H.R.3861 - Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3861, the "Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act," aims to prohibit federal financial assistance to sanctuary cities. It requires the Attorney General to annually identify and report to Congress jurisdictions not complying with 8 U.S.C. 1373 or that fail to honor DHS detainer requests.
Identified jurisdictions would become ineligible for federal funding for at least one year, regaining eligibility only after the Attorney General certifies compliance. The bill also mandates the Attorney General to issue compliance reports upon request from Members of Congress.
The bill seeks to enforce federal immigration laws by financially penalizing non-compliant jurisdictions.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill would be to reduce or eliminate federal funding for cities and states that have policies protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation. This could lead to significant budget cuts for these jurisdictions, potentially impacting various public services.
It could also lead to increased cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. This may result in more detentions and deportations of undocumented immigrants.
Potential Benefits 2/5
- Increased compliance with federal immigration laws.
- Potential reduction in crime committed by undocumented immigrants (although studies on this are mixed).
- Reinforcement of the rule of law regarding immigration enforcement.
- Could free up federal resources by reducing the need to manage issues related to non-compliant jurisdictions.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential loss of federal funding for essential services in sanctuary cities, impacting residents.
- Increased distrust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
- Possible legal challenges based on federal overreach or discrimination.
- Economic harm to sanctuary cities due to reduced federal aid.
- Could lead to racial profiling and discrimination.
Constitutional Alignment 2/5
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Proponents might argue that Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization and to appropriate funds, giving them the authority to set conditions on federal funding.
Opponents could argue that the bill violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and potentially the Fifth Amendment's due process clause if funding cuts disproportionately harm certain populations. Further legal challenges could arise based on whether the conditions placed on funding are unduly coercive, violating principles of federalism.
The Supreme Court has addressed similar issues in the past, setting precedents on the extent to which the federal government can use funding to influence state and local policies.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to citizens. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).