application of expedited removals to longer time periods and to any location in the United States, but even so, people placed in this category have the right to request asylum. Outside of those exceptions, removal proceedings must include a hearing, she said. "(Beckwith) is making very clear that he believes if you enter this country unlawfully, then you have no right to due process, and that is patently false," she said. "This is sensationalism, it is playing to the base, it's legally incorrect." Making the comparison to the treatment of the Japanese during World War II is like "saying the quiet part out loud," she said. "So are they ICE detention facilities or are they internment camps? That would be my question," she said. In referencing the Japanese, Beckwith said a reason they didn't get due process is that they invaded the country. To Shomo, this comparison also further demonizes immigrants and seems like a "dog whistle." "To characterize this as an invasion is a cynical way to play on racial fears," he said.
