Crimes: other; illegal immigration; prohibit, and provide penalties. Creates new act.
SB 44 would create a new Michigan act making certain immigration-related conduct a state crime. It would criminalize an alien’s entry or attempted entry into Michigan at a location other than a lawful port of entry, and it would also criminalize being found in the state after prior denial of admission, exclusion, deportation, or removal from the United States. The bill sets misdemeanor penalties for first offenses and escalates repeat or aggravated violations to felonies with longer prison terms and higher fines.
The bill also authorizes courts to issue orders requiring covered individuals to return to the foreign nation from which they entered or attempted to enter, and it directs law enforcement to collect fingerprints and other biometric information before such orders are issued. It bars courts from delaying prosecution because federal immigration status determinations are pending, and it creates special protections for enforcement actions by state and local officials, including immunity from certain lawsuits, indemnification for damages and attorney fees, and attorney general representation for state actors.
If enacted, SB 44 would add a state-level immigration enforcement scheme to Michigan law, creating new criminal offenses, sentencing ranges, and court-ordered removal procedures tied to federal immigration classifications. It would affect noncitizens who enter without inspection, those previously removed or ordered removed, and those who refuse a court order to leave the state. The bill would also impose duties on law enforcement and courts, while limiting arrests at schools, houses of worship, and health care facilities for enforcement of these offenses. In addition, it would expand legal protections and financial backing for state and local officials, employees, and contractors involved in enforcement, including immunity, indemnification, and defense costs.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall posture appears strongly enforcement-oriented and supportive of aggressive state action on immigration. The bill’s structure suggests a clear intent to deter unlawful entry and presence through criminal penalties and to shield public officials from legal exposure when carrying out enforcement duties. Because no committee transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no documented recorded opposition or support in the supplied context beyond the bill’s own policy design.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s attempt to create state crimes tied to federal immigration status, its use of criminal penalties for entry and presence, and its broad enforcement mandate for state and local officials. Potential critics would likely focus on federal preemption, due process, and the practical and fiscal burdens of state immigration enforcement, while supporters would emphasize deterrence and cooperation with removal orders. Another likely flashpoint is the immunity and indemnification provisions, which shift legal and financial risk from individual officers to governments, and the carve-outs that prohibit arrests at schools, religious institutions, and health care facilities, which may be seen either as necessary protections or as limitations on enforcement.