Overview
Title
To require any applicant for a Federal grant to submit a certification that such applicant is not in violation of section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 245 says that if someone wants money from the government for a project, they have to promise they haven't done anything wrong with immigration laws in the last ten years, aren't doing anything wrong now, and won't do anything wrong in the future, or they might not get the money.
Summary AI
H. R. 245 is known as the “Grant Integrity and Border Security Act.” The bill requires anyone applying for a Federal grant to certify they haven’t violated section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the past ten years, aren’t currently violating it, and won’t violate it while the grant is active. If an agency head finds a grantee in violation, they can withhold funds from the recipient. Additionally, the bill outlines protocols for the Attorney General to inform the Director of the Office of Management and Budget about any convictions or reasonable suspicions of violations related to this section.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, titled the "Grant Integrity and Border Security Act," was introduced in the 119th Congress. The bill mandates that applicants for federal grants must certify compliance with section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which pertains to prohibitions against bringing in and harboring certain unauthorized aliens. Additionally, it gives federal agencies the authority to withhold funds from applicants found in violation.
General Summary of the Bill
At its core, the bill requires any entity applying for a federal grant to substantiate that they have not broken immigration laws related to harboring or bringing in unauthorized aliens. This certification must confirm past and future compliance within a 10-year window. Federal agencies are granted the authority to withhold funds if a grantee is determined to be in violation. This decision can be based on information from the Department of Homeland Security, employee convictions, or other credible evidence. Furthermore, the bill defines key terms such as "agency" and "Federal grant."
Summary of Significant Issues
Several key concerns arise from the bill's provisions. First, the requirement for applicants to certify their compliance could impose an unnecessary burden, especially on entities with no history of involvement in immigration violations. This could deter a wide array of applicants, potentially limiting their access to needed federal resources for unrelated endeavors.
The bill gives significant discretion to agency heads to determine compliance and withhold funds, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement across agencies. Terms such as "reasonable basis to conclude" and "credible information" remain vague, leaving room for varying interpretations which could affect the legal certainty applicants have. Lastly, the lack of a specified process for disputing violation determinations raises significant due process concerns.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The broader public might experience unintended consequences from the bill, especially if federal funds are withheld due to enforcement actions based on insufficient or inaccurate information. Organizations that play critical roles in community services, education, or public health might find themselves improperly affected by these stipulations. This could result in setbacks in programs that rely on federal grants to maintain their operations and services, ultimately affecting people who depend on these programs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For organizations and institutions dependent on federal grants, such as nonprofits, educational institutions, or small businesses, the requirement to certify compliance with immigration law could introduce additional administrative hurdles. Agencies now hold more discretion in making determinations that might adversely affect these stakeholders.
Conversely, proponents of stricter immigration law enforcement may view the bill positively as it seeks to ensure that federal funds are not allocated to entities violating immigration laws. This approach aligns with efforts to integrate immigration law enforcement with broader federal operations, potentially appealing to those who prioritize national security measures.
In conclusion, while the "Grant Integrity and Border Security Act" aims to ensure that federal funds do not inadvertently support actors in violation of immigration law, the potential burdens and ambiguities it introduces could have significant effects on a wide range of applicants and stakeholders. The bill's impact will depend largely on the nuances of its implementation and the clarity of the processes established to govern its enforcement.
Issues
The requirement in Section 2(a) for applicants to certify compliance with section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act might impose a burden on applicants who have no history of immigration violations, potentially affecting a wide range of applicants seeking Federal grants.
The authority given to agency heads in Section 2(b) to withhold funds based on their determination of compliance could lead to inconsistent enforcement and application across different agencies, raising concerns about fairness and transparency.
The term 'reasonable basis to conclude' in Section 2(c) is subjective, leading to potential misinterpretation and varying standards of evidence for determining compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus affecting the legal certainty for applicants.
The absence of a clear process or recourse for disputing a violation determination in Section 2(b) raises due process concerns, as applicants may not have adequate means to challenge or appeal the decisions that affect their funding opportunities.
The lack of specificity on what constitutes 'credible information' in Section 2(b)(3) can lead to ambiguity and potential misuse, as agency heads have wide discretion in deciding what information to consider when withholding funds.
Ambiguity in the short title described in Section 1 might lead to misinterpretation regarding the specific scope of the bill, as it could broadly apply to all aspects of grant integrity and border security without adequate context.
Potential wasteful spending mentioned in Section 2, where funds could be withheld based on insufficient or inaccurate information, highlights the financial risks and inefficiencies that could arise from implementing this bill without proper checks and balances.
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 states that the official name of the legislation is the “Grant Integrity and Border Security Act”.
2. Federal grant requirement related to the bringing in and harboring of certain aliens Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a requirement for federal grant applicants to certify compliance with laws against bringing in and harboring certain aliens, specifying that agencies can withhold funds from grantees found in violation. It also mandates that the Attorney General report any related convictions or admissions of violations, and provides definitions for key terms like "agency," "Director," and "Federal grant."