Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Misdemeanor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill to make remaining after-final-deportation order a state misdemeanor, opponents warn of enforcement burden
Summary
The subcommittee voted to send House Bill 17-04, which would create a state misdemeanor for individuals who remain after a final deportation order, to full judiciary after debate and public testimony. Supporters said it would increase safety; immigration advocates warned it would confuse federal-state roles and deter immigrant cooperation with police.
House Bill 17-04, offered by Leader Lambert, was forwarded by the House Judiciary Subcommittee after members adopted an amendment and voted to send the measure to full judiciary.
Leader Lambert told the committee the bill "simply creates a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants that are present in the state of Tennessee that have received a final deportation order," and said section two includes trigger language tied to any change in federal precedent such as Arizona v. United States.
During questioning, Representative Powell raised constitutional and practical concerns, asking whether immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and how state and local officers would verify removal status. Powell pressed whether state action could duplicate federal enforcement and create preemption risks.
Alan King, legal director at the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, testified in opposition. King said the bill "grossly oversimplifies the federal deportation process" and warned that treating a final order as a simple, always-valid metric is inaccurate because immigration cases can be reopened. He said: "Without undergoing that analysis, local law enforcement could find themselves in a position where they've invested dozens of man hours on one investigation only for it to fall apart because that case got reopened and dismissed." King also cautioned that the proposal could erode trust between immigrant communities and local police, reducing victims' willingness to report crimes.
Stephen Puckett, a Henderson resident, also opposed the bill and said it risked enabling organized criminal behavior by incentivizing exploitative practices. Puckett characterized the measure as "pro trafficking and pro racketeering" because of what he described as an "intent trap" in enforcement.
Legal counsel noted the statute would mirror the federal failure-to-depart offense (citing 8 U.S.C. §1253) but that any state law could be subject to judicial review under the supremacy clause if it conflicted with federal authority. The committee ultimately voted to forward the bill as amended; the clerk announced the tally as 6 ayes and 2 nos.
Next step: House Bill 17-04 will be considered by the full judiciary committee.
