SUPPORT
HB 660 — Immigration Status & Nationality of Arrested Individuals
Improves Transparency and Accountability in Immigration-Related Arrest Data
✅ Requires law enforcement to verify and record immigration status and nationality following a lawful arrest
✅ Mandates biannual public reporting on crimes involving foreign nationals
✅ Improves transparency and accountability across state, county, and local agencies
✅ Strengthens coordination with federal authorities without expanding arrest powers
✅ Includes a compliance mechanism tied to state funding
Bill Summary
HB 660 establishes a uniform, statewide requirement for Idaho law enforcement agencies to verify and record the immigration status and nationality of individuals who have been lawfully arrested. The bill applies during the administration of criminal justice and does not authorize new stops, searches, or arrest powers.
The bill further requires state, county, and local law enforcement agencies to publish biannual public reports detailing immigration status and nationality data related to arrested individuals, the crimes for which they were arrested, transfers to federal authorities, and any instances of noncompliance. These reports are intended to provide policymakers and the public with clear, consistent data regarding the intersection of immigration and public safety in Idaho.
To ensure compliance, HB 660 authorizes the withholding of state funding from agencies that fail to meet the bill’s reporting and verification requirements.
Impact & Limitations
RS 32822 improves government accountability and transparency by creating standardized data collection and public reporting on immigration status in the criminal justice system. By grounding its requirements in lawful arrest and existing criminal justice processes, the bill avoids constitutional overreach and does not expand surveillance or enforcement authority.
However, the bill is primarily a reporting and accountability measure. It does not mandate cooperation programs such as 287(g), does not require honoring federal detainers, and does not directly affect employment enforcement, benefit eligibility, or removal outcomes. While the reporting requirements may inform future policy decisions, RS 32822 on its own does not materially alter immigration enforcement outcomes.
Position
Secure Idaho supports HB 660.
HB 660 is a responsible transparency measure that strengthens public accountability without expanding government power or violating constitutional safeguards. By requiring consistent data collection and public reporting following lawful arrests, the bill provides Idaho lawmakers and citizens with the information necessary to assess the public safety impacts of immigration policy.
While limited in scope, HB 660 represents a meaningful step toward evidence-based immigration policy and reinforces the principle that public institutions should operate with transparency and accountability.
How Secure Idaho Scored this Bill
We created a scorecard to quickly show how well each bill protects Idaho's sovereignty, jobs, families, limited government, and the freedom of Idaho citizens -priorities that match what 80% of Idahoans tell us in surveys: unchecked immigration threatens our resources, wages, and values. Yet, special interests like BigAg and the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry (IACI) often block enforcement to prioritize cheap labor over voter priorities. Our scoring flips this by building pressure through data, tracking, and county-level mobilization ahead of the 2026 session. Here's the basic system in plain English:
1) Category Criteria and Scores: Alignment with Secure Idaho's Vision
We evaluate bills against 9 key categories that embody Idaho's core values: State Sovereignty (securing independence from federal encroachment), State Culture (protecting moral values and community cohesion), Constitutional Principles (upholding separation of powers), Government Accountability (ensuring transparency), Government Size (limiting government), Government Efficiency (fighting waste), Family Success (prioritizing families), Small Business Success (supporting the American Dream), and Individual Liberty (safeguarding personal freedoms).
For each category, we ask targeted sub-questions based on bill text, data, and potential impacts:
Does it strengthen/enhance/improve the goal? → +1 point
Does it diminish/undermine/hurt the goal? → -1 point
Neutral or no effect? → 0 points
We average the sub-questions per category (equal weighting), then sum the 9 averages for an Overall Raw score (-9 to +9). This is converted to a 0–100 Secure Idaho Alignment Score: (Raw + 9) ÷ 18 × 100. Higher scores mean stronger alignment with protecting Idaho from unchecked immigration strains.
2) Impact Rating: The 5 Levels of Real-World Effect
Beyond alignment, we rate the bill's potential impact on a 1–5 scale, considering scope (statewide vs. limited), enforcement (penalties vs. voluntary), projected effects (e.g., reducing job/housing/welfare strains per data), blockability (vulnerable to BigAg amendments/exemptions), and precedent.
1: Symbolic/Minimal (e.g., resolutions, studies - no enforcement; limited to one program/county; no teeth; easily blocked; minimal precedent). Low pressure on special interests.
2: Narrow/Limited (e.g., one-sector restrictions; easy exemptions; voluntary compliance; some data tracking but weak follow-through; moderate block risk). Incremental but not transformative.
3: Moderate (e.g., partial mandates with penalties; metrics for review; affects multiple sectors but with gaps; builds some precedent; medium risk of weakening). Builds momentum for county mobilization.
4: Significant (e.g., statewide mandates with real penalties; direct protections for jobs/resources; hard to exempt; strong data-driven effects; counters BigAg influence). High advocacy value.
5: Transformative (e.g., full E-Verify/sanctuary bans; blocks federal/H-2A overreach systemically; robust enforcement; statewide scope; sets major precedent for 2026 flips). Game-changer for sovereignty.
This rating ensures we prioritize bills with teeth over feel-good measures.
3) Bill Tier: How Alignment + Impact Determine Priority and Legislator Impact
We combine the Alignment Score (0–100) and Impact Rating (1–5) to assign a Tier (1–3), which sets a multiplier for how much the bill affects legislator scores on our dashboard. Higher alignment + higher impact = higher tier. For example: Strong alignment (80+) with transformative impact (5) might earn Tier 1; moderate alignment (50–69) with narrow impact (2) might be Tier 3.
Tier 1 (Multiplier: 4x – High Impact): Top priority—strong alignment, significant/transformative effects. These bills (e.g., mandatory E-Verify) heavily influence legislator scores; supporting them boosts a rep's grade, while blocking tanks it. We rally hard (petitions, rallies, county task force posts).
Tier 2 (Multiplier: 2.5x – Medium Impact): Solid alignment, moderate/significant effects. Worth backing but monitored for amendments (e.g., sanctuary bans). Medium weight on scores—encourages flips without overwhelming.
Tier 3 (Multiplier: 1.5x – Limited Impact): Weaker alignment or lower impact (e.g., studies or partial restrictions). Low weight on legislator scores—doesn't make or break a grade but tracks patterns (e.g., repeated BigAg ties). We watch/expose rather than lead advocacy.
Tier 4 (1x multiplier – Minimal Impact): Low alignment + symbolic/narrow impact. Mostly feel-good or toothless measures that don’t meaningfully protect Idahoans from immigration strains. Minimal or no weight on legislator scores - we note them for patterns but focus energy elsewhere (e.g., stronger bills).
Why tiers matter: They ensure high-stakes bills count more toward legislator accountability. A vote on a Tier 1 bill could swing a score by 40–80 points; Tier 3 by just 15–30. This pressures reps to prioritize voter demands over lobby donors (see our Follow the Money dashboard for BigAg PAC ties).
HB 660 scores 72 because it advances statewide transparency and accountability in immigration-related criminal enforcement by requiring all law enforcement agencies to verify and record the immigration status and nationality of individuals following a lawful arrest. By mandating biannual public reporting on crimes involving foreign nationals and transfers to federal authorities, the bill provides policymakers and the public with consistent, statewide data needed to evaluate the intersection of immigration and public safety. This improves enforcement visibility, strengthens coordination with federal partners, and reduces the ability of jurisdictions to obscure or avoid reporting immigration-related crime data.
However, HB 660 is primarily a reporting and accountability measure rather than a direct enforcement reform. It does not create new arrest authority, mandate federal cooperation programs such as 287(g), require the honoring of detainers, or establish independent state enforcement mechanisms. While the bill includes a compliance backstop tied to state funding, it does not directly alter removal outcomes, employment enforcement, or benefit eligibility. As a result, several enforcement, government size, and economic impact categories remain neutral. HB 660 meaningfully improves transparency and consistency, but lacks the structural enforcement mechanisms characteristic of higher-impact immigration reforms.
Impact Rating = 2 (Narrow/limited scope (e.g., one-sector reporting, easy exemptions).). Tier = 3 (1.5× multiplier).
Want the full breakdown? Scroll down for the category table (every sub-question, score, average), impact notes, and tier rationale.