Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends INA section 287 to restrict immigration enforcement actions at or within 1,000 feet of broadly defined “sensitive locations,” except under specified exigent circumstances. It requires supervisory confirmation before continuing uncertain enforcement, mandates annual training for specified ICE and CBP officials, and imposes reporting requirements to DHS oversight offices and Congress.
Progressives emphasize civil-access protections and oversight benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted substantive statutory amendment that sets a detailed legal regime restricting immigration enforcement at enumerated 'sensitive locations.' It couples prohibitions and exceptions with concrete definitions, supervisory requirements, evidentiary remedies, and multiple reporting and oversight provisions.
This bill amends INA section 287 to restrict immigration enforcement actions at or within 1,000 feet of broadly defined “sensitive locations,” except under specified exigent circumstances.
It requires supervisory confirmation before continuing uncertain enforcement, mandates annual training for specified ICE and CBP officials, and imposes reporting requirements to DHS oversight offices and Congress.
The bill also allows rare premeditated arrests for national security or extraordinary public-safety risks with prior written approval, and requires DHS rulemaking within 90 days and takes effect 90 days after enactment.
Broad operational constraints on immigration enforcement and evidentiary penalties make it politically and procedurally challenging despite technical reporting provisions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted substantive statutory amendment that sets a detailed legal regime restricting immigration enforcement at enumerated 'sensitive locations.' It couples prohibitions and exceptions with concrete definitions, supervisory requirements, evidentiary remedies, and multiple reporting and oversight provisions.
Progressives emphasize civil-access protections and oversight benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil-access protections and oversight benefits
Overall supportive.
The persona views the bill as protecting access to health care, education, worship, voting, and social services by limiting intrusive immigration enforcement near sensitive sites.
It also values the transparency, supervisory checks, and evidence exclusion remedies included.
Cautiously favorable but pragmatic.
The persona appreciates clarity on exigent exceptions, reporting, and supervisory checks, while worrying about operational burdens, ambiguous definitions, and effects on public-safety operations.
Support is conditional on clear rules, timely rulemaking, and minimal disruption to serious criminal or imminent-danger responses.
Generally opposed.
The persona views the bill as unduly constraining immigration enforcement, creating large de facto safe zones, and imposing heavy reporting and supervisory requirements that hinder officers.
While valuing the national-security exception, it sees the 1,000-foot ban and evidence exclusion as problematic for public safety.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Broad operational constraints on immigration enforcement and evidentiary penalties make it politically and procedurally challenging despite technical reporting provisions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil-access protections and oversight benefits
Broad operational constraints on immigration enforcement and evidentiary penalties make it politically and procedurally challenging despite…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted substantive statutory amendment that sets a detailed legal regime restricting immigration enforcement at enumerated 'sensitive locations.' It cou…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.