Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill would modify section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand the categories of criminal convictions that trigger mandatory detention of noncitizens. The text adds property-related offenses — including trespassing, vandalism, arson, and burglary — and inserts language referencing "serious bodily injury" into the statutory detention triggers.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and overdetention risks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct statutory amendment that seeks to expand the categories of criminal conduct that trigger mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c).
This bill would modify section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand the categories of criminal convictions that trigger mandatory detention of noncitizens.
The text adds property-related offenses — including trespassing, vandalism, arson, and burglary — and inserts language referencing "serious bodily injury" into the statutory detention triggers.
The bill text is somewhat garbled, but its clear intent is to broaden mandatory detention to cover the listed property crimes and to clarify inclusion of serious bodily injury offenses.
Narrow but ideologically charged; administratively straightforward yet likely to encounter partisan resistance and Senate procedural hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct statutory amendment that seeks to expand the categories of criminal conduct that trigger mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). It is concise in its approach (amending a specific statute) but is under-specified in several respects important for a substantive policy change.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and overdetention risks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and overdetention risks.
Likely opposed.
The expansion of mandatory detention to include property offenses would increase detention for noncitizens, raising civil liberty and due-process concerns.
There would also be worries about racial disparities, community policing consequences, and the cost of expanded detention.
Mixed/uncertain.
The bill addresses legitimate public safety and property protection concerns but raises questions about proportionality, cost, and legal clarity.
Support will depend on whether the expansion is limited to serious/felony offenses and includes procedural safeguards and cost estimates.
Likely broadly supportive.
The bill strengthens immigration enforcement by preventing release of noncitizen offenders who commit property crimes, aligning with law-and-order priorities.
It is seen as closing a perceived loophole that lets dangerous or repeat offenders remain at large.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged; administratively straightforward yet likely to encounter partisan resistance and Senate procedural hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and overdetention risks.
Narrow but ideologically charged; administratively straightforward yet likely to encounter partisan resistance and Senate procedural hurdle…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct statutory amendment that seeks to expand the categories of criminal conduct that trigger mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). It is concise in its…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.