PROTECT Immigration Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to centralize immigration enforcement authority exclusively within the federal government, ending a program that delegates such powers to state and local police.
What it actually does
This bill, the "PROTECT Immigration Act of 2025," amends Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly state that the authority to inquire about, verify, investigate, apprehend, arrest, or detain individuals for immigration violations is restricted solely to federal immigration officers and authorized Department of Homeland Security employees. It effectively discontinues the 287(g) program, which currently allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to perform certain immigration enforcement functions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and delegating it to state and local law enforcement leads to racial profiling, erosion of trust between immigrant communities and local police, and diversion of local resources from community safety priorities. They contend that ending 287(g) agreements would improve public safety by encouraging all residents, regardless of immigration status, to report crimes without fear of deportation.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the 287(g) program is a vital tool for federal immigration authorities, extending their reach and enhancing public safety by allowing local officers to identify and detain undocumented individuals who have committed other crimes. They might contend that rescinding this authority would hinder efforts to enforce immigration laws, potentially leading to increased crime rates and making communities less safe by releasing dangerous individuals.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension.
Section 2
Rescission of State and Local Immigration Enforcement Authority
This section directly amends existing law (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) to remove the authorization for state and local law enforcement officers to enter into agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to perform immigration enforcement duties. It explicitly states that only federal immigration officers and authorized Department of Homeland Security employees have the authority to investigate, apprehend, arrest, or detain individuals for immigration violations, with a few narrow exceptions related to specific federal statutes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision clarifies the federal government's sole responsibility for immigration enforcement, preventing local police from being diverted from their primary duties and rebuilding trust with immigrant communities. They believe it will lead to more effective policing by ensuring all residents feel safe reporting crimes.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that this provision removes a critical tool for immigration enforcement, forcing federal agencies to shoulder the entire burden and potentially allowing individuals who have violated immigration laws to remain in communities. They argue 287(g) agreements are essential for public safety by enabling local officers to identify and detain non-citizens who may pose a risk.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to centralize immigration enforcement and improve community-police relations with concerns about the federal government's capacity to enforce immigration laws without local assistance and the perceived loss of a tool for public safety.
The bill includes specific statutory references (8 U.S.C. 103(a)(10), 8 U.S.C. 274(c), and 8 U.S.C. 1252c) as exceptions to the general rule that only federal officers can enforce immigration law. These exceptions preserve certain existing authorities, such as the authority of the Attorney General to delegate certain functions, civil penalties for document fraud, and the authority for state and local officers to arrest aliens who have reentered the U.S. after deportation for certain crimes.
Section 2, amending 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory text and to maintain consistency with existing legal frameworks. It's not necessarily evasive but requires legal expertise to fully unpack.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these exceptions ensure that critical, narrowly defined areas where state and local assistance is deemed essential (e.g., specific anti-terrorism measures or severe criminal violations by re-entering aliens) are preserved, preventing unintended negative consequences while still achieving the bill's primary goal of ending 287(g) agreements.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these exceptions are too narrow or too broad, or that they create loopholes that undermine the bill's stated intent to centralize all immigration enforcement. However, given the bill's overall intent, these exceptions are likely seen as necessary compromises.
Estimated impact: These exceptions maintain a very limited scope of state/local involvement in immigration enforcement, preventing a complete cessation of all forms of cooperation, particularly in areas related to serious criminal offenses or national security.