Sponsors send revised immigration enforcement bill to amending order after heated testimony

Representative Jaren Crane and Senator Todd Lakey told the Senate State Affairs Committee that House Bill 83 — an engrossment combining House Bill 83 with portions of Senate Bill 10‑39 — is intended to give Idaho law enforcement a cooperative pathway to work with federal authorities while limiting enforcement to people who are detained or investigated for an independent Idaho criminal offense.

The sponsors outlined provisions that would add proposed Idaho Code sections (identified in the presentation as 18‑9002, 9003 and 9004) to criminalize illegal entry and reentry under state law when coupled with separate criminal conduct under Title 18 (and added Title 37 drug provisions). Senator Lakey said the engrossment also creates a trafficking offense for those who transport people with criminal convictions and includes a five‑year mandatory minimum sentence for certain dangerous crimes involving noncitizens.

The bill’s proponents emphasized two layers of protection for would‑be peace officers and arrestees: in enforcement matters, sponsors said there must be a separate independent Idaho criminal basis for action, and the statute as drafted requires cooperation with federal authorities rather than unilateral state deportation action. "This basically just lays that out," Senator Lakey said, describing the bill as requiring a separate basis under Idaho law before immigration‑related enforcement is pursued.

Opponents argued that the bill risks racialized and unconstitutional application. Rudy Rodriguez, a Treasure Valley resident, said he opposed the measure and described instances in which he and others were stopped and asked for identification; "I'm a U.S. citizen... you're not gonna deport me," he told the committee as he urged lawmakers to consider the risk of profiling. Amy Dundon of the ACLU of Idaho testified that HB 83 is "extreme" and warned the language would likely produce uneven, racialized enforcement and place new burdens on state courts and indigent defense — problems she said could mirror legal challenges faced by Texas’s similar statute.

Committee members pressed sponsors on the phrase "detained or investigated" and whether that scope could be used too broadly in common encounters such as traffic stops. Senator Rucki and others urged clarification; sponsors repeatedly answered that the language was intended to mirror current law enforcement practice of determining identity during booking when there is an independent criminal investigation and that the engrossment narrows the bill compared with Texas by explicitly tying enforcement to separate state crimes.

After extended questions and public testimony, Senator Harris moved that House Bill 83 be sent to the 14th order for possible amendments. The motion carried on the committee floor by voice vote with a recorded no vote noted. The committee’s action sends the bill to the amending order for additional drafting and stakeholder work before floor consideration.

What’s next: House Bill 83 will be considered in the amending order, where sponsors and opponents indicated additional changes could be made; the committee’s referral preserves the opportunity for further amendments and legal review.