House immigration committee advances bill to create state immigration enforcement division, ban sanctuary policies

Representative Lambeth, sponsor of House Bill 6001, told the House Immigration Committee at an extraordinary session that the bill would create a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division (CIED) and expand state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The bill would establish the CIED inside the Tennessee Department of Safety, create grant funding to support local participation in the federal 287(g) program, require a distinct marker on certain state-issued licenses for noncitizen lawful permanent residents, and make adopting a sanctuary policy a criminal offense for local officials. The committee approved the bill as amended on a 15-6 roll call and sent it to the Finance Committee.

Why it matters: The proposal touches on public safety, local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, fiscal costs for both state and local governments, and potential constitutional questions about criminalizing certain local actions. Testimony at the committee included personal accounts from mixed-status families and legal warnings from the legislature's counsel about possible constitutional problems.

Representative Lambeth opened debate by describing what the bill would do: “This bill would create the CIED division, the Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division,” and provide incentives so local law enforcement can participate in the 287(g) program. He said the bill also would make state-issued IDs for noncitizen lawful residents visually distinct so they could not be used to register to vote.

Two public witnesses opposed the bill. Ashley Warbington, who identified herself as a native Nashvillian married to a small-business owner from Mexico, said the proposal put families at risk. “No child should have to carry that kind of worry,” Warbington said, describing her household as a mixed-status family and citing what she said were economic contributions by immigrants. She also told the committee that the fiscal note for the bill exceeded $5,500,000 for creation of the enforcement division and recurring costs for local governments.

Aiden Pratt, who said he works as a licensed CNA and patient-care technician, urged members to reject the bill, describing the consequences he said would follow for public safety and community trust. “This bill is nothing more than fascism in disguise,” Pratt said.

Representatives pressed witnesses and Department of Safety staff on details. Elizabeth Stroker, who introduced herself as legislative director and assistant general counsel for the Department of Safety, told the committee that the bill would create a division reporting to the commissioner of safety and that the fiscal note called for staffing of four individuals. She said the department's principal role under the bill would be coordinating with federal and local law enforcement and disbursing grant funding to local agencies that choose to participate in 287(g).

Committee legal counsel Matt Mundy gave oral advice to members on constitutional risk. “I do think that the application of the criminal penalty to certain categories or classes of local officials will be problematic, constitutionally,” Mundy said, noting legislative immunity and speech-and-debate protections that can shield votes and deliberations in many local legislative bodies.

Members debated multiple amendments during the hearing. Two amendments (drafting codes 2322 and 2449) were adopted early in the session; one amendment offered by Representative Fritz was withdrawn by the sponsor; several other amendments were laid on the table (tabled) after motions to lay them on the table prevailed. Representative Lambeth also said, on the adopted amendment package, that some sections of the act would take effect on becoming law while other sections would expire on Jan. 20 at 11:59 a.m. unless the General Assembly reauthorized them.

During questioning members raised several implementation questions that remained unresolved in the hearing record: how many immigrants would actually be detained under the new program; whether local jails have capacity to hold additional detainees; whether federal matching funds would be required or available; and how the criminal penalty for sanctuary policies would be enforced in practice. Department staff repeatedly said some of those operational questions were beyond the department's immediate knowledge and that local district attorneys would make prosecutorial decisions.

On a roll-call vote the committee approved the bill as amended, 15 ayes to 6 noes, sending House Bill 6001 to the Finance Committee. The vote list recorded by the clerk shows Representative Barrett, Carringer, Darby, Doggett, Eldridge, Fritz, Hurt, Lynn, Reedy, Renault, Stevens, Warner, Zachary, Vice Chair Bolso and Chair Todd voting aye; Representatives Brooks, Dixie, Hakeem, Johnson, Jones (of Davidson) and Mackenzie voting no.

What's next: The bill now moves to the Finance Committee for further consideration. Committee members asked the Department of Safety to provide follow-up information (for example, on prior interactions with ICE and on counts or metrics for 287(g) participation) before the next committee stop, according to exchange recorded in the hearing.

The committee hearing included extended questioning, public testimony, multiple offered amendments and constitutional advisories from legal counsel; the bill's passage in committee does not finalize state law and will be subject to later committee review and floor action.