The Utah Senate shut down this House immigration bill. Why?
House Republicans launched the 2025 legislative session with a package of bills that would increase the consequences for immigration-related crimes.
After six weeks of work, the Senate is slamming the door on some of them in a stated effort to limit the number of new criminal enhancements, while letting some pass through if they slim up.
Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, told the Deseret News on Friday that the Senate is applying strict scrutiny because the House filed around 80 bills this session that would toughen up law enforcement responses.
Senate Judiciary Chair Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, told Rep. Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, on Friday that he needed to be convinced
Wilcox's bill, which enhanced penalties for street gang recruitment and theft, was necessary.
'We can't continue to enhance everything every year,' Weiler said. 'It's an unsustainable course.'
On Friday, the Senate Transportation Committee signaled the end of the road for Rep. Matt MacPherson's proposal that would have discouraged unlicensed driving, with little discussion even after the bill passed with large margins in the House.
The bill, HB392, was brought forward at the request of law enforcement across the state who reported a surge in interactions with drivers without a license.
In 2023, unlicensed drivers made up nearly 50% of the 2,000 serious car crashes in West Valley City, according to data published by the city police department. Nearly 50% of individuals identified in hit-and-runs were also unlicensed.
The bill would have allowed law enforcement to seize a vehicle without a warrant if the driver did not possess a driver's license, permit or privilege card.
In addition to increasing the penalty for driving without a license from an infraction to a misdemeanor, the bill would have implemented towing and identification requirements similar to those followed by police officers in cases of reckless driving or driving under the influence.
One of the biggest problems highlighted by law enforcement that the bill would have addressed was the inability for police to ticket these drivers because many of them do not have identification. The bill would have required police to take a quick fingerprint of an unlicensed driver.
Following the hearing, MacPherson, R-West Valley, said the Senate's goal of filtering out criminal enhancements should not be applied indiscriminately based solely on factors like jail capacity or funding.
'I think that unless it is done with careful thought, you risk ignoring real problems in our communities that still rely on the rule of law,' MacPherson said.
The Senate has shown a desire to address an increase in immigrant crime after four years of historic immigration as long as it pertains to repeat offenders or is very narrowly tailored to violent crimes.
On Thursday, the Senate presented its consensus immigration law enforcement bill to the House where it received a unanimous recommendation for a floor vote with just one week left in the 2025 legislative session.
SB90, Mandatory Jail Sentence Amendments, would require mandatory jail sentences for drug and theft crimes committed by individuals who were previously convicted of one of these crimes, deported and then found to have reentered the country illegally.
Bill sponsor Sen. Calvin Musselman, R-West Haven, referred to one instance of an unauthorized immigrant apprehended by local law enforcement who had previously been deported 11 times.
'They were clearly tied to organized crime,' Musselman said. 'There's almost a revolving door there. ... That's what this is trying to stop.'
Musselman's bill would require someone who is convicted of a crime in Utah following criminal reentry into the United States to be sentenced with at least 90 days in jail for a class C misdemeanor, 180 days for a class B misdemeanor and 360 days for a class A misdemeanor or felony.
The bill would prohibit an individual who receives one of these mandatory jail sentences from being turned over to the federal government for deportation until the person has served the entire mandatory jail sentence.
It would allow local law enforcement to coordinate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on deportation proceedings during the 14-day period before the final day of the individual's jail sentence.
One of the central House bills related to state and national efforts to address crimes committed by immigrants underwent significant changes before the Senate said it could advance for a floor vote.
Rep. Candice Pierucci's HB226 would partially reverse a 2019 law, passed unanimously, that decreased the maximum sentence for a class A misdemeanor by one day, to 364 days, in an attempt to skirt federal immigration policy that allows the immediate deportation of legal or illegal immigrants who are sentenced to 365 days or more.
After her bill failed in committee earlier this week, Pierucci, R-Riverton, was able to bring it back on Friday on the condition that she removed certain provisions.
The bill originally increased penalties for nonprofit groups that knowingly transported unauthorized immigrants into the state. This portion was removed, as was language allowing DUI's to trigger automatic deportation.
The current version of the bill would increase the minimum sentence by one day only for violent class A misdemeanors like sexual abuse and assault.
During meetings with ICE officials over the last year, the state's one-day sentencing reduction was repeatedly identified as an obstacle for federal authorities seeking to work with Utah law enforcement to deport immigrants who are in the country illegally, Pierucci said.
'Our 364 to 365 did make Utah somewhat of a target and somewhat of a magnet and made it difficult for us to work with ICE as they worked on deportation,' Pierucci told committee members.
Pierucci's bill would codify law enforcement best practices of coordinating with federal immigration authorities before releasing an immigrant charged with a class A misdemeanor or a felony.
It would also require the immigration status of arrested individuals to be submitted to a court as part of the probable cause statement and would give judges the presumption that individuals are considered a flight risk for bail if they are not lawfully present in the country.
Escamilla voted against the bill, along with Weiler, arguing the bill would have a disproportionate affect on immigrants lawfully in the country, like green card holders, refugees and temporary visa recipients.
'These are misdemeanors and they are misdemeanors for a reason. And the moment we trigger that piece it's a completely different impact for lawfully present individuals,' Escamilla said.
But this kind of disagreement is what makes the the bicameral system best for making good policy, according to Pierucci.
On Wednesday, Musselman and Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, voted against Pierucci's bill. Three days later, after Pierucci narrowed the size and scope of her bill, they jumped on board.
'The House and Senate are very different,' Pierucci said. 'This is the way the process works.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers
Jun. 9—AUGUSTA — A proposal to allow doctors to waive the waiting period for terminally ill patients who want to be given life-ending drugs drew an emotional debate from lawmakers in the Maine Senate Monday before it was rejected by one vote. The fate of the bill is unclear after the Senate voted the proposal down 18-17. It passed 74-64 in the House of Representatives last week and faces another round of votes in each chamber before it could be sent to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature. The bill would amend a 2019 law known as the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in Maine. It allows certain terminally ill patients to have the option to receive life-ending medication so they have control over their death. Maine's law currently requires a 17-day waiting period from when a person requests the medication to when they can receive the prescription. The change under consideration, LD 613, would allow a doctor to waive all or a portion of the waiting period if they determine it would be in the patient's best interest. Mills supported the original Death with Dignity Act, but it's unclear if she would support the change. Spokespeople for the governor did not respond Monday to questions about whether she has taken a position on the bill. The proposal allowing for the waiting period to be waived drew emotional debate from lawmakers who spoke about how they've personally been affected by illness and death. "This is not an abstract issue for me," said Rep. Kathy Javner, R-Chester, who has metastatic breast cancer, during last week's House debate. "I am living this reality and stand before you today, not in despair, but in hope that we can preserve the dignity and meaning of life, even in the shadow of death." Javner, who was against the change, said removing the waiting period would take away the time that families and physicians currently have to reflect and consider alternative options. "Let us not respond to suffering with surrender," Javner said. "Let us respond with compassion, with presence, with resources for pain management, with palliative care, with love." Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, talked about his mother, who died at age 50 from colorectal cancer, during Monday's Senate debate. Stewart said his mother "broke out" of hospice care in order to be at home with her family at the end of her life. "I will always be grateful for that extra month we got," Stewart said. "I worry about the scenarios about what if they don't get it right and what opportunities are we forestalling through this," he added. "This was the promise that was made originally with this policy, that there wouldn't be that knee-jerk opportunity because of this protection." Maine is among 10 states and Washington, D.C., where physician-assisted suicide is legal for people with terminal illnesses, according to Death With Dignity, an organization in Portland, Oregon, that advocates for the laws as a means of improving how people with such diagnoses die. Waiting periods for medication vary state to state and can range from one day to more than two weeks, according to Death With Dignity. Some states do allow waiting periods to be waived if the patient is unlikely to survive. Maine's Death with Dignity Act has been used by 218 people since it was enacted, according to Michele Meyer, D-Eliot, the sponsor of LD 613. But another nine people have died during the waiting period because their illnesses progressed too rapidly, Meyer said last week. She said the bill does not change the law's criteria that the patient be terminally ill with a six-month prognosis confirmed by two doctors and that they have the capacity to make informed decisions. "This is simple and straight forward," Meyer said. "It corrects a rare situation that never should have existed in the first place. Some of us will not know the gift of a long, healthy life. ... Medical aid in dying offers decisionally capable adults an option to avoid prolonged suffering." In the Senate Monday, Sen. Tim Nangle, D-Windham, talked about his father's lung cancer and the pain he suffered. Nangle said he didn't know if his father, who lived in another state, would have used the Death with Dignity Act, but he said the option for the time waiver should be there. "This is about their choice," Nangle said. "What do they want to do?" Copy the Story Link


Hamilton Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Auditor general's report on company behind ArriveCan to be released today
OTTAWA - The latest probe into the company behind the controversial ArriveCan app is among four reports being released today by Canada's auditor general. Karen Hogan looked into all contracts awarded and payments made to GC Strategies for its work on the app to determine whether they were in line with government policy and whether the government got value for taxpayers' money. In September, the House of Commons unanimously agreed to ask Hogan to look into the contracts and her report is set to be tabled in the House around 10 a.m. ET. As of March 2024, GC Strategies — a two-man team which last week was banned from entering into contracts or real property agreements with the federal government for seven years — had received $100 million in federal government contracts since 2011. Hogan's previous report on the app's development found it did not deliver the best value to taxpayers and concluded that three federal departments disregarded federal policies, controls and transparency in the contracting process. GC Strategies received nearly a third of the $60 million total cost of the ArriveCan project, despite being awarded contracts through non-competitive processes. Hogan also will table a report today on Canada's plans to purchase F-35 fighter jets and whether the Department of National Defence ensured the aircraft would be delivered on time and on budget. Another report will look at whether the government provides adequate office space for public servants while minimizing costs to taxpayers. Canada's environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco will also table four reports today, including an audit of the National Adaptation Strategy, the federal government's $2.1 billion initiative to help communities withstand the impacts of climate change. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025.

USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at