Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar issuance of F (academic) and M (vocational) nonimmigrant student visas for institutions located in "sanctuary jurisdictions" that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identifies each fiscal year. DHS must define and list sanctuary jurisdictions; the bill defines that term by examples (e.g., refusal to honor ICE detainers, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, impeding information exchange).
Whether the bill appropriately targets local policy or unfairly punishes students
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition and delegates identification authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security, but it lacks many operational, fiscal, and procedural details needed for comprehensive implementation and oversight.
The bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar issuance of F (academic) and M (vocational) nonimmigrant student visas for institutions located in "sanctuary jurisdictions" that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identifies each fiscal year.
DHS must define and list sanctuary jurisdictions; the bill defines that term by examples (e.g., refusal to honor ICE detainers, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, impeding information exchange).
The ban is suspended for any jurisdiction DHS later determines is no longer a sanctuary jurisdiction and reports to Congress.
High controversy, strong federalism and legal risk, and significant stakeholder opposition reduce odds despite straightforward statutory language.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition and delegates identification authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security, but it lacks many operational, fiscal, and procedural details needed for comprehensive implementation and oversight.
Whether the bill appropriately targets local policy or unfairly punishes students
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether the bill appropriately targets local policy or unfairly punishes students
Likely to oppose the bill as punitive to students and institutions and as federal coercion of local sanctuary policies.
They would view it as harming access to education, local economies, and immigrant communities, while raising civil rights and due process concerns.
Mixed reaction: supports enforcing immigration laws but concerned about bluntness and unintended consequences.
Wants clearer metrics, narrow targeting, and safeguards to avoid harming students and institutions unrelated to enforcement failures.
Likely to support the bill as a tool to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable and strengthen immigration enforcement.
They would view it as a reasonable federal response to local obstruction of ICE operations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy, strong federalism and legal risk, and significant stakeholder opposition reduce odds despite straightforward statutory language.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether the bill appropriately targets local policy or unfairly punishes students
High controversy, strong federalism and legal risk, and significant stakeholder opposition reduce odds despite straightforward statutory la…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition and delegates identification authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security, but it lacks many operational, fiscal, and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.