Committee advances bill creating state immigration division, penalizing sanctuary-city policies

The Finance, Ways and Means Committee advanced House Bill 6001 on Jan. 29, 2025, voting 19-5 to send the measure to Calendar and Rules. The bill creates a new division in the Department of Safety to coordinate state and local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities and includes language that would make establishing a “sanctuary city” policy a potential prosecutable offense.

Supporters said the bill centralizes cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and funds local participation. Leader Lambert, the bill sponsor, told the committee the legislation “creates” the division and argued it targets people who have “entered the United States illegally” and remain here without authorization. Lambert said, “We’re not gonna have sanctuary cities in this state.”

Opponents and several committee members raised constitutional and practical concerns, including whether the measure would criminalize elected officials for casting votes. Representative Parkinson repeatedly warned that under the bill “if you vote yes for it, you will be charged with a felony,” and asked how local elected officials could be subject to criminal prosecution for a legislative vote. Representative Jeremy Clemens and others pressed fiscal and scope questions.

Fiscal and administrative details were discussed at length. The sponsor and fiscal staff described a one‑time general fund appropriation of about $5.56 million for a grant program and a recurring $545,700 to fund positions in the new division. Committee members cited a possible $97,000 software change for the Department of Safety’s systems to differentiate licenses. Lambert said the license change would be “slightly different” for lawful permanent residents and legal residents and that the license term would generally match the length of authorized stay, up to eight years.

The bill refers to federal immigration law and existing state code definitions of “sanctuary city.” Committee discussion noted the Department of Justice and district attorneys retain prosecutorial discretion; the sponsor said district attorneys would have discretion on charges, while the bill also requires the attorney general to take specified actions in some circumstances. Members warned those provisions may prompt litigation and additional court costs; the fiscal note states it assumes compliance and does not anticipate a large increase in prosecutions.

On the final roll call, the committee recorded 19 ayes and 5 noes; the chair announced, “The ayes have it. So House Bill 6001 moves on to Calendar and Rules.”

The measure now goes to Calendar and Rules. The committee did not adopt any amendment that changed the bill’s central enforcement provisions during the Jan. 29 session.