H.R.1879 - No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1879, the "No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act," aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by denying tax-exempt status to bonds issued by sanctuary jurisdictions. A sanctuary jurisdiction is defined as a state or political subdivision that restricts the sharing of immigration status information with federal authorities or compliance with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests. The Secretary of the Treasury would be required to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions annually.
Expected Effects
The bill's enactment would result in sanctuary jurisdictions facing higher borrowing costs due to the loss of tax-exempt bond status. This could impact their ability to fund public projects and services. The definition of 'sanctuary jurisdiction' could lead to legal challenges and debates over federal versus state authority regarding immigration enforcement.
Potential Benefits
- Could incentivize jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
- May reduce financial support for policies perceived as undermining federal law.
- Could free up federal resources by reducing the need to pursue legal action against non-compliant jurisdictions.
- May lead to increased public safety by facilitating the deportation of individuals who have committed crimes.
- Could be seen as upholding the rule of law by ensuring compliance with federal immigration laws.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could strain relationships between the federal government and local communities.
- May lead to decreased funding for essential services in sanctuary jurisdictions, impacting residents.
- Could face legal challenges based on states' rights and federal overreach.
- May create a chilling effect on local law enforcement's willingness to engage with immigrant communities, potentially hindering crime reporting.
- Could be viewed as discriminatory towards immigrant populations.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Proponents might argue that Congress has the power to regulate taxation and immigration under Article I, Section 8. Opponents could argue that the bill infringes on states' rights, violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Further legal challenges could arise based on the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) if the tax exemption is viewed as coercive.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).