BOISE — A bill seeking to require local law enforcement agencies to apply for cooperation agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was held in committee Monday. The one-vote-margin decision arrived after several south Idaho sheriffs came out against what was described as overreach on the part of the legislature.

Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, sponsored House Bill 659 after the legislation passed out of the House earlier this month by a 41-27 margin.

The bill requires that local law enforcement — including police department and sheriffs’ offices — apply for at least one of several federal 287(g) agreement programs allowing local law enforcement to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents.

If law enforcement agencies are unable to enter into such an agreement for any reason, the agencies would be required to publish a statement declaring the reason a memorandum could not be entered into and what alternative measures are being taken to coordinate with ICE.

Lenney said the 287(g) agreement most commonly takes the form of three models: a jail enforcement model identifying and processing removable unauthorized residents who have pending or convicted charges; a warrant service program allowing local law enforcement to serve ICE warrants; and a task force model allowing officers to participate in local ICE operations and “put on their immigration hat” during routine stops, Lenney said.

In each of the program options, individual officers would need to participate in training and/or receive certification from ICE.

The bill arrives after Gov. Brad Little signed an executive order last year directing state law enforcement to pursue these programs. One of the most notable of these agreements came from the Idaho State Police, which entered into a 287(g) agreement with ICE last summer to transport unauthorized immigrants convicted of crimes to deportation centers, as was previously reported by the Idaho Press.

Lenney presented Florida as a model state for the bill after the Florida Sheriffs Association announced all of the state’s 67 county jails had entered into 287(g) programs and the state received over $38 million in federal reimbursements.

Lenney said the 287(g) task force program could even be a revenue generator for local law enforcement after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it would begin reimbursing agencies for the salaries, benefits and overtime up to 25% of annual salary for participating officers.

“The overwhelming majority of Idahoans want us legislators to do something meaningful about illegal immigration,” Lenney said. “… I think 287(g) can help solve some of these problems.”

As for those who arrived early Monday morning to testify, the position conveyed was overwhelming opposition to the bill. In the case of law enforcement who testified, the position was universal opposition.

Mary Brown, a Boise resident who arrived with her 2-year-old daughter, said she would rather be at home but believed it was necessary to show up to testify. Brown said one of her key concerns is the bill replacing local control for law enforcement with increased strain as their responsibilities shift away from community needs.

“Every hour that officers spend enforcing federal immigration is an hour that they’re not responding to calls, investigating crimes or serving the people that live here,” Brown said.

Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue, representing the Idaho Sheriffs Association, said Idaho sheriffs “are absolutely opposed” to the legislation.

“This bill attempts to mandate what a sheriff shall or shall not do, and that is truly, in our opinion, overreach of the legislative body,” Donahue said. “The federal government has their job, and we have our job.”

Contradicting Lenney, Donahue said the agreements would be a cost to local law enforcement rather than a revenue generator as reimbursement payments leave agencies on the hook for backfill and other expenses associated with officers departing for ICE-led training. Additional community costs stem from losing officers from the workforce, he said.

“When we take those officers off the streets to go out and enforce illegal immigration, we have lost them to do traffic stops, respond to injuries, respond to domestic violence, respond to robberies, etc.,” Donahue said. “So there’s an ongoing cost.”

In the event a jail 287(g) agreement were reached with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office, Donahue noted he would need to send at least two to there officers for each of the agency’s four jail teams, with travel, lodging and per diem costs falling on the shoulders of county taxpayers.

Though DHS recently moved to provide reimbursement for salary, benefits and overtime, this only applies to the 287(g) task force program — not the jail program.

Law enforcement also consistently emphasized the voluntary partnerships with ICE were already working. Terry Derden, chief legal adviser at the Ada County Sheriff’s Office, spoke on behalf of Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford and sought to dispel the notion local law enforcement wasn’t “doing enough about immigration.”

Derden said for the Ada County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) in particular, ICE already has “full access” to arrest records without a 287(g) agreement. Under current operating procedure, a report is sent to ICE each day to make determinations as to which individuals need to be processed for deportation or detainment.

”We don’t need a 287(g) model to make those things happen,” Derden said. “We don’t need (the) 287(g) model to tell us to allow ICE into our facilities.”

Homedale Police Chief Jeff Eidemiller also came out opposed to the bill, citing his observation of trust and cooperation with law enforcement among the Hispanic and Latino communities becoming “almost non-existent.” In many cases, Eidemiller said residents of Homedale, 40% of whom are Hispanic or Latino, have expressed concern of local officers becoming ICE agents.

If House Bill 659 is forced upon local law enforcement, Eidemiller said, the result would be community members not reporting crime and in a desire for justice, potentially taking matters into their own hands. This concern would be on top of the added strain of taking on federal responsibilities.

“We don’t have the time for it, we don’t have the manpower, and we certainly don’t have the resources,” Eidemiller said. “And I would never look at calling a human — another human being — a revenue-generating resource.”

Blaine County Sheriff Morgan Ballis took issue with the bill’s inclusion that law enforcement agencies “shall participate in any future program or successor” to existing 287(g) programs, characterizing the provision as a blanket authorization that puts Idaho law enforcement at the behest of administrations that could contrast sharply with their priorities.

“It doesn’t matter what party you’re with or where you stand on illegal immigration in general,” Ballis said, “we do not want to write a blank check to every single future president on how they want to dispose our officers.”

Lenney responded that the bill “mandates applying, not participating,” but said he would be amenable to sending the bill to strike the language requiring participation in future 287(g) programs.

The motion to amend the bill ended up failing in a 4-5 vote after several committee members voiced concern that law enforcement agencies were not thoroughly consulted on the legislation in light of their public testimony being universally opposed.

In a 5-4 vote the committee opted to hold the bill, effectively killing the effort for this legislative session.