On Wednesday March 12th, Public Safety Policy Fellow David Zimmer testified in the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee in support of HF 16. See a write up of the hearing by the House here.
The Bill, authored by Representative Max Rymer (R), seeks to prohibit state and local government entities from barring public employees from sharing information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and mandates law enforcement to share information involving undocumented individuals arrested for certain crimes of violence.
The Bill is necessary to combat the sanctuary policies adopted in several cities and counties around the state which have established firewalls and prohibitions against sharing information with ICE.
The hearing was dominated by anti ICE activists who were clearly opposed to any measure that would lead to increased deportation of unauthorized immigrants. In nearly two (2) hours of testimony and debate, just one other testifier appeared or provided written testimony in support of the Bill.
Minnesotans who feel strongly about the direction of immigration policy must become more engaged in the process or accept the results of their inaction.
Polling on the issue of illegal immigration is clear – Minnesotans and the nation are opposed to it. But no one attending yesterday’s hearing would have come away with that impression – and that needs to change.
A 2024 American Experiment poll revealed that 59% of Minnesotans opposed last year’s proposed legislation to make Minnesota a sanctuary state.
A 2025 AP-NORC poll showed that 83% of Americans overall favored the deportation of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent crime.
Sadly, the effort to introduce reasonable legislation focused on helping ICE prioritize violent criminals was broadsided by activists whose presence and passion served to obscure the opinions of broader Minnesota and the nation.
At the conclusion of debate, the Public Safety Committee voted along party lines (currently 10 Rep and 9 DFL) to re-refer the Bill to the Elections and Government Operations Committee for further action.
Zimmer’s testimony is reprinted below:
I appear today in support of HF 16 which seeks to bar state and local government from creating law or policy that would prohibit sharing information about unauthorized immigrants with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). From my experience these prohibitions create unintended consequences based on inaccurate narratives.
It’s important to know that HF-16 aligns well with current federal law which states: “No State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from ICE information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.” (Title 8 US Code 1644)
As a bit of background, I retired three (3) years ago from local law enforcement. During my career, I served in several leadership capacities that involved cooperating with ICE, including as the Captain of the Hennepin County Jail. I saw first-hand during my career the importance of interagency cooperation with all our federal law enforcement partners, including ICE.
Last year, during the debate that surrounded the Northstar Bill, I became concerned with some of the narratives being used that didn’t fit with the reality that I knew. I’d like to address HF-16 in the lens of these narratives.
The idea that cooperating with ICE is a waste of finite time and resources for local law enforcement simply falls flat. A core tenet of law enforcement is that officers and agencies help each other when needed. This spirit of cooperation runs both ways, and it serves as the foundation of the law enforcement community, which depends on force multipliers to properly address public safety issues.
Throughout my career, I personally worked with the FBI, ATF, DEA, the Secret Service, US Postal Inspector, US Marshal Service, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, IRS, the US Navy Dive team, and yes ICE.
And today officers continue to routinely partner with federal authorities on a variety of matters.
It’s completely appropriate for law enforcement to collect as much biographical data on those they detain as possible. It would be inappropriate for an officer not to attempt to determine the country of origin or nationality of a potential unauthorized immigrant that they were dealing with. This information facilitates several things, including mandated foreign consulate notifications, checking on the existence of outstate or international warrants, checking on the existence of terrorism watch list notifications, and assisting with future follow up or attempts to locate the individual.
It’s important to note that our data practices statutes which govern law enforcement data already mandate the sharing of that information in many instances and allow for it in others.
To suggest that we should create firewalls or carve out an exception to the sharing of this data with ICE, is an uncalled-for obstruction of an appropriate law enforcement process.
Another matter that HF 16 would help to address is the problem created by ICE Detainer Requests. Due to the massive volume of unauthorized immigrants ICE is responsible for, ICE tends to rely almost solely on the civil detainer and deportation process, rather than the more time-consuming criminal prosecution process.
But the civil process doesn’t mesh well with detention timelines that govern local law enforcement. This dilemma would be eliminated by more timely and appropriate sharing of information with ICE – like we do with every other federal partner.
Absent this timely notification, ICE is frequently unable to take custody of individuals at the time their local holds expire. ICE is then put the unnecessary and dangerous position of having to either stand outside of jails and courthouses or going out into the community to re-arrest people who had just been in custody. These situations often result in the unintended detention and deportation of undocumented individuals who would not have come to the attention of ICE, had ICE not had to go into the community to arrest previously detained individuals.
If the argument is that immigration is a federal matter, and if, as many officials have stated, they don’t want to obstruct or prevent ICE from doing their job, then we need to ensure that information is shared with ICE at the earliest stages of detention. This ensures ICE has an appropriate amount of time to do its job, so it can focus on public safety risks, and reduce unintended consequences.
I urge you to vote yes on HF 16.