An ‘emotional’ issue: Lawmakers aim to crack down on immigration in Idaho
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Lawmakers push mandatory E-Verify and ICE cooperation bills despite local opposition.
- Lawmaker cites high public support but offers no disclosed survey data
- Immigration bills face an uneven path in the Idaho Legislature
After an intense hour-plus debate on an immigration bill, Rep. Rick Cheatum, R-Pocatello, leaned back in his chair in a House committee room. The bill, to require all Idaho employers to use E-Verify to check a worker’s legal status, was a “tough one” for him. Cheatum’s district relies heavily on immigrant labor, and he said the bill could be devastating for agriculture.
Proponents argued that a similar bill in Arizona didn’t harm the economy, that the bill would protect American workers, and that it aligned with federal law. Arizona lawmakers passed E-Verify legislation that took effect in 2008, moving more workers into informal work which, for example, is paid for in cash. As of 2025, barely any companies had been punished under the law.
“Immigration is a federal issue,” Cheatum said. “I don’t see how, if I’m going to represent my district, I can support this bill.”
Cheatum was one of five Republicans who joined the House Business Committee’s two Democrats in attempting to get the bill changed. Their effort failed, and Cheatum ultimately voted to recommend the bill pass the House. He said he reserved the right to change his vote later.
Idaho lawmakers who have brought a slate of bills to crack down on legal and illegal immigration contend that their proposals, ranging from E-Verify to requiring that Idaho law enforcement apply for cooperation agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are popular.
Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, who cosponsored this E-Verify bill, told the committee that over 80% of Idaho voters supported their efforts. He told the Statesman the number came from a survey but said he could not share the survey.
Public opinion polling is hard to come by in the state, but over half of Idahoans think increased U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence would harm Idaho agriculture, and broad swaths support a pathway to legal working status for some immigrants, according to a Boise State University survey.
This year’s bills have often faced headwinds from other legislators, industry leaders and law enforcement officials, some of whom have questioned the legality of at least one bill. The opposition means an uneven path for immigration bills: Sometimes, resistance to bills forces changes, but many bills are advancing despite objections.
For example, Rep. Dale Hawkins, R-Fernwood, withdrew a bill to penalize helping immigrants, such as by providing legal assistance, ahead of a hearing because of unspecific “concerns” people brought forward. He introduced a new version on Feb. 25.
But two days later, the House passed a bill 36-33 to make it a crime for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers despite concerns that the bill was unconstitutional. Idaho’s bill references a section of federal code that says states can’t impose civil or criminal sanctions on such employers.
The bill’s sponsors, Hawkins and Rep. Kyle Harris, R-Lewiston, declined to comment. The bill’s drafter, former Idaho Solicitor General Theo Wold, also did not respond to a request for comment.
“I realize that this is an emotional subject in our country today,” Hawkins said during a committee hearing. “This isn’t my will … This is answering a call that the people have given.”
‘A scary bill’: Law enforcement oppose legislation
Minutes before a committee hearing, Hawkins withdrew his bill to require tracking the immigration status of inmates.
The planned hearing on Feb. 19 drew law enforcement officials from Ada and other counties who sat waiting for a chance to be heard. Hawkins pulled the bill so he could understand why law enforcement had issues with the legislation, he told the Statesman.
After the hearing, Hawkins told Payette County Sheriff Andy Creech that immigration was a top polling issue and that people would want to know why law enforcement officials were opposing some of the measures.
Hawkins told Creech that no matter what opposition surfaced, he would not be pulling yet another bill he sponsored to require each law enforcement agency in Idaho to apply for what’s known as 287(g) cooperation agreements with ICE. The agreements allow law enforcement agencies to collaborate with ICE and take on some immigration work.
Former Democratic President Barack Obama, in 2012, got rid of one of the 287(g) models amid racial profiling concerns, such as against Latino people. The controversial program lets local police question people on the street about their immigration status. President Donald Trump brought it back.
Seven counties, not including Ada and Canyon, and the Idaho State Police have a 287(g) agreement with ICE.
Even before that bill’s hearing, at least one top law enforcement official, Pocatello Police Chief Roger Schei, criticized the bill at a recent panel discussion on ICE, according to East Idaho News.
“This is a scary bill, because it’s coming down to where it would be ‘papers, please,’ and that is not what the Police Department is used for,” Schei said. “That’s a dangerous road … to go down.”
But Hawkins’ decision not to pull his 287(g) bill paid off. It passed the House Local Government Committee 12-4 despite opposition from people including Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue, representing the Idaho Sheriff’s Association; and Hailey Police Chief Steve England, representing the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association.
“It’s an overstep by the state to tell the sheriffs of this state that you shall participate,” Donahue said.
Two Republicans, Cheatum and Rep. Josh Wheeler, R-Ammon, joined the committee’s two Democrats in voting against it. It awaits a vote on the House floor.
In 2025, Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford opposed another bill to prohibit the “concealing, harboring, [and] sheltering” of undocumented immigrants. A House committee killed the bill after immigration lawyers, the sheriff and the Catholic Church in Idaho opposed it.
Hawkins has introduced multiple versions of that bill in 2026. “This is in conjunction with federal law,” he told the House Ways and Means Committee. “We are lined up with what the current administration is doing.”
Not what Trump wants
The Idaho construction, dairy and agricultural industries are trying to prove the opposite point: that lawmakers are going against Trump’s agenda. Rick Naerebout, CEO of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, pointed to a January interview where Trump said he wanted agricultural workers to be spared from the current immigration crackdown.
He and other industry leaders, in a press conference, urged lawmakers to stop trying to solve immigration problems. Naerebout argued that the Legislature doesn’t have the authority to do that.
It’s a message that some lawmakers have echoed. In a debate about an E-Verify bill, Sen. Ben Adams, R-Nampa, declared during the Senate that immigration was a “federal issue.”
The Supreme Court has often ruled that only the federal government can regulate immigration, according to a report published by the University of North Carolina. Sometimes, even if a state law echoes the federal government’s actions, the law can’t go into effect.
Two of the immigration bills the Legislature passed in 2025 were challenged in court in Idaho and partially blocked while the lawsuits continue. One law would have prevented immigrants from receiving HIV medication. The second would have created state-level immigration crimes, allowing local law enforcement to wade into an area traditionally reserved for the federal government.
On Feb. 27, in a debate on the bill to make it a crime for employers to hire some immigrants, lawmakers debated when to follow the law and when not. Tensions rose in the House as legislators weighed that bill and the one Cheatum opposed. Both ultimately passed.
“In order to follow the law, we cannot support this legislation. It is in conflict with federal law,” said Rep. Britt Raybould, R-Rexburg, who added that the bill to make it a crime for employers was “clearly unconstitutional.”
“We can and should follow employment law and immigration laws that we are required to follow ... but I believe we can do so without breaking federal law,” Raybould said.
Harris, the bill’s sponsor, shot back and said his bill was constitutional.
“It doesn’t matter if you’re breaking the law because you feel it’s justified,” Harris said. “People break laws every day because they feel it’s justified. That doesn’t make it OK.”
An immigration disconnect
Not every immigration bill is sailing through the system, despite assurances from lawmakers that this is what the people want.
The 2026 bill to prohibit concealing, harboring or sheltering immigrants was held in committee Tuesday after Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford, the Catholic Church in Idaho and immigration lawyers, among others, opposed it. The action sets aside the bill indefinitely, meaning it is likely dead for 2026.
Most of the written testimony on the bill, which a lawmaker shared with the Statesman, also opposed the bill. That included church leaders, a labor union and nonprofit organizations, some of whom worried that people couldn’t access services and that the bill would criminalize compassion.
“I think we need to take a chill pill,” said Rep. Clay Handy, R-Burley, before voting to hold the bill.
In a tie vote, the House Education Committee on Feb. 27 rejected a bill to gather data on the immigration status of students. A state education official previously told the Statesman that tracking that status is illegal under federal law. Rep. Jack Nelsen, R-Jerome, said the bill would likely intimidate people.
The bill to make it a crime to hire some immigrants and the bill that Cheatum opposed were sent to the Senate State Affairs Committee, which some conservatives took as a sign that they might be blocked.
Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, introduced legislation this year to audit refugee resettlement in Idaho. He has resorted to posting on X to request people contact the Senate State Affairs Committee chair and ask him to hold a hearing for that bill.
The chair, Sen. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon, told the Statesman on Feb. 23 that he hadn’t decided yet whether to hold a hearing. “I’ll discuss it with my leadership team,” Guthrie said, “as I always do on these bills that are a little bit controversial.”
———
Where do high-profile immigration bills stand?
E-Verify: Senate Bill 1247 requires state and local governments as well as some employers with agency contracts to use E-Verify to make sure their employees are legally allowed to work in the U.S. It passed the Senate and awaits a hearing in a House committee. E-Verify is a federal website that employers can consult to see if a worker or prospective worker is eligible to work in the U.S. Two other bills dealing with unauthorized workers, House Bill 700 and House Bill 704, passed the House and await a hearing in a Senate committee.
Student immigration status: House Bill 656 would collect the immigration status and primary language of Idaho students. It awaits a hearing in a House committee. The House Education Committee rejected a replacement bill.
Patient immigration status: House Bill 592 would collect the immigration status from patients at hospitals. It awaits a hearing in a House committee.
287(g) agreements: House Bill 659 would require all law enforcement agencies in the state to apply for a partnership with ICE. It passed a House committee and awaits a vote in the House.
Immigration status in jails: House Bill 660 would require law enforcement agencies to “verify and record” the immigration status of people who are arrested. It awaits a hearing in a House committee.
Refugee audit: Senate Bill 1318 aims to audit refugee resettlement programs in Idaho. It awaits a hearing in a Senate committee.
State-level crimes: Senate Bill 1260 is intended to strengthen one of the laws from 2025 that a judge partially blocked in Idaho court. It awaits a hearing in a Senate committee.
Harboring or shielding immigrants: House Bill 693 and House Bill 764 would prohibit concealing, transporting or providing legal assistance to immigrants, among other things. House Bill 693 awaits a hearing in a House committee; House Bill 764 was held in committee.
This story was originally published March 4, 2026 at 4:00 AM with the headline "An ‘emotional’ issue: Lawmakers aim to crack down on immigration in Idaho."
