Legislature passes law to ramp up deportations; critics say it will mostly target legal immigrants
In an attempt to help the Trump administration accomplish its immigration goals, the Utah Legislature passed a bill on Thursday that repeals a 2019 law shielding migrants from being deported if they commit a misdemeanor offense.
But as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, ramp up deportations, critics worry the bill will disproportionately impact immigrants with lawful status, like visa holders or refugees, while doing nothing to actually facilitate the removal of people in the country without authorization.
Sponsored by Rep. Candice Pierucci, R-Herriman, HB226 increases the maximum sentence for class A misdemeanors from 364 days, to 365. Per federal law, if an immigrant spends one year in jail or prison, it automatically initiates deportation proceedings.
The 2019 law lowered the maximum sentence by one day, which the bill's sponsor, former Rep. Eric Hutchings, at the time said was an attempt to reduce deportations.
'People with misdemeanors are getting caught up in that net, and there are automatic deportation proceedings as a result,' said Hutchings, R-Kearns, in 2019. The law passed unanimously.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
But with the Trump administration vowing to carry out mass deportations, lawmakers have reversed course. Although it's an incremental change, the one-day increase in sentencing would make it easier to deport migrants who commit crimes, regardless of their legal status.
'In 2019, we asked ICE agents why has Utah been such a magnet for illegal immigration,' said the Senate sponsor, Dan McCay, a Riverton Republican. 'Their response was, this change in policy.'
The 365-day sentence in this year's bill only applies to crimes against a person — that mostly includes violent offenses, like assault, stalking, sex crimes, child abuse or violation of a protective order. Driving under the influence was also included in the list of crimes.
The bill passed out of the Senate Thursday morning after a 21-8 vote, with Sens. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley, and Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, joining Democrats in opposition. It's now headed to the governor's desk.
The vote came after a contentious debate. Thatcher said it 'might be the worst bill I've seen this year.'
Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, who accused McCay of 'grandstanding,' said the bill robs people of due process. McCay said that idea was 'foolish.'
Both Thatcher and Escamilla worry the bill will disproportionately target legal immigrants, since people without lawful status are already being deported. ICE doesn't need a migrant in the country illegally to serve a one-year sentence to deport them — they can deport them for the lack of documentation alone.
'Right now, ICE is placing detainers on anyone with allegations. Anyone who's undocumented. So if they are arrested and they get put in jail and it's just an allegation, that starts deportation proceedings, and it doesn't matter if they're convicted or not,' said Adam Crayk, a Salt Lake City-based immigration attorney. 'You don't even need to break the law and you're deportable.'
Crayk called it a messaging bill. It shows the state is behind the Trump administration, but doesn't actually help federal immigration officials in their goal to deport people here unlawfully, he said.
'It does not really do much, but target those that are potentially already here legally,' he said.
CONTACT US
Lawmakers acknowledge that HB226 could impact all immigrants. Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Calvin Musselman, R-West Haven, told his colleagues 'it does affect those who are legally here working.'
But pointing to the list of crimes outlined in the bill, which include sex crimes, violent offenses and more, he said: 'These individuals who are causing these circumstances, maybe it is best that they be deported. These are very serious crimes.'
Escamilla offered a counterargument. An immigrant with a protective order might run into their ex-spouse at a grocery store on accident, receive a stalking conviction, spend one year in jail under the new sentencing guidelines, and automatically face deportation upon release. Instead of being able to plead their case to an immigration judge, which they would be able to do had they spent 364 days in jail, the one-year sentence removes the discretion of the courts.
'You're not even going through due process in the immigration court,' she said.
In addition to the enhanced penalty, the bill also seeks to facilitate deportations in several other ways. It would:
Direct local law enforcement to hand over immigrants to ICE after they serve one year in jail or prison, so their deportation proceedings can begin.
Require judges to consider immigrants a flight risk during criminal proceedings.
Require jail employees to provide courts and federal immigration authorities with an individual's immigration status.
The latter point also gave Crayk, and other immigration attorneys, some heartburn. Immigration law is complex, he said, and he worried that jail employees or other law enforcement officials might misrepresent a person's status.
'They have to figure out that they're unlawful, who's going to do that?' Crayk said. 'You're dealing with the most vulnerable population, then you have jail employees trying to figure out what their status is, then coordinate with ICE?'
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
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
