Kansas immigration fight escalates amid SCR 1602 and federal crackdown

With the 2026 campaign season coming into view, the politics of immigration in Kansas have moved to center stage, shaped by hard-line actions in Washington and an active statehouse in Topeka. Lawmakers have advanced a resolution urging the Governor to work hand in hand with federal authorities under President Trump’s 2025 enforcement drive, while civil rights groups push back.

Against that backdrop, talk has surfaced about a Democratic immigration lawyer eyeing a run for the U.S. Senate, though there is no confirmed campaign as of now. The debate, nonetheless, is defining what any statewide candidate will have to address: how far Kansas should go in enforcing federal immigration law, and how those choices affect families, schools, and local police.

Legislative measures and where they stand

At the core of the shift is Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1602. The measure, which both chambers passed and presented to the Secretary of State on April 4, 2025, urges Governor Laura Kelly to fully cooperate with federal enforcement priorities, including deportations and border operations.

• The resolution frames illegal immigration as a threat to public safety, health, and state resources and cites the Laken Riley Act and backing from the Kansas congressional delegation.
• While SCR 1602 doesn’t carry the force of law, it sends a clear political message: a majority in the Legislature wants Kansas aligned with a tougher federal approach.
• The full legislative record is available at the official Kansas Legislature site: https://www.kslegislature.gov.

Another plank in the push was Senate Bill 178.

• SB 178 would have required local law enforcement to enter into agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help carry out federal duties.
• The bill was introduced February 4, 2025 but died in committee after hearings were canceled in March.
• Organizations like the ACLU of Kansas argued it would harm community safety, increase racial profiling, and divert resources from local policing.

Two other proposals show competing priorities:

• Senate Bill 254
  • Would bar undocumented students from in-state tuition and create a presumption of flight risk in pretrial release decisions.
  • Critics say this would create a two-tier system in schools and courts.
  • As of March, SB 254 remained under consideration.
• Senate Bill 287 (introduced May 26, 2025)
  • Would prohibit immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” such as places of worship, elementary schools, and hospitals.
  • This reflects a view that certain community spaces should remain off-limits to preserve trust and access to basic services, even amid increased enforcement.

Federal actions amplifying state stakes

Federal policy moves in April 2025 added urgency to the state debate.

• On April 8, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out daily fines up to $998 for migrants who fail to depart after a removal order, with penalties retroactive for five years.
  • These fines are paired with asset seizures and civil forfeiture for non-payment.
• DHS moved to revoke Social Security numbers for people whose legal status was rescinded by using the “Death Master File,” adding over 6,000 names, including minors and flagged individuals.
• A federal judge upheld a new registry rule on April 9, 2025, requiring certain undocumented migrants to register with authorities or face prosecution and fines.
• DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has described these steps as part of a “mass deportation” agenda under President Trump.

If Kansas follows the spirit of SCR 1602, cooperation with DHS would expand the reach of those federal actions inside the state.

Important: Federal changes—especially fines, registry rules, and Social Security actions—can have immediate, harsh effects on families even when they believe their immigration cases are in order.

Political landscape and competing arguments

The political map in Kansas is both clear and contested:

• The Republican-controlled Legislature supports stricter enforcement and more state-federal cooperation.
• The Kansas Attorney General has echoed concerns about the costs of illegal immigration and the need to uphold the law.
• Governor Laura Kelly (Democrat) faces pressure from SCR 1602 to support those priorities; her response will be closely watched.

Civil liberties and immigrant advocacy groups counter with warnings:

• Mandatory cooperation and school-based penalties would weaken trust, harm safety, and put families at risk.
• Organizers argue that broader cooperation with federal drives could disrupt classrooms, workplaces, and courtrooms.
• Immigrant-reliant sectors—agriculture, meatpacking, health care, and higher education—note the economic and social impacts of stricter policies.

Supporters of stricter measures argue they respond to public concerns about border security, fentanyl, and crime, pointing to the Laken Riley Act and the need for state help enforcing federal law.

Opponents warn of:
– Sweeping up long-settled families,
– Increased profiling,
– People avoiding schools and hospitals,
– Punishing children for parents’ past decisions.

Day-to-day impacts on Kansans

Several practical effects could follow if state and local cooperation with federal authorities deepens:

• People with old deportation orders could face steep fines and asset seizures.
• The Social Security action may cause families to lose access to wage reporting and benefits tied to SSNs, sometimes due to error—which can affect children.
• Removing in-state tuition would raise costs for undocumented students who grew up in Kansas, limiting their higher-education choices.
• Expanding federal roles for police risks damaging community trust, which local chiefs say is essential for solving crimes and encouraging victims to come forward.
• SB 287 seeks to protect hospitals, churches, and elementary schools, but outside those settings the climate could grow tougher.

The U.S. Senate dimension

A potential U.S. Senate run by a Democratic immigration lawyer would sharpen the statewide debate:

• Such a candidate would likely highlight the human costs of the federal crackdown and oppose mass deportations while supporting limits like SB 287.
• Republicans would argue for order, border control, and cooperation with federal agencies, consistent with SCR 1602.

Either way, immigration is shaping up to be a defining issue affecting farm towns, college campuses, police departments, and small businesses statewide.

Why Kansas matters nationally

Kansas is a testing ground in the national fight over who controls immigration enforcement:

• States cannot make federal immigration law, but they can direct police cooperation, access to public benefits, and protections for sensitive locations.
• Bills like SB 178, SB 254, and SB 287—even as drafts—show lawmakers’ appetite and limits for state-level action.
• VisaVerge.com reports these state-level moves are being watched by campaigns and legal groups nationwide as models to copy or challenge.

How policy advances and the legal risks

The practical pathway in Topeka remains procedural and predictable:

1. Lawmakers introduce bills.
2. Committees hold hearings (or cancel them).
3. Floor votes can send measures to the Governor or, for resolutions like SCR 1602, the Secretary of State.
4. Once guidance exists, agencies decide how to implement it.

• This process invites lawsuits, especially when rules affect sensitive locations or due process.
• Groups on both sides mobilize: filing testimony, organizing communities, and planning legal action.

Practical advice for families and employers

• Monitor bill status closely — changes in state policy can affect tuition, police encounters, and employment.
• Watch how the Governor responds to SCR 1602 and how agencies interpret cooperation with federal drives.
• Track federal moves under President Trump (fines, registry rules, Social Security actions) as they can produce real problems even when people believe their cases are settled.
• Keep records current and seek legal guidance early if a status question arises, especially if a removal order exists or might be issued.

Key takeaway: The decisions made in Topeka will ripple far beyond the Statehouse—shaping how Kansas families live and work, how colleges plan for the fall, and how sheriffs handle calls after dark in towns large and small.