INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Republican lawmakers this year have introduced a host of bills that support immigration enforcement and crack down on undocumented workers.
The flurry of legislation follows the massive blitz of federal agents in Minneapolis that led to the death of two American citizens.
Indiana is far from alone in its response to President Donald Trump’s large-scale deportation efforts. Nearly every state in the nation has taken up the issue, explained Victoria Francis, deputy director of state and local initiatives at the American Immigration Council.
But a clear divide has developed on the kinds of policies state legislators are seeking, she noted.
Democrat-controlled states, where the Trump administration has unleashed most of its enforcement efforts, are pushing new laws to clamp down on tactics used by Immigration and Custom Enforcement officers. That includes banning agents from wearing masks and barring police departments from hiring former ICE officers.
Republican-controlled states, including Indiana, are proposing bills that would penalize local law enforcement and universities for restricting immigration enforcement, while offering legal protections for those complying with federal efforts.
But blue and red states share one common thread, Francis explained. They are all considering more immigration legislation than ever before in response to the surge of raids, protests and violence in cities and towns across the country.
“Legislators on both sides of the aisle are revisiting the issue because of the national context,” she said. “People are paying attention to it more, and also constituents are demanding action.”
TALKING-POINT LEGISLATION
The flagship immigration bill being considered in Indiana would require law enforcement, government bodies and universities to comply with federal immigration enforcement — or face penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, who authored Senate Bill 76, made it clear that the goal is to aid in the president’s mass detention and deportation plan.
“We know that President Trump’s administration has asked for and pleaded for, quite frankly, support from local law enforcement, and I have found overwhelmingly that our local law enforcement are willing to do that,” she said during a committee hearing.
The bill would require police and sheriff’s departments in Indiana to honor federal detainer requests to hold noncitizens for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release date so agents can make arrests. Currently, fulfilling a detainer request is voluntary.
Under the bill, government entities and their employees would be granted both civil and criminal immunity for any action taken to fulfill an immigration detainer request.
The legislation would also block local or state government units and public universities from enacting any policies that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement, even if that enforcement comes from local or state police.
The controversial bill drew hours of pushback during a committee hearing this month. Opponents argued that the policies would create fear and chaos among the state’s immigrant communities, including among those who are in the U.S. legally.
But Mike Speedy, Indiana secretary of business affairs, argued the legislation would allow local law enforcement, rather than just federal agents, to police for immigration violations.
“This empowers communities across the state to take control of their cities … and their neighborhoods,” he said during a committee hearing. “ … The assistance is not only helpful to federal authorities, but is necessary to achieve meaningful change in our communities throughout our state.”
The legislation on Thursday was approved in the house with minor amendments, largely along party lines. It now heads back to the senate for consideration.
Other Republican-leaning states are pushing even harder for local agencies to take up federal immigration enforcement.
Bills in Texas, Tennessee and South Carolina would require police and sheriff’s department to enroll in the federal 287(g) program, which grants them the same powers held by federal immigration officers.
Much of the pro-enforcement legislation being considered in red states stems directly from anti-immigrant talking points coming from the White House, argued Matthew Lopas, director of state advocacy with the National Immigration Law Center.
That includes unfounded claims that illegal immigrants are draining public resources, committing crimes at high rates and hurting communities, Lopas noted.
Republican lawmakers are rushing to support Trump’s deportation efforts to win political points with the president and his base, he asserted, despite the nation’s growing distrust of ICE.
Two-thirds of Americans say agents has gone too far and a majority think the agency is making the country less safe, according to a PBS News/NPR/Marist poll released this month.
“You have legislatures that are following the leadership of the Trump administration, which has time after time scapegoated and blamed immigrants for a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with immigration,” he said.
“The flattening of the issue based on talking points that come from the White House really takes away the ability for policy makers to improve conditions in their own states,” Lopas added.
OUTSIDE-THE-BOX POLICIES
The policy proposals in Indiana and other red states come from the same playbook Republicans have used for years to push anti-immigrant messaging, according to Francis with the American Immigration Council.
Democrat-leaning states, on the other hand, are proposing outside-the-box legislation aimed at curbing the kind of prolonged ICE enforcement blitz happening in places like Minneapolis, Los Angeles and Chicago, she explained.
A Colorado bill would enable people to sue federal law enforcement officials for civil rights violations. In Delaware, a bill would prevent commercial airlines from receiving jet fuel tax exemptions if they transport people detained by ICE without warrants and due process.
In early February, New Mexico’s governor signed one of the most sweeping immigrant-protection policies in the nation. The law bans state and local governments from entering into agreements to detain individuals for civil immigration violations, stops the use of public land for immigration detention and bans 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement.
A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law that would ban federal immigration agents from wearing masks, but the ruling also upheld that officers will be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing masks following a summer of high-profile raids by ICE officers in Los Angeles.
A bill in Washington would limit the ability of federal immigrant agents to enter child care centers, health care facilities and election sites without a warrant or court order.
In Maryland and New York, legislators have proposed laws that would enable the state to strike back when the federal government — in retaliation for state efforts to restrict immigration enforcement — withholds money owed to the state. The bills would enable the states, in such cases, to place liens on federally owned properties.
Indiana Rep. Alex Burton, D-Evansville, said that, while Democratic states try to curtail the impact of federal immigration officers raiding their cities, Indiana Republicans are bent on forcing local law enforcement, businesses and universities to comply with the sometimes-deadly tactics used by ICE officers.
That sentiment is hampering cities like Evansville, Burton argued, where officials work hard to ensure everyone, including immigrants, feels welcome. Evansville’s reputation as a Democrat-run and immigrant-friendly community made it an ICE target last year. Officers raided homes, businesses and public areas, making over a dozen arrests.
Burton said the only way to solve the issues presented by the influx of non-citizens into the state is for Congress to pass meaningful national immigration reforms that address legitimate concerns rather than manufactured fears.
Indiana’s proposed legislation is leaning into those fabricated fears, he argued.
“States like Indiana are taking advantage of the false political narrative and trying to pass immigration reform bills that don’t do anything but create chaos and confusion without getting to the root issues of what we really face,” Burton said.