Legislative update: Reasons for voting against the Idaho ICE bill

By Rep. Mark Sauter, R-Sandpoint
Reader Contributor

Greetings from Boise — I hope all is well. Last week, H.B. 659 was heard on the House floor. The bill requires our local law enforcement agencies to apply for a memorandum of agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After careful consideration, I did not support the bill.

Immigration is an issue that is of concern in Idaho. We live in a country with a system of laws, and I believe we should follow them. I recently supported legislation requiring employers to use the E-Verify system when hiring new employees. This made sense to me; we have agricultural businesses in the Kootenai Valley that use the H2A program. It would be unfair to their farm operations to allow others to work around the immigration process. 

I heard something about H.B. 659 a few weeks ago, during a conversation with Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler about other law enforcement issues. The sheriff was concerned about committing staff and deputies to training and enforcement duties for the federal government that were not their primary duty. 

He mentioned his deputies were already busy doing the work necessary to protect our community — immigration work included. He voiced his concern about his budget, noting the funding available with the federal program wasn’t a full reimbursement of costs or to “backfill” the staffing vacancies caused by sending deputies to training. Keeping a full roster of deputies and having them on patrol is central to good law enforcement. 

At the end of February, I called Sheriff Travis Stolley in Boundary County as part of my preparation for voting on H.B. 659. He expressed the same concerns as Sheriff Wheeler. He added that his department regularly works with Customs and Border Patrol and has a great working relationship with them. 

After speaking with the two sheriffs — both elected by our local voters and respected by their peers — I found myself questioning why I should support H.B. 659. What is the problem we are trying to fix? 

Our local law enforcement professionals didn’t believe the bill was necessary. They thought it would cost our taxpayers extra money. They also opined it would take away from the sheriffs’ primary mission: protecting the people in Bonner and Boundary counties. 

There were other issues with H.B. 659 as well. It struck me as odd for a state that values our self-reliance and doesn’t typically appreciate many of the federal programs, we were volunteering to do something for the federal government and adapting to their system — and taking on unknown costs and commitments. 

In the halls of the Capitol, I repeatedly hear about the “strings attached to federal funding.” H.B. 659 has strings, too. In the heart of the bill, it provides, “[participating law enforcement agencies] shall participate in any future program or successor to an existing program.” That language is written by Idaho legislators, not our federal government. That language binds every Idaho law enforcement agency to an unknown future commitment to our federal government. 

The bill directs law enforcement agencies “unable to enter into a 287(g) agreement” to publish a statement declaring the reasons for their inability to enter an MOA and any efforts made to establish alternate cooperation with enforcement and removal operations with ICE. The bill does not give any direction regarding where such a statement is required to be posted. 

After speaking with our sheriffs and listening to their concerns about H.B. 569, forcing them to defend their judgement on this issue felt like a burden they didn’t need to have.

A handout was provided during the debate with a list of participating Idaho law enforcement agencies. Six Idaho sheriff’s departments — 14%, of the 44 statewide sheriff’s departments — participate. The Idaho State Police is involved as well. No municipal police departments were listed. 

H.B. 659 passed 41-27 and now will be considered on the Senate side of the Capitol. 

It is a humbling task to represent our district. I do my best to listen to our residents and to those who provide our local services. It’s an honor to meet and work with so many dedicated people who provide their time and effort for our community. 

Feel free to share your thoughts and interests by emailing me at [email protected].

Rep. Mark Sauter is a second-term Republican legislator representing District 1A. He serves on the Agricultural Affairs; Education; and Resources and Conservation committees.