Adds to existing law to provide for the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act.
Summary
House Bill 83 creates a new chapter in Idaho law called the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act. It establishes state crimes related to unlawful entry into Idaho from a foreign nation, illegal reentry after removal, and trafficking a “dangerous illegal alien,” and it adds a sentencing enhancement for certain dangerous crimes committed by a person who has previously been deported or is under an order of removal. The bill also directs custodial authorities and law enforcement to identify possible foreign nationals during booking, notify federal immigration authorities, and cooperate with federal immigration enforcement through information sharing, detainer compliance, and agreements such as 287(g).
The bill further restricts release and alternative sentencing options for people known to be illegal aliens after conviction, authorizes transport to federal facilities or other detention points, and provides immunity for officials acting in good faith under the chapter. It includes affirmative defenses and exceptions for certain lawful federal immigration statuses and for people who were not actually investigated for the underlying crime that led to detention. The act is declared severable and takes effect immediately as an emergency measure.
Impact
The bill would add a substantial new immigration-enforcement chapter to Title 18 of the Idaho Code and expand the role of state and local law enforcement and custodial authorities in immigration-related identification, notification, detention, and cooperation with federal agencies. It creates new criminal offenses and penalties, limits deferred adjudication and withheld judgments for those offenses, and imposes mandatory minimum sentencing in some cases. It also affects jail, prison, and correctional-facility release procedures by conditioning release of certain noncitizens on federal custody arrangements or DHS confirmation.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had majority support in both chambers, with House and Senate third-reading votes passing by comfortable margins, indicating generally favorable sentiment among supporters. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the bill’s repeated passage suggests it was viewed by many legislators as a priority public-safety and immigration-enforcement measure. At the same time, the size of the minority “no” votes indicates meaningful opposition remained.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s creation of state immigration crimes, its requirement that local custodial authorities cooperate with federal detainers and immigration requests, and its restrictions on release and sentencing options for noncitizens. Critics would likely focus on concerns about state-federal authority, civil liberties, due process, and the practical burden on local law enforcement and jails, while supporters would emphasize public safety, repeat-offender enforcement, and cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The bill’s broad definitions and mandatory consequences for certain noncitizens are likely to be the most disputed provisions.