February 25, 2025 - The “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities” Act proposes to punish local jurisdictions for their sanctuary policies, cutting federal funding to social programs that benefit entire communities. This bill is part of a greater effort to force State and local governments to enforce the current administration’s deportation agenda.

What is the “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities” Act?

This initiative was introduced by Representative Nick LaLota (R-NY) and looks to deny federal funding to “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

‍What is a sanctuary jurisdiction?

The bill defines a sanctuary jurisdiction as any state or political subdivision of a state (such as a city or county) that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from: 

• Exchanging information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status with any other government entity or official. 
• Complying with a request made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to execute a detainer for an individual or notifying about their release.

A state or local jurisdiction is not to be considered a “sanctuary jurisdiction” solely for having a policy that prevents officials from sharing information on a person’s immigration status or complying with requests made under Section 236 or 287 of the INA when the person the request involves is a victim or witness of a crime.

‍What is Section 236 and 287 of the INA?

Section 236 of the INA is about the apprehension and detention of migrants. It describes: 

• The power the federal government has to issue an arrest warrant, and to detain or release a person under parole or bond; 
• The conditions for an arrest warrant, detention, and release of a migrant; and
• The obligation to identify migrants subject to removal and to make their identities available to government officials.

Section 287 of the INA describes the powers of immigration officers. Immigration officers can:

• Interrogate persons about their immigration status;
• Arrest persons entering or attempting to enter the country without permission, or who have committed a felony; 
• Board and search any vessel, vehicle, or airplane within a reasonable distance of the U.S. border to search for migrants; and
• Issue a detainer for a person violating any law concerning controlled substances.

Section 287 (g) of the INA establishes the possibility to make agreements with States or other local jurisdictions so that their officers or employees can act as immigration officers and enforce immigration law. However, these agreements are voluntary. No state or local jurisdiction is obligated to commit to cooperate with immigration enforcement. 

‍What does the bill do?

The bill would enable the federal government to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” that intend to be used to provide services such as food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and transportation.

‍Analysis of the bill

• The “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities” Act is an attempt to strong-arm sanctuary jurisdictions into cooperating with immigration enforcement. 
• Sanctuary jurisdictions would lose federal funds for healthcare, nutrition, housing, legal services and transportation programs, if they benefit undocumented persons. Programs under threat include:
  
  • Free school lunch and breakfast programs;
  • The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly known as WIC;
  • Public transportation projects;
  • Medicaid; and 
  • Natural disaster funding. 
• Some local administrations and State make a conscious decision to address the needs of their population regardless of their immigration status, because of their overall impact. For example, with regard to public health or nutrition.
• In other cases, services benefit both citizens and non-citizens alike, and it is impossible to distinguish between them. For example, public transportation. 

• This bill harms undocumented immigrants and their families, their communities, including U.S. citizens. 

Notably, 287 (g) agreements can be costly for local governments. They require more personnel and detention space. And, what is worse, they can destroy trust between communities and local law enforcement authorities, resulting in less criminal complaints, less cooperation with the police and ultimately, greater insecurity for all. 

‍Greater pressure for immigration enforcement cooperation

This bill is part of a broader effort to pressure States and local jurisdictions to cooperate in immigration enforcement. Other initiatives include: 

• A recent Executive Order instructing federal agencies to identify and take corrective action on federally funded programs that provide benefits to undocumented immigrants. 
• Pressuring local authorities to cooperate, including negotiations, such as the dismissal of the prosecution against New York City Mayor Eric Adams for corruption charges in exchange for the city’s cooperation with ICE. 
• Lawsuits against Governors and Mayors for refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement, as a result of State Legislation and Decisions of the City Council that prohibit it, such as the one filed by the Attorney General against the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago.  

‍Talking points on the “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities” Bill

• It harms all people, immigrants and non-immigrants alike. By taking away critical funds for essential public programs, it particularly hurts the most vulnerable population that rely on federal nutrition programs, Medicaid and other public health initiatives. 
• Sanctuary policies help build trust between law enforcement and local communities, creating a safer place for us all. 
• This is a Federal country, where states have rights and their own laws. Entering into a 287(g) agreement is entirely voluntary. Local and State governments should not be coerced into entering into costly immigration enforcement agreements straining local resources.
• This bill does not only affect undocumented persons, as it is not possible to distinguish between members of the community when we all share the same services, learn together, live together, prosper together and care for each other.
• This bill fails to consider that undocumented immigrants contribute to local economies, pay taxes and many contribute to the Social Security System. Undocumented immigrants are a contribution to the places where they live, they are family members and community members.

Share on your social networks

‍