Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detainers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate amends immigration bill to require honoring ICE detainers where counties have 287(g) MOUs, prompting fiscal concerns
Summary
A finance amendment narrowed an earlier judiciary amendment so the requirement to honor federal immigration detainers applies only to sheriff’s departments that have a 287(g) memorandum of understanding; opponents warned the change could shift millions in costs to counties and raised questions about liability and the fiscal note.
Senator Taylor explained that the Finance Committee amendment narrows earlier language to apply only to sheriff's departments that have a 287(g) memorandum of understanding with federal immigration authorities rather than to all sheriffs. Under the floor amendment, a sheriff's department that has a valid 287(g) MOU would be required to accept and honor an ICE detainer and hold a person for up to 48 hours to permit transfer to federal custody.
Senator Yarbrough and others raised concerns about the fiscal impact if the program were made mandatory across all counties, citing a fiscal‑note estimate discussed earlier in debate of roughly $5.4 million per year for mandatory participation. Yarbrough said the amendment "papered over the cost" by limiting applicability to counties that have 287(g) MOUs today while acknowledging other pending legislation could make participation mandatory in the future.
Senator Taylor said the amendment applies only to counties that have a 287(g) program pursuant to a memorandum of understanding and that the fiscal note for the amendment is 'not significant.' He also said prior special session actions encouraged counties to enter 287(g) programs and that $5 million was included in the budget previously to anticipate costs.
The floor adopted the Finance amendment and later adopted a related judiciary amendment withdrawal; the bill as amended passed by recorded vote (Eyes 27, 5 nays) and was declared passed on third consideration.
Floor exchanges focused on (1) the scope of applicability for the amendment—MOUs only vs. statewide mandate, (2) potential unfunded county costs if broader mandates pass, and (3) liability questions raised by senators asking whether municipalities or the state would bear costs if litigation followed an alleged wrongful detention.
