The Illegal Alien Lobby at Work

Special interests are fighting tooth and nail to maintain their foreign-born workforce.

Click here to listen to this article as a podcast

It was an unholy alliance from the start: Democrats worked against enforcement of immigration laws because they wanted to import a new population of left-wing voters, while Republicans worked against those same laws to maintain a supply of cheap labor. Now, the chickens have come home to roost.

President Trump is doing what he can at the federal level, even as Democrats have shut down the Department of Homeland Security to prevent it from enforcing the law. Here in Idaho, the same unholy alliance is working to stymie any attempt to support the president’s efforts.

I have been writing about the need for immigration enforcement for a long time. In February 2024, I examined competing resolutions—one calling for actual enforcement, the other calling for more foreign workers and implicit amnesty:

What does it mean to be an American citizen? Does it mean you have special rights and privileges, as recognized in the Constitution and a thousand years of English Common Law? Or does it mean you are interchangeable for a foreign worker who will work for cheap?

Do our heritage and culture matter? Does it mean anything if English remains the primary language of our country? Can the Constitution be adapted for a new population that developed with different social and legal traditions?

Unfortunately these questions are swept aside. Democrats see the potential of new voters who will support their agenda while Republicans see cheap labor for their biggest donors.

IACI, the Big Ag coalitions, and their Main Street Caucus puppets have no loyalty to the American people or citizens of Idaho. They would happily replace us all with a servile foreign population that works for less and votes how they’re told.

The resolution with teeth was sponsored by Rep. Dale Hawkins and Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld, the latter of whom is now facing professional repercussions for opposing the special interests that resist immigration enforcement. On Friday, Zuiderveld shared a letter sent to her husband, Tom, informing him that three of his clients would no longer work with him, explicitly due to the senator’s “political role”:

Notice that the author of the letter revealed that one customer demanded the company fire Tom Zuiderveld, and that several other companies might also cease doing business with him. Does that sound like a threat to you?

According to its website, Tom Zuiderveld has been an independent sales representative for Schaeffer Manufacturing since 2005. The company serves a wide variety of industries, but note that the three mentioned in the letter are all in the cattle and dairy sector—the very industry that claims to rely on foreign labor to survive. Recall that a lobbyist for the Idaho Dairymen’s Association claimed that up to 70% of its workforce could be illegal:

Wouldn’t it be something to be a fly on the wall of any formal or informal meeting of dairy owners and lobbyists discussing what to do about these troublesome legislators who oppose their agenda? I would not be surprised if there were a coordinated effort to target the livelihoods of those who disagree with their positions on foreign workers and illegal immigration.

Isn’t it also interesting that Sen. Zuiderveld faces repercussions for supporting legislation that upholds the law, while those who advocate for violating immigration law face none? Sen. Jim Guthrie, for example, has long advocated for giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. This year, he has used his authority as chairman of Senate State Affairs to refuse hearings on bills that would hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. Yet he appears to have faced no professional consequences for these actions.

Guthrie also seems accustomed to avoiding consequences, as he faced no serious professional repercussions for his adultery earlier in his legislative career. On Monday morning, he presented a bill before his own committee designed to push back against door-knockers sharing factual information with voters in his district—he clearly wants to strictly control information flowing to his constituents.

What about Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen? A farm owned by her company was raided by ICE in January 2025, resulting in the arrest of an employee who was not only in the country illegally but had also previously been charged with drug possession as well as domestic violence in front of a child. Mickelsen has vehemently defended the agricultural industry’s practice of employing illegal workers on the House floor and recently posted a video claiming we need more foreign labor because she once had to wait 45 minutes for food at Taco Bell.

Yet I have heard of no professional repercussions for her, her family, or her business. I am not even sure whether Mickelsen has ever declared a conflict of interest under House Rule 80 for owning a business that has employed at least one illegal worker while debating and voting on immigration enforcement bills.

Under our current system, advocating for driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, discarding enforcement bills passed by the House, or even employing illegal workers with criminal histories carries no penalty. Those individuals are not only unsanctioned—they receive generous campaign donations from agricultural and dairy interests.

On the other hand, supporting the rule of law brings down the hammer even on to one’s family business.

This is worse than hypocrisy. It is a system that rewards wrongdoing while punishing those who do what is right. Changing that system will require more people to get involved in the political process and apply enough pressure to counterbalance Big Ag lobbyists and PACs.

Both Sen. Guthrie and Rep. Mickelsen have challengers this year. If you want to see change, start there. Sen. Zuiderveld also has a challenger—one who is already benefiting from agricultural interests.

I discussed the issue with Matt Edwards on Idaho Signal Monday:

You and I must decide how much we truly care about our state and its future. Are you willing to stand up to the lobbyists, PACs, and special interests that would see you replaced and your posterity displaced? Or is it too great a burden, too risky, or just not worth the effort?

The choices we make today will set the course of our state for generations to come.

Feature image created with Microsoft Copilot.