IMMIGRATION STATUS AND NATIONALITY OF ARRESTED INDIVIDUALS – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the immigration status and nationality of arrested individuals.
House Bill 660 would require all Idaho law enforcement agencies, when carrying out criminal justice functions, to verify and record the immigration status and nationality of any person who is arrested. The bill defines key terms such as “administration of criminal justice,” “arrest,” “immigration status,” and “law enforcement agency,” and it directs agencies to collect this information as part of routine criminal justice processing.
The bill also requires local, county, and state agencies to publish biannual reports beginning no later than October 1, 2026. Those reports must include the immigration status and nationality of criminal offenders, statistics on foreign nationals arrested in Idaho, the number of inadmissible aliens investigated, apprehended, detained, and transferred to federal officials, the crimes involved, and any reasons for noncompliance. The measure includes an enforcement mechanism allowing state funding to be withheld from agencies that do not comply, and it is declared an emergency measure effective July 1, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Title 67, Chapter 30 of the Idaho Code governing criminal justice information practices. It would impose new recordkeeping and reporting duties on state, county, and local law enforcement agencies, and it would create a potential fiscal penalty for noncompliance through withholding of state funding. The bill would affect arrested individuals, criminal justice agencies, and state oversight of immigration-related arrest data, while also increasing the amount of immigration-related information collected and published by public agencies.
The available voting history suggests the bill received meaningful support but also notable opposition, passing House Third Reading 40-27. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to show specific arguments, but the vote indicates the measure was politically divisive rather than broadly consensus-driven. The bill’s framing around immigration enforcement and reporting likely contributed to the split.
The main point of contention is the requirement that law enforcement verify, record, and publicly report immigration status and nationality for arrested individuals, which raises concerns about immigration enforcement, data collection, and the role of local agencies in federal immigration matters. Another likely source of disagreement is the funding penalty for noncompliance, since withholding state funds could be viewed as coercive by local governments and law enforcement agencies. Supporters would likely view the bill as improving transparency and enforcement, while opponents may see it as burdensome, stigmatizing, or an expansion of state involvement in immigration-related policing.