H.R.205 - No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 205, the "No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act," aims to prohibit federal funds from being used for congressional earmarks directed towards sanctuary jurisdictions. A sanctuary jurisdiction is defined as a state or local government that restricts its entities or officials from sharing information about individuals' citizenship or immigration status with federal authorities or complying with detainer requests from the Department of Homeland Security. The bill includes an exception for jurisdictions that protect victims or witnesses of crimes, ensuring they are not penalized for non-compliance in such cases.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to reduce federal funding to states and localities deemed "sanctuary jurisdictions." This could impact various programs and services within those jurisdictions, potentially leading to budgetary constraints. It may also incentivize jurisdictions to alter their policies regarding immigration enforcement to avoid losing federal funds.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially reduces the financial burden on federal taxpayers by preventing funds from going to jurisdictions that may not fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
- Could enhance national security by encouraging greater cooperation between local and federal authorities on immigration matters.
- May incentivize states and localities to enforce federal immigration laws more consistently.
- Could lead to a more uniform application of immigration laws across the country.
- May deter individuals from entering or remaining in the U.S. unlawfully.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could strain relationships between the federal government and sanctuary jurisdictions.
- May negatively impact local economies and public services in affected areas due to funding cuts.
- Could discourage immigrants from reporting crimes or cooperating with law enforcement, even if they are victims or witnesses.
- May lead to legal challenges based on federalism and states' rights.
- Could create a climate of fear and distrust within immigrant communities.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality could be debated under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Opponents might argue that the federal government is coercing states into enforcing federal laws, violating principles of federalism. However, proponents could argue that Congress has the power to set conditions on the use of federal funds under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
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).