Indiana moves to align immigration enforcement with federal policy.

Hoosier students walk out, the state and schools respond, and a long time member of the statehouse GOP steps away from the television studios at WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending February 6th, 2026.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

Indiana lawmakers overhauled an immigration bill to align with the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies.

Samantha Horton reports on hours of passionate testimony on the issue.

The amended version forces state and local law enforcement to compliance with federal immigration officers as reporting requirements for immigrants receiving welfare benefits, and gives the Attorney General more enforcement powers.

Save Heritage Indiana co-founder Nathan Roberts says he's in favor of the bill that he believes helps address illegal immigration in the state.

It will make Indiana the model for common sense immigration enforcement throughout the country.

But many who stood at the podium urged lawmakers to vote against it.

Noblesville resident Coumba Kebe says the legislation goes against Indiana's Christian values.

How can.

We claim to be.

Pro-Life while supporting.

The inhumane treatment of immigrants in this country?

After more than four hours of testimony, the House Judiciary Committee passed the amended bill.

Is Indiana on the right track with immigration enforcement?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Terri Austin, Republican Mike O'Brien.

Ben Thorp, government reporter at WFYI.

Oseye Boyd, editor in chief at Mirror Indy.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So, Mike, is this the right direction for the state of Indiana?

well, look, I mean, what we're picking our moment here.

We're in a at a time where kind of.

I feel like we're in an inflection point, and this even the white House is starting to soften their stance on coming out of Minnesota.

What the what they're what they're doing and how far they're willing to go.

And are they changing these policies.

Now you've got Congress taking another look at, at the spending bill and the leverage point is DHS funding and how we how should we reform Ice to make it more accountable and more transparent and, and just and soften the approach here and so, like, you know, and then we find ourselves in the middle of trying to like, double down.

It's like the belt and suspenders approach here.

Like right.

Because saying that we're going to follow federal law isn't a isn't a thing.

That's that's what we do.

We follow federal law.

Unless they're quiet about it, then we follow state law.

So and they're not quiet about immigration policy obviously.

So, we're in an interesting moment.

And you put that in the political context.

You know, the filing period ended on that noon on Friday.

So now we are fully into, campaign season, for a lot of these people.

And this issue is going to be the the polling has got to show that this is not going well for the administration.

or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing, which is like, back off, pull everybody out of Minnesota.

They dismissed the director.

they said that was unrelated, which is cute, but, you know, so we're just a an interesting pivot point here.

It's like the last time we had immigration front and center in U.S.

policy, really in an election year was, certainly the last 1 in 2024.

But 2006 was a was the last time that Republicans really proactively pushed immigration reform.

And that was back when we had some common sense.

Member Dan Burton carried the amnesty bill in 2006.

He carried George W Bush, Bush's amnesty bill.

Think about how far removed we are from that conversation.

and then we lost the election in 2006 and never looked back on on doing what we're doing now.

so we'll see.

We'll see how it turns.

I mean, ultimately, I think the national environment is going to impact us, the election far more than than this bill.

But it's a doubling down on on what's what's going on.

I mean, Terri, we do see this bill being, heard again next week in front of lawmakers and Democrats will be proposing a number of amendments.

What do you think they will try to achieve?

Well, I think one of the one they'll try to soften the bill.

I think they'll try to re, claim local control.

and there's an argument for that because local law enforcement knows their community, knows their neighborhood, knows their residents far better than bringing in folks from the outside.

It'd be like bringing in somebody as a new lobbyist to the Indiana General Assembly to tackle one of the biggest bills of the session, or even of the year.

And they don't even know the players.

They don't know the routines.

They don't know what happens.

Yes it does.

Yes.

So, I, I think that you'll see that the Democrats will try to soften this bill and some are going to be outright opposed to it, but I'm surprised that, aim Indiana, you know, accelerating Indiana municipalities and others have not gotten involved because it could erode local control significantly.

And with this legislation we've heard last year as well that was proposed, a little bit of, not accord with amongst, Republicans in the state House, but now we're seeing a little bit more, togetherness here.

What what did you understand when you were listening?

Yeah.

So, you know, you heard from kind of Sam's reporting that the amendment in the House is making this thing a little bit stricter.

People have pointed out it's also looking a little bit more like a piece of legislation last year that ended up dying because Senator Liz Brown, who's the author on this current bill, decided not to hear it.

now it appears that Senator Liz Brown and Attorney General Todd Rokita are kind of working together to get this across the plate.

But I think the question is, when this heads back to the Senate, are the Senate like our senators as a whole, going to go for this?

Yeah, I know, you know, we did hear much testimony from people that seemed almost resigned that something like this would pass in the House.

what do you think a lot of advocates and community members are feeling around this legislation here today?

Well, I think there's a lot of fear.

There's a lot of fear.

There's a lot of fear of what's happening in Minnesota can come here.

We seen recently where we have all these, social media posts about we we see I.C.E.

as I.C.E.

on 38th in Illinois, I.C.E.

here, I.C.E.. I was going to be at the J.W., you know, all these rumors about what's going on because people are afraid.

People are afraid that their neighbors will be taken.

We've killed, taken out of school.

There's a lot of fear.

I sorry, been here, as we know, but, people are afraid of what's going on in Minnesota.

Will come here at a time.

Like you said, we're actually.

Things are being pulled back.

but it does.

I think part of the conversation has to be.

Yes, something that's going to be done about immigration.

I think all people with common sense, to my point, can agree that there needs to be something done, but it has to look humane right now, does not look it looks very inhumane.

It looks very much like we do not care about people as being human beings.

You are the language oftentimes is alien, illegal, alien versus you are a person.

And so that gives people people feel like that makes you be able to be treated as such.

And I think that's where we need to soften and actually remember to the point of the, the woman in the video, we're supposed to be Christians here.

This doesn't seem very Christ like.

This bill does align with what Indiana's AG wanted initially last year.

It does give the Attorney general more power here.

and is something that federal officials as well have said.

This fairness act is, what they would like to see.

Will this, give Todd Rokita some more leverage?

Oh, definitely.

And he'll use it too.

He's he's tested the limits of you know, that office and and good ways and not it's the politics are really interesting because the reason Liz Brown has a primary is because Jim Banks and Todd Rokita to teamed up to argue that she wasn't conservative enough.

So now she has a now she's fighting this primary back home.

But now, you know, doing a solid for the attorney general.

It's just an interesting dynamic.

We've seen as well.

You know some of the testimony schools saying there's gaps here and that people could be falling through these gaps with this type of legislation, that it might be too broad.

Is that a concern, do you think?

Well, it is, and I think schools should just be schools and churches should be off limits.

You don't go in and terrorize children.

I mean, because it's not just whether you're going after someone you think a child may be here illegally with their parents.

You do that kind of stunt in a school, it terrorizes every kid, and kids don't learn well, I I'll say this as a former teacher, do not learn well when they're fearful, unsafe, hungry.

We'll be watching.

Speaking of students at multiple central Indiana high schools this week walked out of class to protest federal immigration enforcement.

Eric Weddle reports the movement is drawing sharp criticism from state GOP leaders.

No fear, no hate, no I.C.E.

in our state.

No fear, no hate.

No.

Ice state education officials and some Republican lawmakers are pushing back the Indiana Department of Education says it does not support any student walkout at class time must be focused on learning.

The department says districts should enforce discipline policies for student conduct and attendance.

Republican State Representative Jake Teshka called the walkouts highly orchestrated indoctrination, led by adults.

Lieutenant governor Micah Beckwith says it's unacceptable schools are letting students protest.

Ice students say they are not worried about being disciplined, speaking out for their immigrant classmates is more important.

So, Terri, do students have the right to walk out?

That's a great question.

And I will say it's not the first time, and it will not be the last time that students have chosen to protest.

It's gone on for decades.

Don't those of those of us who remember the Vietnam War remember when kids came out of high school to protest that Kent State, I mean, so many things through the years.

The issue is for schools.

You don't want kids to be hurt.

You don't want them to, be subject to retribution.

The General Assembly is going to have to learn some patience.

Quite honestly, in my view, kids students are going to do things that they feel helps give them a voice.

Schools would be wise to find a way to give them a constructive avenue to protest this.

And it's it's just the nature of the beast.

You get a lot of students, you know, when you think about schools having 3000 kids in them that can spread like wildfire, you know, we're going to do it.

They started on social media.

And that's why these things, I think, have really started to ramp up over the last few weeks because it's like, well, if their school is doing it, our school is going to do it.

It's it's not basketball competition, but nobody wants to be left on the sidelines either.

Mike, why do you think there was so much outrage from GOP leaders about these walkouts?

Because certainly they have before.

Yeah, it's a high profile example of pushing back on a policy they they support.

my daughter's a junior in high school, and she asked me if she could participate in the Avon walkout.

I said, look, I'm not going to tell you you can do it.

When school leaders are saying you shouldn't.

But part of being young and protesting stuff is telling people like me to go pound sand and have a hard time, like I have a hard time, you know, she she looks at me as a person who's made his whole life about getting on TV and mouthing off about stuff.

and share my opinion.

So, you know, and she tracks me a little bit, in that, in that she is for being hard.

You know, we disagree.

We had a conversation last night about this, after the after the protest and just shared opinions there.

So, you know, look, I've been a part of that and actually the whole way of the state.

You know, the halls of the state House this week is this conversation we have where a lot of us have kids in the same situation.

Right.

It we're recollecting we're all politically active.

So we're recollecting the protests that we participated in.

You know, when we were we were kids and we look back and we're like, boy, that was stupid.

But when you look back, sometimes go, wow, that was, where I was like, I was wrong about that.

Or I got lucky and didn't get arrested.

Well, we have been seen schools respond differently and schools have the right to, you know, punish students if they do walk out.

That's right.

Our you know, our one of our colleagues was reporting on oh look it you know, it's perfectly legal for a school to punish students for going out and engaging in kind of a disruptive protest or a walkout or something of that nature.

I think like protest by their nature, is we're kind of talking about are meant to be disruptive, to draw attention to an issue.

I think the question is like how far the schools want to go and how to how far the lawmakers want to go in kind of pushing back against kids.

And do you want to see be seen as kind of pushing back against kids?

You've got folks like Micah Beckwith who I think are saying, I don't want to see this.

This is like making me uncomfortable.

I don't want schools to be kind of behind or supportive of this kind of, walkout or protest.

But on the flip, I think it's just like it's a tightrope to walk here.

you know, Speaker Todd Huston was talking about it this week, and you heard him say, I think that this is a mistake, but I'm also really glad that our students are so politically active and they're getting out there and they're, you know, making their voices heard.

So I think it's really it's going to be hard for for places to be seen as really coming down on kids.

I mean, it's not.

Going to work.

No.

As it ever.

Worked and never know.

Any one time.

Or is it made it worse?

It's going to make it worse.

So yeah.

What do you think as well?

Yeah, it's to the point earlier that kids have been doing this for generations, for decades.

Right.

and when the old people don't want to do something, they're going to make or want to do it even more.

but there's this word indoctrination being used a lot that, they feel that kids are being indoctrinated.

Well, it depends on that.

Word is often used when you don't agree.

They're clearly not.

What they think.

The left they're been indoctrinated to by the left.

I think when they don't agree with what the kids are doing, they're using the word indoctrination.

But then you have now you're trying to have turning point USA in school.

So some people might think that's indoctrination.

So it just depends on who's saying and who's using it.

And if you like what the kids are doing, you're fine with it.

But if you don't, it's a problem.

And we just have to understand that youth are going to act like they want to act no matter what.

It's time now for viewer feedback.

Every week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question Should Indiana students be allowed to walk out for organized protests?

Answer yes or no.

The last question posed to viewers should Indiana lawmakers prioritize the expansion of National Guard policing powers?

12% saying yes and 88% saying no.

If you would like to take part in the poll.

Go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

Indiana State Representative Ed Clere says he's been kicked off the House Republican caucus, days after announcing he would not seek reelection and would run for mayor of New Albany as an independent.

April reports.

Republican House Speaker Todd Huston confirmed the change, but said clears committee assignments will not be affected.

Clere was first elected to the House district 72 seat in 2008, but he's not pursuing a new term this year.

Clere says he can't in good conscience continue to run as a Republican, and that the party itself has become, quote, unrecognizable under President Donald Trump.

He says his decision isn't about the people, but the party.

He plans to run for mayor of New Albany in 2027 as an independent.

So, Ben, was this, move a surprise?

I feel like the answer is yes and no.

You know, I think, like, on the one hand, you look back at Cleres record and, you know, he's someone who has been comfortable breaking with the Republican Party going back to 2011.

He was the sole Republican to vote no on a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage.

You can look at his support for things like the needle exchange program.

He's been a Republican who I think has been comfortable breaking with the party.

And so in that sense, I would say, no, it's not a surprise.

but I think that it is always surprising to see someone break with the party, and particularly to say that they're breaking with the party over Trump.

I think that that is something here in the state that we're seeing a lot of consequences for, whether we're talking about, the swatting attempts, whether we're talking about the primary challenges.

it's something that that comes with consequences.

And so I think that in that sense, it's always surprising for someone to say, here's why.

Here's why I can't sit with this anymore.

Do you think this is influence of DC politics?

Yeah.

I think, people are getting tired of people from out of state coming in and trying to dictate what happens in Indiana.

I think we'll see more pushback on that.

And it's really I think for me, it's good to see that because for so long we've talked about how Indiana is not DC, it's not new York, it's not California.

And we make our own decisions here.

And so it seems like we're getting back to that.

So local control.

Jerry he was known to work across the aisle.

Will that be missed at the Indiana State House?

I think so because I mean, it's not just my opinion.

It's the opinion of many legislators, current and past, who believe the tone has changed significantly.

I mean, there were speakers who discouraged people from going to dinner together, you know, Democrats and Republicans, from working together.

Ed has always been representative.

Clere has always been a compassionate, decent representative.

But most importantly, and this gets back to do you toe the party line.

Do you represent the people who elected you?

Ed has tried to represent the people who represent who he represents in down in New Albany, and he's been very popular down there, very popular.

They've tried to beat him before on both sides.

They cannot get it done.

Mike, are we at risk of seeing this happen more in the Republican Party in Indiana?

I don't think so.

I think we're I think we're more likely we're going to see a see a shift after after 26.

We'll see what the outcome of the election is.

That's going to determine what what the tone is in 28. do we stay on this kind of Trump path or do we do we lose?

If we lose, do we try to pivot away from it?

And who's the next person?

as far as Ed goes, the Representative Clere goes, Terri's right.

And he picked up a lot of issues that that Republicans weren't willing to pick up.

I mean, he's picked up a lot of social service issues, a syringe exchange lot, a lot of things that, he was very moderate on.

But also, you know, it out of the political kind of ideology standpoint he was trying to take his passion was taking care of people who were the most vulnerable.

That's what he did.

and that was that was every year.

Is it a surprise that he was removed from the caucus?

I kind of bet.

It's like I'm like, yeah, you couldn't just run the clock out for four weeks, but also you kind of like, went on TV and said, I'm not a Republican anymore.

You're not allowed in the Republican club in the room, like literally the Republican room.

so I, I but I think the speaker struck a good balance in not allowing him to caucus with the Republicans anymore, because you said, I'm not part of you, I'm not one of you anymore.

But but keeping him as a Republican on those on those committees where he's making a difference.

Is that a surprise or is that pretty typical thing that would happen?

You know, you're not in the caucus anymore.

We've seen it locally.

I mean, people get it.

People have been ejected from the caucus for cause, like Mike young doesn't caucus the Senate Republicans, Mike Delph, who just filed for Senate yesterday or Thursday, to run in the seat that JD Ford is vacating.

Who who beat him years ago.

what's what's the.

Expected young used.

expelled from the caucus, not.

Dean young used to not go to caucus with the Republicans, I would say.

And I mean, it's.

Just an either that's just.

Wasn't the.

Caucus.

Do we see that as much happened in the Democratic Party?

This doesn't really happen.

No.

All their fights just happen inside.

Well, another issue at the state House this week, people who are homeless and camp outside could face criminal charges under legislation being proposed.

Homeless advocates are concerned that the move will add extra barriers without support for the unhoused.

For a second year in a row, lawmakers have advanced a bill that would establish misdemeanor charges for camping outside on public property.

Supporters of the legislation says it offers a chance for law enforcement to engage and connect people with services.

Opponents worry, it adds another significant barrier for people experiencing homelessness.

Lauren Murfrree, policy analyst at Indiana Community Action Poverty Institute, says the bill does not provide communities with any additional support services.

Those might not exist depending on how they have to get set up.

That costs money and time.

This bill will be enacted in July 1st.

And so I'm very concerned about what is going to happen if this on services.

The legislation is now before the House.

So Oseye last year many people at the statehouse railed against, you know, this type of legislation.

Do you expect that we can see that type of opposition again?

Yes, if there's time.

this is a bill again, going back to people treat people humanely.

This bill does not sound humane.

Calling it camping is something that I've kind of taken have.

It's living.

It's not camp.

And we're not going in for fun.

People are living outside.

they're living in freezing cold conditions.

It's not something that most people are choosing to do because they want to.

It's something that they are forced to do.

And penalizing them, making it criminal misdemeanors, fines.

That makes it more difficult for people to actually go into housing.

we know we have an affordable housing crisis right now.

So how are we helping to solve the affordable housing crisis?

By putting people in more, situations where they can't get housing.

Then we know that there's crowding at the jail.

so what does this mean?

What does it mean?

And then I think the bill was talking about letting them.

They have to move like 300ft.

What does that really do to move 300ft?

I'm just going to move a little bit down the road here, and then you're going to come and get me again.

a couple more days.

Like, what does that really do?

it's just kind of kicking the can down the road here.

We need real solutions to this affordable housing crisis that we're in versus criminalizing people for not having a home ban.

Author of this bill has said that she really does want to, you know, make connections for these people.

But again, some people worry that the services aren't there.

Yeah.

You heard kind of Cyndy Carrasco say in committee that, you know, to to allow someone to die on the street is not humane and kind of making the pitch that this bill, is helping solve this.

But if you, you know, advocates have have said for years and you and I have been covering this for many, many years that, you know, pushing someone somewhere else does not solve the problem.

You know, if the problem is that they don't have a house, telling them to go somewhere else is not ultimately like a solution to that.

Indianapolis has been one of the cities across the country that is looking at this Housing First model or trying to get people into housing immediately.

I think there are questions about how fast the city is moving and whether or not it's doing enough.

but yeah, I think that that it's clear that this is an issue and that people on both sides are you don't want to see people on the street, but I think it's just a question of, do you want to make that someone else's problem or push it outside the city, or is there a solution that we can kind of actually come to?

I mean, like we've heard from people that have proposed this bill that the reason is because the methods that we're using now are simply not working.

You know, homelessness is on the increase, and that's true.

But there have been municipalities that have been able to tackle it, and ways that we have not been able to.

Here is this way, you know, creating a misdemeanor charge for people who are camping outside, a good way.

I don't know, a lot of bad stuff's probably happened leading up to that point that you're not worried about the misdemeanor, but I'm not sure hanging a criminal record around their neck is helping anybody, either.

but, look, I mean, lawmakers are live here, right?

Like 3 or 4 months a year.

They live here, and they see they walk out of the state house, too, and see people living on living under the arts garden.

And a lot of this gets lumped into the same, like category when it's when it's more nuanced than that, you know, they're they're reacting as much to the, the homeless encampment as they are to the guy shooting up, you know, shooting up on the street outside of the state House that they see and they're trying to solve both of those problems with the same solution or they're different.

and so I'm, I do agree, you do have to bring if you're going to encounter if the government is going to encounter these people, something has to come along with that, which is a path to services, a path to something better than than the situation right now.

Because if I'm living in a tent under a bridge, I'm not too worried about getting a misdemeanor misdemeanor charge.

I wouldn't, I wouldn't think I'm just speculating.

But that's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Terri Austin, Republican Mike O'Brien, Ben Thorp, government reporter at WFYI, and Oseye Boyd, editor in chief at Mirror Indy.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.