Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill authorizes States and their political subdivisions to create and enforce criminal and civil penalties that mirror federal immigration law provisions, provided such penalties do not exceed the corresponding federal penalties. It also amends the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking paragraph (2) of section 274A(h).
Liberals emphasize civil‑rights harms and community chilling effects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and concisely declares a substantive legal change—permitting States and subdivisions to enact and enforce penalties mirroring federal immigration law subject to a penalty cap—and makes one conforming statutory amendment.
The bill authorizes States and their political subdivisions to create and enforce criminal and civil penalties that mirror federal immigration law provisions, provided such penalties do not exceed the corresponding federal penalties.
It also amends the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking paragraph (2) of section 274A(h).
High-subject controversy, federalism conflicts, likely legal challenges, and lack of bipartisan compromise features make enactment unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and concisely declares a substantive legal change—permitting States and subdivisions to enact and enforce penalties mirroring federal immigration law subject to a penalty cap—and makes one conforming statutory amendment. However, it provides limited operational detail, no fiscal analysis or resourcing provisions, and no oversight or safeguards.
Liberals emphasize civil‑rights harms and community chilling effects.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize civil‑rights harms and community chilling effects.
Likely opposed.
The bill allows state and local governments to duplicate federal immigration enforcement, raising civil‑rights and community‑trust concerns.
Removing section 274A(h)(2) heightens uncertainty about employer‑sanction preemption (speculative).
Mixed view.
The bill offers states flexibility to enforce immigration provisions, which could address local problems, but risks legal conflicts, inconsistent enforcement, and fiscal burdens.
Parliamentary and constitutional questions about preemption are likely.
Generally supportive.
The bill empowers states to enforce immigration laws where they see fit, closing perceived federal enforcement gaps and restoring state sovereignty over local consequences of immigration.
Striking 274A(h)(2) likely reduces federal preemption concerns (speculative).
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High-subject controversy, federalism conflicts, likely legal challenges, and lack of bipartisan compromise features make enactment unlikely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize civil‑rights harms and community chilling effects.
High-subject controversy, federalism conflicts, likely legal challenges, and lack of bipartisan compromise features make enactment unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and concisely declares a substantive legal change—permitting States and subdivisions to enact and enforce penalties mirroring federal immigration law subject…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.