Bill Description: House Bill 700 would criminalize employing or recruiting undocumented workers and make using the federal e-verify system the only available affirmative defense.

Rating: 0

NOTE: House Bill 700 is one of four bills (so far) introduced in the 2026 session that deal with the federal e-verify system. The others are House Bill 584, House Bill 704, and Senate Bill 1247. Senate Bill 1247 would limit the mandate to government entities and most private employers who do business with government entities. House Bills 584 and 704 would impose the mandate on all employers (including small businesses) and impose much harsher penalties for violations. House Bill 700 doesn’t strictly mandate using the federal e-verify system, but it criminalizes employing or recruiting undocumented workers and makes using the federal e-verify system the only available affirmative defense. 

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?

House Bill 700 would create Chapter 28, Title 44, to make it a crime for “any employer; any person acting as an agent for an employer; any person who, for a fee, refers an alien for employment; or any officer, agent, or representative of a labor organization to knowingly employ, continue to employ, rehire, recruit, or refer for employment in this state any alien who is not lawfully present in the United States or whose immigration status does not authorize employment under federal law.”

It would also apply to “an employer who, after hiring an alien, knows or reasonably should know that the alien's lawful immigration status or employment authorization has expired, been revoked, or otherwise ceased.”

A conviction would carry a penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and up to six months of incarceration.

The only “affirmative defense” to prosecution under this law would be for an employer to verify “the employee's identity and employment eligibility through the federal e-verify program or any successor program designated by the United States department of homeland security” and for the verification process to result “in a confirmation of employment authorization.”

(-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?

This law would indirectly require employers to use the federal e-verify system, which is entirely controlled by the federal government, and results in a loss of state sovereignty and the broad incorporation of federal laws, rules, and definitions into Idaho code. Like all government registries, the e-verify system is subject to errors, inaccuracies, and manipulation. But under this law, hiring someone who the system can’t verify would put an employer in danger of criminal prosecution. 

The bill outsources its definitions to federal code without any limitation on future changes, saying “As used in this section, ‘employer,’ ‘employment,’ ‘knowingly,’ and ‘unauthorized alien’ shall be construed with 8 U.S.C. 1324a.” These definitions and references are not fixed and could be altered by the federal government at any time. Such incorporation is a broad abdication of state sovereignty.

(-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?

Under the current definitions found in 8 U.S.C. 1324a (which could be changed), the prohibitions contained in this bill would also apply to government entities. Requiring governments to hire only American citizens and lawful immigrants is consistent with upholding traditional values.

(+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? 

Governments regulate immigration for many reasons, including its financial, political, and demographic implications. Even when undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes, their use of healthcare and education systems — federally required under EMTALA and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) — can place a strain on the taxpayers who ultimately subsidize these systems. 

The state of Idaho requiring governments and employers who contract with governments to use the federal e-verify system is unlikely to meaningfully reduce overall immigration levels, but it could encourage some undocumented immigrants to choose to live in places other than Idaho.

(+1)