Overview
Title
To amend title 23, United States Code, to limit certain Federal funding to States that do not have a process to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security of the release from custody or detainment certain aliens under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
If a state doesn't let the U.S. government know when they are letting an undocumented immigrant go from jail, they might not get money from the government to fix roads and build highways.
Summary AI
H. R. 1984, also known as the "Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025" or the "BLOC Act," aims to restrict certain federal funding for infrastructure projects to states or political subdivisions that do not notify the Secretary of Homeland Security about the release of undocumented immigrants from custody. Within a year of the act's enactment, jurisdictions must have a statute or policy to notify Homeland Security at least 48 hours before releasing individuals deemed unlawfully present in the U.S. and who have been detained for over 48 hours. The Secretary of Transportation will ensure that funding for infrastructure, like highway construction, will only be awarded to compliant jurisdictions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled "Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025," or the "BLOC Act," proposes an amendment to title 23 of the United States Code. Its primary objective is to limit federal funding for infrastructure projects in states or local governments deemed as "sanctuary jurisdictions." These jurisdictions would need to establish procedures to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security about the pending release of undocumented immigrants, specifically those not lawfully present in the United States, to qualify for such funding.
General Summary
The BLOC Act aims to enforce stricter immigration control by leveraging federal infrastructure funding as a tool to compel local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Under the proposed law, if a jurisdiction does not implement a system to notify federal authorities 48 hours before releasing certain detainees, it becomes ineligible for federal funding for infrastructure projects such as highway construction. This legislation introduces specific conditions that jurisdictions must meet to continue receiving federal assistance for infrastructure developments.
Significant Issues
Undefined 'Sanctuary Jurisdictions': The bill refers to "sanctuary jurisdictions" but fails to provide a precise definition. Such ambiguity could lead to differing interpretations about which areas are affected. This might result in varied enforcement and potential legal disputes.
Legal and Operational Concerns: The requirement for jurisdictions to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security within a tight 48-hour timeframe might impose significant administrative burdens on local authorities. Without provision for extra resources or support to manage this requirement, local governments might struggle operationally and face ethical challenges related to extended detentions.
Potential Litigation: By linking local immigration policies to federal infrastructure funding, the bill's provisions could become the subject of legal challenges. Jurisdictions affected by potential funding cutoffs may pursue litigation, arguing overreach or unfair practices in enforcing federal immigration priorities.
Interpretative Ambiguities: Phrases like "not lawfully present in the United States" and the reliance on external definitions for "infrastructure project" create room for interpretation that could complicate the implementation and enforcement of the law.
Public Impact
Broadly, this bill could impact communities significantly by placing their infrastructure projects at risk of losing federal funding. This risk is particularly acute in regions already facing infrastructure deficits or relying heavily on federal support. By tying immigration enforcement to funding eligibility, the bill could lead to a slowdown in crucial infrastructure development or maintenance, affecting public services and local economies.
Impact on Stakeholders
Local Governments: They face the dual pressure of potentially losing federal funding while managing increased administrative burdens without additional support. This could strain local budgetary resources and impact their ability to maintain public services.
Undocumented Immigrants: The bill could lead to prolonged detentions, raising human rights and ethical concerns. There might be an increase in local tensions as communities navigate the requirements set by this legislation.
Federal Government: The federal administration's push to enforce immigration laws via funding constraints reflects ongoing national immigration debates. This strategy seeks to standardize cooperation from local governments regarding immigration enforcement.
Overall, while the BLOC Act aims to align local policies with federal immigration enforcement objectives, it raises significant legal, ethical, and operational challenges that warrant careful consideration and balanced discussion among policymakers and the public.
Issues
The term 'sanctuary jurisdictions' is not clearly defined in Sections 2 and 612, potentially leading to ambiguity in enforcement and compliance. This issue is significant for legal and political reasons, as it could affect how the law is applied and lead to disparate interpretations.
The connection between local immigration policies and federal infrastructure funding in Section 2 may create contentious legal issues and could lead to lawsuits from affected jurisdictions, raising significant political and financial concerns.
The requirement in Sections 2 and 612 for local jurisdictions to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security of the release of certain detainees within 48 hours places potentially burdensome demands on local authorities without clear support or resources for compliance, raising ethical and operational concerns.
The phrase 'not lawfully present in the United States' in Section 612 is subject to interpretation, which may require further clarification to prevent misunderstandings and legal challenges.
The condition in Section 2 that an alien must be in custody for not less than 48 hours before release could lead to unnecessary extended detainment times, raising potential ethical and legal concerns.
The definition of 'infrastructure project' in Section 612 relies on an external source (section 184.3 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations), which could change, potentially altering the application and interpretation of the bill's provisions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act indicates its short title, stating that the legislation can be referred to as the “Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025” or simply the “BLOC Act.”
2. Ineligibility of sanctuary jurisdictions for certain Federal funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Under the proposed law, sanctuary jurisdictions are prohibited from receiving federal funds for infrastructure projects, like highway construction, unless they implement a rule that requires them to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security before releasing an undocumented immigrant from custody.
612. Ineligibility of sanctuary jurisdictions for certain Federal funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the Secretary of Transportation cannot give federal funds for infrastructure projects to any local government that doesn't have a rule requiring officials to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security 48 hours before releasing someone identified as unlawfully present in the U.S. These rules must be in place within a year of the BLOC Act's passing.