Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes misdemeanor for remaining after final deportation order amid fierce debate
Summary
The House approved a measure creating an a misdemeanor for individuals who remain in Tennessee 90 days after a final deportation order; sponsors framed it as public-safety policy, while opponents warned it creates a parallel state immigration enforcement regime and risks costly litigation.
The Tennessee House voted to pass House Bill 1704, a measure that makes it an a misdemeanor for an individual who remains in the state 90 days after a final deportation order. Leader Larry Lambert sponsored the legislation and described it as a public-safety measure.
"It would make it an a misdemeanor if 90 days after their final deportation order, they remain in this country," Leader Lambert said, arguing the measure protects Tennesseans and supports enforcement of immigration orders. He cited crime figures he said were associated with individuals unlawfully in the country; those statistics were presented as part of the sponsor's argument and were contested by other members on the floor.
Opponents said the bill encroaches on federal authority over immigration enforcement, risks expensive litigation, and would require local law enforcement and courts to take on federal immigration responsibilities. Representative Bain asked about the fiscal cost of defending the measure in federal court; opponents urged caution and said the legislature should focus on other priorities such as infrastructure and public safety that do not risk criminalizing families.
Representative Clemens and others framed the bill as creating a "parallel system of justice" and said state-level criminalization of immigration status raises separation-of-powers issues. "We shouldn't be a guinea pig for discriminatory legislation," Representative Clemens said.
The House recorded 73 votes in favor and 22 opposed on final passage. Supporters said the statute would provide a state-level enforcement tool in narrowly defined circumstances; critics said it invites federal preemption challenges and could reallocate local resources toward immigration enforcement rather than core state services.
The bill proceeds to the next steps of the legislative process after the House's passage.
