Sensitive-location immigration enforcement limits

Summary#

This bill would limit most immigration enforcement actions (arrests, interviews, ID requests, searches, surveillance) that take place at or within 1,000 feet of many kinds of "sensitive locations" such as hospitals, schools, places of worship, polling places, courthouses, Social Security and DMV offices, shelters, libraries, and more. It creates a narrow list of exceptions for true emergencies (exigent circumstances) and rare preplanned arrests approved by senior officials. It also adds reporting, yearly training, and an evidence exclusion if officers violate the rule.

• Main change: Immigration officers and any individuals designated to do immigration enforcement must not carry out enforcement actions at or within 1,000 feet of listed sensitive locations except under specific limited exceptions.
• Exceptions: Exigent circumstances (for example, imminent risk of death or hot pursuit), rare preplanned arrests of terrorism or similar severe threats with prior written approval, and transporting someone arrested at a border to a hospital for care.
• Enforcement consequences: Information from an enforcement action done in violation of the rule cannot be used in a removal (deportation) proceeding, and the affected noncitizen may move to end the proceeding.
• Oversight and training: DHS must report each enforcement action at a sensitive location to the DHS Office of Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within 30 days; ICE and CBP must submit annual reports to Congress; the OIG must report annually on complaints. Certain DHS officials must ensure annual training for employees.
• Timing: The law would start 90 days after enactment and DHS must publish rules within 90 days.

What it means for you#

• Noncitizens and immigrant communities: This could mean fewer immigration stops, arrests, or checks near hospitals, schools, places of worship, polling places, and many social service sites. If an enforcement action happens in violation of the rule, evidence from that action could be excluded in immigration court.
• Patients and people seeking health care: Hospitals, clinics, and testing or vaccination sites are covered. The bill could make these sites safer from immigration enforcement actions unless there is an emergency.
• Students, parents, and school staff: Public and private schools, preschool programs, school buses and stops, and school events are covered. Immigration enforcement at or focused on these places would generally be barred.
• Voters and election workers: Polling places are protected. Immigration enforcement at polling places during voting would generally be barred.
• People using courts, lawyers, and probation offices: Courthouses, offices of legal counsel, and probation offices are covered. Immigration enforcement at or focused on these locations would generally be barred.
• Service providers and clients: Shelters, food banks, community-based social services, child welfare and victim-service centers are listed; people using or working at these sites would generally be protected from nearby immigration enforcement.
• DHS officers, CBP/ICE staff, and designated local officers: Officers must avoid enforcement within 1,000 feet of these locations except under the exceptions. They must act discreetly, limit time, consult supervisors if unsure about exigent circumstances, and follow annual training. Designated local or state officers acting under written agreements are also covered.
• Local governments and joint law enforcement: Joint cases led by other agencies that result in immigration enforcement at sensitive locations are included; this may affect how joint operations are planned.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill requires DHS to write rules within 90 days, provide many individual incident reports, produce annual agency and inspector general reports, and deliver annual training. These duties could increase administrative, reporting, training, and staffing costs for DHS and for any designated local officers.
• Agencies involved in joint operations or local governments that enter written designation agreements could face added compliance or documentation work.
• The bill itself does not include a specific dollar estimate or fiscal note in the provided text.

Proponents' View#

The bill text and title indicate these goals and rationales (phrased as intended effects):

• The bill appears intended to protect access to sensitive places like hospitals, schools, places of worship, and polling places so people can use those services without fear of immigration enforcement.
• It could be seen as protecting public health, education access, religious freedom, and the right to vote by limiting enforcement activity near those sites.
• The reporting and training requirements appear intended to increase oversight, transparency, and compliance by immigration officers.
• The evidence-exclusion remedy for violations appears intended to create a legal consequence that encourages officers to follow the rule.

Opponents' View#

Based on the bill’s text, reasonable concerns and trade-offs include:

• One concern is that the 1,000-foot rule covers very large areas in some urban settings, which could limit immigration enforcement options and complicate joint operations with local law enforcement.
• The definition of "exigent circumstances" includes several situations but may still leave room for disagreement about when an emergency exists; the bill requires supervisors to be consulted if there is uncertainty, which could delay action in some cases.
• The rule that information from a violative enforcement action cannot be used in removal proceedings could lead to early termination of cases and may make some investigations harder to pursue.
• Carrying out the required incident reporting, annual reports, and training programs will likely impose administrative and staffing burdens on DHS without a specified funding source in the text.
• The bill relies on rulemaking by the Secretary of Homeland Security to define some terms (for example, who counts as a supervisor for non-DHS designated individuals); it is unclear how those rules will be written and enforced within the 90-day deadline.