Appropriations Committee advances bill creating state immigration enforcement office, ending some in‑state tuition waivers

The Florida Senate Committee on Appropriations on an informal vote reported CS for SB 2B favorably after several hours of debate over immigration enforcement, college tuition policy and how local jails would coordinate with federal authorities. Senator Gruters, sponsor of the bill, said the measure creates a state Office of Immigration Enforcement within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, funds grants to reimburse local agencies that assist federal immigration enforcement, and narrows higher‑education tuition waivers for noncitizens.

The bill’s sponsor framed it as a public‑safety and coordination measure. “This bill creates a grant program to reimburse law enforcement agencies for expenses that support enforcing federal immigration laws,” Senator Gruters said while explaining the bill to the committee. The measure names the state’s existing public‑safety official (identified in the bill as the chief immigration officer) as the central coordinator between federal immigration authorities, state entities and local law enforcement, and it creates a State Immigration Enforcement Council of sheriffs, police chiefs and the FDLE executive director to advise that officer.

Why it matters: committee proponents said the measure will give local law enforcement funds and a single state office to coordinate with federal immigration authorities, while opponents focused on the bill’s effect on college students, privacy and local agencies’ staffing and liability. Committee debate covered grant timing and amounts, how many detention beds exist in Florida, whether local jail staff can be deputized for street enforcement, and the estimated fiscal effects of ending in‑state tuition waivers for certain noncitizen students.

Key provisions - Office and council: The bill creates an Office of State Immigration Enforcement within FDLE and names a chief immigration officer. It establishes a State Immigration Enforcement Council made up of seven sheriffs, four police chiefs and the FDLE executive director; a sheriff will chair the council. - Grants and reimbursement: The bill authorizes an annual grant program to reimburse local law enforcement for expenses tied to enforcing federal immigration laws and to fund apprenticeships and recruit training salaries. Senator Gruters said prior federal reimbursements averaged about $50 per day, while county per‑inmate housing costs range "roughly between $160 and $185" per day. - Jails, detainers and beds: The bill expands earlier requirements (referenced in the hearing as prior bills) so that county jails not operated by sheriffs must enter written agreements to assist federal immigration enforcement. It requires counties and correctional facilities to report the number of vacant detention beds by March 15, 2025, and codifies that jails may provide immigration status information to ICE as needed. Committee testimony clarified that, under current practice, counties typically hold people subject to ICE detainers up to 48 hours pending federal pickup. - Bail and criminal classifications: The bill directs judges to consider immigration status in bail determinations in some cases and reclassifies certain misdemeanors at a higher degree if the defendant has a previous conviction for reentry after removal (felony reentry was already treated more severely). - Voting and education provisions: The bill raises the offense for a noncitizen voting (and anyone who helps them) to a third‑degree felony. It also removes the statutory in‑state tuition waiver for some noncitizens and requires that current waiver recipients be reevaluated under the bill’s new criteria; committee debate identified about 6,500 students currently using the waiver. - Emergency authority: The chief immigration officer would have authority analogous to the governor’s emergency powers for certain immigration emergencies; the bill includes language that the Legislature could terminate such a declared state of emergency.

Testimony and debate Supporters emphasized targeting criminal noncitizens and improving coordination with federal authorities. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri of Pinellas County told the committee the bill is focused on ‘‘criminal illegals’’ and said the current local role is limited to jail deputies and correction officers assisting with administrative immigration warrants: “The only thing that exists today is the ability for deputies who work in jails or correction officers who work in jails to assist ICE and that’s only limited to those who have been charged with a crime,” he said.

Sheriff Gualtieri and other law‑enforcement witnesses described the narrow scope of on‑the‑street immigration deputizations under current federal arrangements and said federal ICE detention capacity in Florida is constrained; witnesses cited roughly 1,500 ICE beds in the state and said those beds were about 95% full during the hearing.

Opponents and several senators focused on the bill’s education and civil‑liberties effects. Senator Smith and others questioned the repeal of in‑state tuition waivers, noting that staff analysis and witnesses placed the population using the waiver at about 6,500 students and the estimated annual fiscal impact referenced in the hearing at roughly $40–41 million. Senator Smith and public commenters asked whether affected students would be grandfathered or allowed to finish degrees; Senator Smith asked whether the $41 million is a hard, immediately reprogrammable savings (witnesses and proponents said the number is an estimate and not an immediately available cash pool).

Privacy and process questions arose: senators asked whether universities would be required to share student records with immigration authorities and whether colleges would handle re‑evaluation of current recipients. Senator Fine and the bill sponsor replied that colleges and universities would perform eligibility determinations under new criteria and that the bill’s intent was to exclude individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States from the waiver moving forward.

Procedural actions and votes at the committee - A late‑file amendment by Senator Gruters (barcode 499184) to fix a drafting error was introduced by the sponsor and adopted by voice vote (mover: Senator Gruters; seconder: not specified). The committee chair announced the amendment as adopted after a voice vote. - Senator Smith introduced a late‑file amendment (barcode 571852) that would have requested an OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability) study on the fiscal and economic impacts of fee waivers; Senator Smith later withdrew that amendment. - Senator Smith offered a handwritten late‑file amendment to remove the repeal of in‑state tuition from the bill. The committee rejected that handwritten amendment on a roll‑call vote. (Recorded roll call on the amendment: Senator Berman — Yes; Senator Broder — No; Senator Burgess — No; Senator Collins — No; Senator DeSigli — No; Senator Fine — No; Senator Grahl — No; Senator Harrell — No; Senator Martin — No; Senator McLean — No; Senator Pizzo — Yes; Senator Polsky — Yes; Senator Sharif — Yes; Senator Trump — No; Senator Wright — No; Senator Roussillon — Yes; Chair Hooper — No.) - Final action: the committee voted to report CS for SB 2B favorably. The committee roll call on the committee substitute was recorded in the hearing. (Recorded roll call on CS/SB 2B: Senator Berman — No; Senator Broder — Yes; Senator Burgess — Yes; Senator Collins — Yes; Senator DeSigli — Yes; Senator Fine — Yes; Senator Grahl — Yes; Senator Harrell — Yes; Senator Martin — Yes; Senator Pizzo — No; Senator Polsky — No; Senator Sharif — No; Senator Smith — No; Senator Trumbull — Yes; Senator Wright — Yes; Senator Roussillon — No; Chair Hooper — Yes.)

Implementation and open questions Committee discussion highlighted practical constraints and unanswered implementation details the bill leaves to follow‑up: how quickly grants will be disbursed (several senators asked for quarterly rather than annual reimbursement), who will carry the fiscal burden for the delta between ICE reimbursements and local incarceration costs, how colleges will implement new eligibility checks and what records may be shared, and how the chief immigration officer would exercise emergency powers. Sheriff testimony and staff estimates referenced a historical ICE reimbursement of roughly $50 a day compared with local incarceration costs of about $160–185 per day, and witnesses said counties have been absorbing that difference.

What’s next After the favorable committee report, CS/SB 2B was moved out of the Appropriations Committee and will proceed to the next step in the legislative process. The bill as passed out of committee contains the amendments adopted in the hearing and retains the provisions to create a state Office of Immigration Enforcement, fund grants, require jail reporting on vacant beds by March 15, 2025, reclassify certain offenses related to reentry, and repeal some in‑state tuition waivers unless later amended by the full Senate.