Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends INA section 287(g) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter written agreements with States or political subdivisions to allow qualified local officers to perform immigration functions. It mandates rapid processing and limits on denials and terminations, requires uniform FLETC-based training rulemaking, allows certain fund use for administering 287(g), and imposes annual reporting and recruitment plans on DHS.
Progressives stress civil‑rights and community trust harms from local enforcement
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive change to statutory authority over section 287(g) agreements that combines operational directives and reporting requirements.
This bill amends INA section 287(g) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter written agreements with States or political subdivisions to allow qualified local officers to perform immigration functions.
It mandates rapid processing and limits on denials and terminations, requires uniform FLETC-based training rulemaking, allows certain fund use for administering 287(g), and imposes annual reporting and recruitment plans on DHS.
Contentious immigration expansion with legal and civil-rights exposure and limited bipartisan compromise reduces overall odds despite narrow program focus.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive change to statutory authority over section 287(g) agreements that combines operational directives and reporting requirements. It includes relatively specific mechanisms (timelines, appeal routes, training alignment, and enumerated report contents) and direct amendments to existing statute, but it leaves several key standards undefined and does not include appropriations or cost estimates in the text.
Progressives stress civil‑rights and community trust harms from local enforcement
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress civil‑rights and community trust harms from local enforcement
Likely opposed.
The bill expands local immigration enforcement and limits federal discretion, raising civil‑rights and community‑trust concerns.
Required training and reporting help, but do not eliminate risks.
Mixed.
The bill provides clearer processes, training, and reporting which are constructive, but it also reduces DHS discretion and speeds agreement timelines, raising practical and legal concerns.
Supportive.
The bill empowers States and localities to partner with DHS, mandates approvals and quick processing, and expands enforcement models; strengthens local control over immigration enforcement.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Contentious immigration expansion with legal and civil-rights exposure and limited bipartisan compromise reduces overall odds despite narrow program focus.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress civil‑rights and community trust harms from local enforcement
Contentious immigration expansion with legal and civil-rights exposure and limited bipartisan compromise reduces overall odds despite narro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive change to statutory authority over section 287(g) agreements that combines operational directives and reporting requirements. It includes relatively…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.