Should Congress prohibit federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions?
The "No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act" aims to make sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for federal funds that benefit undocumented immigrants. A "sanctuary jurisdiction" is defined as any state or local government that restricts the exchange of information about an individual's immigration status or fails to comply with Department of Homeland Security requests for detaining or releasing individuals under the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, an exception is made for cases involving victims or witnesses of crimes. Starting in the fiscal year after the law is enacted, sanctuary jurisdictions cannot receive federal funds intended for food, shelter, healthcare, legal services, or transportation for undocumented immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep. Nick LaLota (Republican, New York, District 1)
View full bill text ➔
How do you feel?
Opponents say
• "H.R. 5717 raises significant legal concerns. Federalism principles and the 10th Amendment limit what Congress can do to mandate that state and local law enforcement carry out federal immigration priorities and programs. Constitutional restrictions prevent the federal government from attempting to “commandeer” state and local governments into directly carrying out federal regulatory programs. By compelling state and local law officers to honor immigration detainers as part of a broader federal enforcement program, the bill may be in tension with an "anti-commandeering" principle articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court." Source: National Immigration Forum
• "Rather than letting local officials and law enforcement decide how best to protect their communities, this bill attempts to bully them to adopt harmful one-size fits-all policies by threatening to withhold critical funding streams." Source: Joint report by the National Immigration Law Center, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Center for American Progress.
• "The bill threatens to penalize financially more than hundreds of jurisdictions across the country, all of which adhere to Fourth Amendment constitutional protections and promote public safety by adopting community trust policies that distinguish their own criminal law enforcement role from DHS’s immigration enforcement functions." Source: American Civil Liberties Union
Proponents say
• "In a 2023 Siena College Poll, 82% of New Yorkers say the recent influx of migrants is a serious problem, with more than 50% labeling it as a very serious problem. If the sanctuary city policies aren’t reversed, that number will continue to balloon, costing taxpayers even more—all during a period of significant financial hardship and record inflation. While the principles of federalism prevent Congress from overriding those policies, Congress shouldn’t subsidize those self-defeating policies either. That is why I introduced H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act which would prohibit federal funding to address the migrant crisis in jurisdictions with sanctuary city policies." Source: Rep. Nick LaLota (Republican, New York, District 1)
• "Municipalities that implement 'sanctuary city' policies are adding fuel to the fire of Joe Biden's horrific border security crisis by giving refuge to those who broke the law to enter this country. I am proud to co-sponsor the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act which will ensure these 'sanctuary cities' do not receive federal funding until they stop serving as safe harbors for those who flaunt our laws and start prioritizing American national security." Source: Rep. Anthony D’Eposito (Republican, New York, District 4)
• "While states like Texas are working overtime to secure our borders, sanctuary cities across the nation are promoting illegal immigration and exacerbating the crisis. Texan taxpayers shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of costs incurred by cities that refuse to enforce our nation’s laws." Source: Rep. Michael McCaul (Republican, Texas, District 10)