Committee hears sharply divided testimony on bill to require cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; amendment to narrow violent-crime definition wins

Members of the House Operations Committee heard competing testimony March 12 on House File 16, a bill that would change state data-practices and law-enforcement reporting rules to facilitate information sharing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The committee approved a narrow A1 amendment that limits the change to section 3 of the bill's language on violent crimes, then laid the bill over.

The author explained the amendment would replace a cross-reference that defined "crime of violence" with a different statutory cross-reference that the author said better captures the statute's intent. After nonpartisan staff confirmed the amendment applies only to section 3, the committee adopted the A1 amendment by majority vote. The committee did not complete final action on the underlying bill and laid it over for further consideration.

Supporters described the bill as restoring interagency information sharing that aids public safety. David Zimmer, public-safety policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment and a retired law-enforcement captain, said cooperation with federal partners such as ICE is appropriate and often necessary. "It is completely appropriate for law enforcement to collect as much biographical data as they can on those that they detain," Zimmer said, and he urged members to "vote yes on House file 16."

Opponents said the bill is broader than its sponsors portray and would damage public-safety relationships with immigrant communities. Mary Niedermeier, CEO of CAPI and a member of the North Star Alliance, told the committee the bill "will harm public safety by eroding trust between local and state government agencies and immigrant communities." She argued some municipal agencies choose not to redirect scarce resources toward federal immigration priorities and that mandatory cooperation could undermine trust and services.

Legal and academic testimony warned of broad impacts beyond police. Anna Patratz Acosta, a professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, testified the bill would amend Minnesota's Data Practices Act (section 13.021) to "require all government entities and authorities in Minnesota to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and comply with requests for information and data made in connection with federal immigration enforcement." She said that language could apply to almost every state and local office, not just law enforcement, and could create conflicts with federal privacy laws such as HIPAA and FERPA.

Other witnesses described the bill's effect on immigrant communities. Kevin Huynh, an organizer who described himself as a child of immigrants, said HF16 would "further a false narrative around immigrants that divides the community and dehumanizes people who want to live with safety and dignity." David Campana of the Minnesota Council on Latino Affairs said the council opposes the bill, warning that lack of trust could also harm Minnesota's workforce and economy.

Supporters cited public-opinion data and operational concerns with ICE detainers. Zimmer said federal detainer timelines and ICE's reliance on civil detainers can cause operational problems for local agencies; he told lawmakers that timely information-sharing allows ICE to take custody at appropriate times and avoid rearrests that can be dangerous and disruptive.

Committee members pressed authors and nonpartisan staff on definitions and scope. Representative Vernegg asked what constitutes "harassment" under the violent-crime list; nonpartisan staff read the statutory harassment definition (Minn. Stat. a7 609.749, subd. 2), which includes repeated contact, following, false allegations and other behaviors when those acts manifest intent to injure. The author said the amendment grew from prosecutors' advice and from concerns about escalating conduct that can precede violent crimes.

Professor Patratz Acosta told members she did not think this bill would have prevented a recent high-profile homicide discussed in prior hearings because the case involved a Cuban national and an older removal order that federal authorities could not execute; she said similar facts can mean cooperation alone would not change removal outcomes.

After several hours of testimony and questions, committee members adopted the A1 amendment (majority vote recorded; several members "passed" during roll calls) and laid the bill over for additional work. The transcript shows the committee planned a later floor vote timing but ultimately deferred action to a later date.

Ending: The committee cleared an initial procedural hurdle by adopting a targeted amendment to HF16 but did not vote on the full bill. Testimony exposed a deep divide between views that cooperation with ICE furthers public safety and views that mandatory cooperation across state and local offices will undermine trust and public-health, education and social services for immigrant communities.