Bill Description: House Bill 335 would make it illegal for an organization to facilitate the unlawful presence of an illegal alien in Idaho and impose misdemeanor or felony penalties. The bill allows for exceptions for law enforcement, emergency responders, and first responders acting in their official capacity.
Rating: +2
Note: Alien is defined broadly as, “any person not a citizen or national of the United States” which creates problems regarding foreign nationals that are in the United States legally.
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 335 would create Chapter 90, Title 18, Idaho Code, which would prohibit an organization from concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection an illegal alien in Idaho or conspiring to do so “if the organization knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such alien's coming to, entering, or residing in the United States is or will be in violation of federal law, including being an inadmissible alien.”
The bill would also make it unlawful for an organization to knowingly “encourage, promote, advertise, coerce, or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state.” It would be illegal for an organization to knowingly “transport, attempt to transport, or conspire to transport in this state an alien in furtherance of the unlawful presence of the alien in the United States.”
Finally, this bill makes it unlawful for an organization to “provide, promote, or advertise shelter, financial support, or legal assistance to an alien in this state” if it knows and disregards an alien’s illegal status.
This bill expands and codifies the government's role in combating and enforcing illegal immigration in the state of Idaho and would create new penalties for violations. This makes it an expansion of the size or scope of government, though one consistent with the government's proper role and function. Over the past several years, the federal government has abdicated its duty to protect the sovereign borders of the United States from unauthorized foreigners. House Bill 335 is an attempt at making Idaho a state not conducive to illegal immigration.
(0)
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
An organization that “is facilitating or is attempting to facilitate” the illegal presence of an alien would be guilty of a misdemeanor violation of Section 18-9003 Idaho Code, with the penalty assessed for each alien. Further, if there are five (5) or more illegal aliens whose unlawful presence the organization is facilitating, it would be guilty of a felony. The same would be true if the organization has a prior conviction. Upon the first offense, the court shall “Direct the state, county, or municipal governing body to revoke all business licenses and permits … for the duration of one (1) year” and “impose a fine fixed by ordinance, not to exceed the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for each offense and each unlawfully present alien aided by the organization.” Subsequent violations would result in the permanent loss of the organizations’ business license or permit.
This is problematic as House Bill 335 would allow the state government to reach into the market by revoking private organizations' business licenses and permits, meaning they would not be allowed to operate. This in turn means that the government would be controlling who could participate in the free market.
(-1)
Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth?
Illegal immigration comes at a cost to Idaho taxpayers. One study calculated a net negative fiscal impact of $4,800 per illegal.
Unlawful aliens use welfare programs at a higher rate than U.S. citizens, with one estimate suggesting that 59% of households headed by illegal aliens use one or more major welfare programs, compared to 39% of households headed by U.S. citizens.
Illegal aliens also strain our hospitals and schools. Idaho already suffers from a shortage of health care professionals, which has led to the government forcing taxpayers to subsidize nursing and medical residency programs. As the number of illegal aliens increases, so do demands on our health care system. Additionally, the cost of educating the children of illegal aliens (which is required under the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe) falls largely on Idaho taxpayers.
House Bill 335 does not directly target those who enter the country unlawfully, but it may reduce the incentives for illegal aliens to come to Idaho and correspondingly reduce the redistribution associated with their presence here.
(+1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
House Bill 335 advances the principles of federalism and state sovereignty in that it grants Idaho the ability to enforce illegal immigration restrictions in areas where the federal government has fallen short. Federalism allows for the state government to pass and enforce policy that reflects the will of the people, which creates a healthy check on the federal government.
Certain areas of state law must incorporate federal statute because the authority in question falls under the prerogative of the federal government. These areas include the organization and discipline of the state militia, international trade, and immigration. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution, Congress has sole authority “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States.” In addition, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which declares that “the laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land” gives Congress the power to preempt state law in two circumstances. First, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United States, “States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.” This is field preemption. Second, “state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand ‘as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” This is conflict preemption. Thus any state law that supplements existing federal immigration law must clearly establish in statute that it is not in conflict with said law. In these few instances, it is constitutionally required, and thus permissible, to incorporate federal law into state statute.
(+1)
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
House Bill 335 upholds traditional values of Western society in several ways. First, Western tradition emphasizes rule of law as a fundamental tenet of order and justice. Laws penalizing organizations that aid individuals who break the law uphold the values of justice and equality before the law. Second, central to the post-eighteenth century Western tradition is the concept of nation-states. House Bill 335 reenforces the nation's borders by making Idaho a place that is not conducive to illegal immigration. National borders are a critical component of distinguishing political entities from each other. They also are important for fostering a shared national identity in the Western political tradition. Finally, self-governance and local control are paramount in Western political thought. House Bill 335 allows Idaho to exercise its control over issues within the borders of the state.
(+1)
