Idaho bill to let police assist in immigration enforcement sent for amendments
More than 100 people march outside of the Idaho State Capitol in Boise holding Mexican flags and signs protesting President Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 7, 2025 (Mia Maldonado / Idaho Capital Sun)
Idaho legislators are working to combine two immigration-related bills this legislative session.
On Friday, the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee voted to send House Bill 83 to the 14th order, which means it will receive amendments before a full Senate vote.
The bill, which already passed the Idaho House in a 61-9 vote, would allow law enforcement to record a person's documentation status only if they are already detained or under investigation for a crime. If an individual involved in a crime is found to be living in Idaho without legal authorization, they would face a misdemeanor charge for 'illegal entry.' A second offense would result in a felony charge, and a conviction would lead to deportation.
Bill sponsor Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, said he is working to combine the bill with Senate Bill 1039, sponsored by Senate Pro Tem Kelly Anthon, R-Burley.
Introduced in late January, Senate Bill 1039 would ban immigration sanctuaries in Idaho, criminalize the presence of 'dangerous illegal aliens,' and prohibit their transportation into the state. It would also require law enforcement to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
Lakey said combining the two bills would align Idaho law enforcement efforts with federal immigration enforcement, rather than treating deportation as a separate state action.
Rudy Rodriguez, a retired policeman from Burley, testified in opposition to the legislation. He said his main concern is racial profiling.
'I'm sure that you guys haven't been stopped and asked for your papers and asked where you come from, but let me tell you about my history,' he said, and proceeded to share a story of when his fifth-grade teacher asked all the Hispanic and Native American kids to go outside to get checked for lice, leaving the white students inside.
'The other day, I was in a restaurant and a gentleman in front of me told me, 'you better enjoy your time here in Idaho, because they're going to deport you.'' Rodriguez said. 'I'm a U.S. citizen.'
In response to testimony, Anthon said he is proud to represent one of Idaho's most Hispanic districts and he loves his city, which according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 38% Hispanic.
'If there is ever an instance in the state of Idaho where someone is discriminated against because of their ethnicity or their background, to hell with them!' Anthon said. 'It's wrong, and it has no place in the state of Idaho, and I condemn it. But it has not changed the fact that we have a problem on our southern border, we've got to do something about it.'
Anthon said the legislation is focused on preventing unauthorized immigrants with a criminal history from coming into Idaho, not individuals who commit infractions like a speeding ticket.
'I will continue to fight for that and I will continue to fight for my friends who are Hispanic in this state to make sure they are not discriminated against, and the two can be together,' Anthon said.
The committee voted along party lines to advance the bill, with Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, being the only opposing vote.
'We're the ones who invite undocumented workers to come over and help us fill job requirements that Americans won't do, and to pretend otherwise is insulting to ourselves, and it's insulting to those hard working Hispanic families that come over here and integrate themselves into our communities,' Ruchti told the committee.
Ruchti said he would prefer unauthorized immigrants who do commit crimes to leave, but overall, he said immigrant families contribute to Idaho communities.
'They make them better places to live,' Ruchti said. 'Our kids go to school with them. They grow up with them. They enjoy friendships with them. So, yeah, I am insulted by the bill. I'll be voting no.'
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
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people . The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A Black job applicant who alleged that gas station chain Sheetz disproportionately screened out Black, Native American, Alaskan Native and multiracial applicants moved to continue his case June 5 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission abandoned it. EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2024 alleging that Sheetz maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for past criminal convictions and rejected those with such records. This practice violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC said in a press release, because it had a disparate impact on applicants of certain racial backgrounds. However, the agency moved to have the case dismissed last week because it determined that the disparate-impact claims would conflict with President Donald Trump's April 23 executive order directing agencies to cease enforcement of such claims. EEOC asked the court to defer dismissal of its claims by 60 days to allow the commission to notify class members so that they could obtain private representation. The legality of Trump's executive order on disparate-impact claims proved contentious, with one of EEOC's own administrative judges calling the order 'highly illegal.' But the June 5 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is one of the first examples in which the order has been put into practice. Trump said the end of disparate-impact liability enforcement was necessary because it inhibited businesses from hiring applicants on the basis of merit and skill. He also said that disparate-impact liability is unconstitutional and 'threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.' The push to end disparate-impact liability is one of the goals stated by the conservative Heritage Foundation in its 'Project 2025' presidential transition document. The organization wrote that the concept should be thrown out because under disparate-impact theory, 'discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities.' That logic has been met with resistance by former Democratic officials of the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC, who said in May that disparate-impact liability is explicitly outlawed under Title VII and has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The former officials cautioned employers that they should avoid following Trump's executive order so they do not violate federal laws. 'Disparate impact liability is a necessary element of advancing equal opportunity for all, consistent with America's national commitment to equal justice,' the officials wrote. In a press release, plaintiff-side firm Outten & Golden, which is partly representing the job applicant in the Sheetz case, said EEOC had spent nearly a decade investigating the claims at issue and had found a basis to allege evidence of systemic discrimination. 'Our client has a right to be judged on his qualifications, and not to be denied a livelihood by policies that exclude people with stale convictions that are unrelated to the job,' said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center and a co-representative for the plaintiff, said in the press release. 'When the government steps back, we step in. We will not allow political interference to wipe out hard-won legal protections.' A similar dynamic played out following EEOC's abandonment of several lawsuits it filed on behalf of transgender workers alleging discrimination following an executive order from Trump. Advocacy groups have since filed to intervene on behalf of plaintiffs in those cases. Recommended Reading Shell Oil did not discriminate in hiring decision, 5th Cir. says
