Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers Rejects GOP Bill Tying Local Police to ICE Duties

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

Governor Evers rejected a draft bill mandating local law enforcement cooperation with ICE, calling it “not a serious proposal.”
The bill proposes 15% state aid cuts for non-compliance and requires sheriffs to enforce immigration warrants and verify citizenship.
Evers argued the bill undermines recent 20% revenue increases for municipalities and could harm public safety and community relations.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has recently taken a definitive stance against a draft bill introduced by Republican lawmakers. The proposed legislation, which aims to mandate cooperation between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was promptly dismissed by Evers’ administration as “a non-starter.” This preemptive rejection serves as another chapter in the ongoing debates over immigration policy in the United States.

The draft bill, first detailed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on February 3, 2025, focuses specifically on requiring county sheriffs to play an expanded role in immigration enforcement. Among the more notable provisions, local law enforcement would have to ask individuals in custody for proof of U.S. citizenship. Those who could not provide such proof would then be reported to the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, the draft legislation proposes that sheriffs collaborate with federal authorities on executing immigration warrants.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers Rejects GOP Bill Tying Local Police to ICE Duties

One of the most debated aspects of the draft bill is its proposed penalties for non-compliance. Specifically, local law enforcement agencies could see a reduction of 15% in state aid if they fail to meet the requirements outlined in the bill. This provision underscores the intent to ensure full cooperation with federal immigration efforts while simultaneously raising questions about consequences for local budgets.

Not waiting for the official introduction of the bill, Governor Tony Evers’ spokeswoman, Britt Cudaback, released a sharp response. Through a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Cudaback called the legislation “not a serious proposal,” emphasizing the governor’s firm unwillingness to support it. Evers’ administration has argued that the proposal undermines the state’s commitment to local law enforcement and community support. In her statement, Cudaback highlighted what she perceives as undue micromanagement by Republican lawmakers, stating, “Republican lawmakers are trying to micromanage local law enforcement decisions by threatening to gut state aid by 15% for our local communities—that’s a non-starter.”

The governor’s office voiced broader concerns about the potential ripple effects on public safety and community relationships. Cudaback said the administration prioritizes collaborative efforts to improve safety, focus on crime prevention, and address violent threats like drugs or criminal activities. From Evers’ perspective, the draft bill diverts attention and resources from tackling these high-priority issues.

Another key element of the administration’s response is its emphasis on the financial implications for municipalities. Cudaback pointed out that many Wisconsin cities and towns recently experienced a 20% increase in state-shared revenue as part of broader reforms. According to the governor’s office, the draft bill threatens to reverse these gains by linking compliance to continued state funding. “After years of the state asking local law enforcement and communities to do more with less, we only just recently secured historic shared revenue increases for most municipalities,” Cudaback stated, arguing that the proposed legislation would effectively undo years of financial progress.

Republican lawmakers behind the draft bill have defended their position vigorously. State Representative Tyler August, R-Walworth, has characterized the legislation as an essential step in addressing immigration enforcement more effectively. Speaking to Fox News Digital, August described the Republican initiative as an opportunity to align efforts with former President Trump’s federal policies. According to August, the proposed law would strengthen partnerships between local law enforcement and federal authorities with the aim of “removing criminals from our communities that are here illegally.”

Beyond procedural debates, August also criticized Governor Evers’ approach, characterizing it as hasty and politically motivated. He noted that Evers rejected the draft bill without waiting for its formal introduction. “Governor Evers has blindly promised to veto a bill he hasn’t seen, which isn’t surprising since his motto has been to govern by veto,” he remarked. August also referred to what he called an “extreme” Democratic position on immigration, claiming that Evers’ stance indicates a systemic unwillingness to take action against individuals living in the country unlawfully, including those with serious criminal convictions.

This high-profile disagreement between the governor and Republican legislators highlights broader national trends. Over the past several years, many Democratic officials at the state and local level have resisted increased federal efforts to expand immigration enforcement. These disputes often revolve around the extent to which local authorities should assist federal agencies like ICE. Governor Evers now joins a growing group of Democratic leaders who have openly declined to participate in these expanded mandates.

The proposed legislation also raises concerns about its implications for immigrant communities and overall public safety. Critics argue that when state or local law enforcement officers are required to assist with immigration enforcement, it may strain their relationships with immigrant residents. Even individuals who are in the United States legally may feel hesitant to approach police for assistance or to report crimes if they fear potential questions about their legal status. This, opponents say, could create a “chilling effect” that undermines law enforcement’s role in keeping communities safe.

Supporters of the draft bill, however, see increased state-federal coordination as essential for addressing immigration challenges effectively. They argue that local authorities are uniquely positioned to assist federal agencies in identifying individuals with questionable legal status and in removing those who pose security risks. The inclusion of financial penalties for non-compliance, proponents believe, is a necessary safeguard to ensure alignment across multiple levels of government.

The financial conflict embedded within the legislation adds another layer of complexity. If passed, the draft bill could force local law enforcement agencies into difficult decisions. Should they comply with federal immigration priorities and risk alienating parts of their communities, or should they maintain existing practices and possibly lose crucial state aid? This challenge underscores the practical hurdles associated with implementing such policies.

Governor Evers’ outright rejection of the draft bill highlights not only the political divide in Wisconsin but also the larger questions surrounding immigration enforcement across the United States. This controversy exemplifies why immigration remains such a contested issue, with state and local governments charting divergent paths in an already complex legal landscape.

The broader national context is also worth noting. States across the U.S. are struggling to balance federal immigration enforcement initiatives with local priorities, creating a patchwork of policies rather than a cohesive system. The disagreement between Governor Tony Evers and Republican lawmakers reflects this overarching challenge of achieving consistency. As divisions deepen, the roles of state and local authorities in immigration enforcement become increasingly polarized.

As the legislative process continues, it will be necessary to track the development of this controversial proposal. Will any compromises be reached, or will this draft bill meet its end at Governor Evers’ desk? Both Republican lawmakers and the Evers administration are unlikely to sway dramatically from their current positions, so public and political reactions may influence how deeply the state becomes entrenched in this issue. Any developments could potentially have a significant impact on both immigration policy and the future direction of law enforcement funding in Wisconsin.

In conclusion, Governor Tony Evers’ rejection of the proposed draft bill requiring cooperation between local police and ICE agents signals a decisive stance on immigration enforcement within the state of Wisconsin. From the sharp criticisms by lawmakers to potential challenges ahead, this matter is shaping up to be a key issue in defining the balance between state and federal powers. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the push-and-pull between these policies is not unique to Wisconsin but reflects a national trend in how states address immigration concerns. For detailed updates regarding immigration law and enforcement, individuals can consult the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Learn Today

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) → A U.S. federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws and investigating immigration-related crimes.
Draft Bill → A preliminary version of proposed legislation that outlines specific policies or regulations before formal introduction.
State Aid → Financial assistance provided by a state government to local governments or agencies for public services.
Shared Revenue → Funds distributed from state governments to municipalities to support local programs, often based on reform agreements.
Chilling Effect → A situation where individuals avoid certain actions due to fear of negative consequences or repercussions.

This Article in a Nutshell

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers swiftly rejected a Republican-led draft bill mandating local police cooperation with ICE, calling it “a non-starter.” Critics argue it threatens community trust and local budgets, while proponents tout it as essential for immigration enforcement. The clash underscores broader national tensions over balancing federal priorities with local autonomy.
— By VisaVerge.com