Overview
Title
To amend section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify congressional intent with respect to agreements under such section, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 756 is a bill that wants to make sure the people who decide the rules for people moving to the U.S. can work better with local police officers, and it sets new rules to make sure everyone is trained the same way and that they are following the best practices.
Summary AI
H.R. 756 aims to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically section 287(g), to clarify how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can collaborate with state and local law enforcement on immigration enforcement. The bill requires DHS to enter into agreements with states or locales upon request, outlines enforcement and termination conditions, and mandates uniform training for officers involved. It also establishes a fund for related expenses and requires annual performance and recruitment reports to ensure transparency and oversight of the program.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the “287(g) Program Protection Act,” aims to amend section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This section pertains to agreements between the federal government and local or state law enforcement agencies that allow local officers to enforce federal immigration laws. Under the new bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to enter into such agreements upon request from a state or local government, provided there is no compelling reason to deny it. The bill outlines a comprehensive framework for these agreements, emphasizes the necessity of uniform training for participating officers, and mandates annual reporting and recruitment plans by the Department of Homeland Security.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the key issues with the proposed legislation is the requirement for mandatory agreements between the federal government and any state or local law enforcement requesting to participate. This stipulation might limit the discretion of federal authorities, forcing them into agreements regardless of the broader national immigration strategy or situational suitability. Moreover, the bill does not clearly define what qualifies law enforcement officers to participate, potentially leading to inconsistent application of qualifications across states.
The financial implications are also noteworthy, as the bill expands the use of funds to cover expenses related to administering these agreements without specifying what these costs entail. This vagueness could result in open-ended financial commitments without sufficient oversight.
Additionally, the mandate that no federal program or technology shall replace these agreements may inhibit innovation within immigration enforcement by redundantly duplicating existing technologies.
Impact on the Public
The general public might experience mixed impacts due to this proposed legislation. On one hand, it may create a more integrated and robust enforcement of immigration laws, as more states and local agencies are empowered to participate actively. This could potentially lead to an increased sense of security in communities concerned about illegal immigration.
However, the flipside could involve concerns over the potential lack of oversight and uniform standards. If poorly implemented, these agreements might lead to civil rights issues or inconsistent enforcement across different jurisdictions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For law enforcement agencies, the bill presents an opportunity to participate more actively in immigration enforcement. However, without clear standards and training, they may face challenges related to operational effectiveness and liability issues.
State and local governments might benefit from enhanced collaboration with federal authorities but could be burdened with the financial and operational responsibilities of enforcing federal immigration laws. Moreover, mandatory agreements may pressurize these governments to comply without considering their capacities or contextual challenges.
On the federal side, the Department of Homeland Security might face a substantial administrative and operational burden to process requests within the prescribed timelines and to implement comprehensive training and oversight measures. Furthermore, the mandatory nature of the agreements could lead to potential inefficiencies in national immigration policy execution.
Overall, while the bill aims to streamline and expand the 287(g) program, the lack of precise definitions, potential financial implications, and challenges in oversight and consistency could affect its effective implementation.
Issues
The requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to 'enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State' per Section 2 when requested, may undermine the Secretary's discretion and lead to mandatory agreements without considering situational appropriateness or overall national strategy needs. This could have significant implications on national security policy and state-federal relations.
Section 2's lack of specified standards for qualifying law enforcement officers under the agreement could lead to inconsistent determinations, a lack of transparency, and potential legal challenges, impacting both federal and state law enforcement operations.
The requirement in Section 2 that 'no request from a bona fide State or political subdivision or bona fide law enforcement agency shall be denied absent a compelling reason' may result in a lack of flexibility for the administration in choosing suitable partners or negotiation conditions, potentially impacting U.S. immigration enforcement policies.
Financial implications arise in Section 3 where expenses related to administering section 287(g) are included without specification. This lack of definition can lead to open-ended financial commitments without legislative oversight or control.
Section 2's rule that limits alternatives to federal programs and technologies could stifle innovation and efficiency by mandating redundancy with existing immigration enforcement technologies, potentially leading to wasteful expenditure and operational inefficiencies.
The extended right to appeal terminations under Section 2, requiring that agreements remain effective during legal proceedings, risks prolonging ineffective agreements and could complicate the federal government's ability to make urgent or strategic enforcement adjustments.
The notification requirement to Congress and the Federal Register 180 days prior to a final denial, as stated in Section 2, adds unnecessary delay to emergency enforcement decision processes, potentially affecting the Department of Homeland Security's responsiveness to urgent immigration issues.
Shifting responsibilities from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security in Sections 2 and 3 without clear justification or alignment with departmental goals and priorities could disrupt existing structures and processes within federal immigration enforcement.
The absence of specific metrics or criteria for compliance with training requirements in Section 4 poses a risk of inconsistency and ambiguity in determining law enforcement agencies' adherence to the program, affecting overall program effectiveness.
Vague descriptions of outreach and recruitment strategies in Section 4 could lead to ineffective recruitment efforts, hindering the expansion and effectiveness of the 287(g) program amid broader immigration policy goals.
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 states the short title of the Act, which is called the “287(g) Program Protection Act.”
2. Clarification of congressional intent Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create agreements with states or local governments that request to help enforce immigration laws. These agreements cannot be denied without a good reason, and proper notice and explanations must be given if an agreement is denied or terminated. The section also specifies that no federal technology can replace these agreements, outlines specific models for cooperation, and mandates training for state law enforcement involved in immigration duties.
3. Funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by updating references from the "Attorney General" to the "Secretary of Homeland Security," renaming a fund to include "287(g)," and outlining additional uses for the fund related to section 287(g) administration.
4. Requirements on Secretary Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to publish an annual report on the enforcement program under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, detailing the numbers of aliens apprehended, removed, and those not removed, as well as the oversight and compliance of law enforcement agencies involved. Additionally, an annual recruitment plan must be published, outlining goals and outreach efforts, and a notice of rulemaking regarding training requirements must be released within 180 days of the Act's enactment.