To end detention and electronic monitoring, and redirect funding to community-based wrap-around services.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 22, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 7190 seeks to fundamentally transform U.S. immigration enforcement by abolishing detention and electronic monitoring, dismantling related federal-local partnerships, and reorienting resources towards voluntary community-based social support services for noncitizens.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the release of all noncitizens currently detained by the Department of Homeland Security within six months and repeals numerous sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other statutes that authorize immigration detention, electronic monitoring, and certain information-sharing partnerships between federal and local law enforcement. It also prohibits the use of federal funds for these activities and establishes a new grant program under the Department of Health and Human Services to fund community-based wrap-around social services for individuals affected by immigration enforcement, explicitly excluding organizations involved in law enforcement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that immigration detention and electronic monitoring are inhumane, costly, and ineffective, often leading to significant trauma and civil rights violations for noncitizens. They contend that community-based alternatives, which provide essential services like housing, mental health support, and legal aid, are more humane, cost-effective, and lead to better outcomes for individuals and communities, promoting integration rather than punishment.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that abolishing immigration detention and monitoring would severely undermine national security and public safety by eliminating critical tools for managing the border, ensuring appearance in court, and removing individuals deemed inadmissible or deportable. They would contend that such measures are essential for maintaining control over immigration processes and that releasing all detained noncitizens could lead to increased abscondment rates and challenges in enforcing immigration laws.
The bill is concise, but its extensive repeals require careful cross-referencing with existing law to fully grasp the implications, making it moderately challenging for a quick read.
Section 1(a)
Mandated Release of Detained Noncitizens
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to release all noncitizens currently detained by DHS on their own recognizance within six months of the bill's enactment. This would effectively empty all immigration detention facilities operated or contracted by DHS.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a crucial step towards ending the inhumane practice of civil immigration detention, allowing individuals to pursue their legal cases from within their communities, which is proven to be more effective and less costly than detention.
Critics contend
Critics would contend that this provision poses significant risks to public safety and national security by releasing individuals whose immigration status is unresolved, potentially leading to increased abscondment and difficulties in enforcing removal orders.
Tradeoffs
Balances humanitarian concerns and civil liberties against perceived national security and immigration enforcement imperatives.
Section 1(b)
Abolition of Statutory Detention Authority
This section systematically repeals numerous statutory provisions within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other federal laws that grant the Department of Homeland Security authority to apprehend, inspect, and detain noncitizens. This includes repealing sections related to mandatory detention, detention pending removal, and the general power of immigration officers to arrest and detain. It also repeals provisions that facilitate state and local law enforcement involvement in immigration detention.
Section 1(c)
End of Private and Federal Detention Contracts
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security terminate all existing contracts related to immigration detention and monitoring programs within two years. Furthermore, after this two-year period, it explicitly prohibits the use of any federal funds for such programs, effectively ending the federal government's ability to contract with private entities or operate its own facilities for immigration detention and monitoring.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Electronic Monitoring
This section requires DHS to develop a plan within one month to remove all ankle monitors from noncitizens. Within six months, all such monitors must be removed. After this six-month period, the use of federal funds for ankle monitors or related programs is prohibited, effectively ending the use of electronic monitoring as an immigration enforcement tool.
Section 2(b) and 1(b)(8), (9)
Dismantling Federal-Local Enforcement Partnerships
This provision prohibits the use of federal funds for information-sharing partnerships like the Secure Communities program between DHS and state/local law enforcement agencies for immigration enforcement purposes within two years. It also explicitly repeals sections of law that previously authorized communication between state/local government agencies and federal immigration services, thereby severing key mechanisms for local involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
Section 2(c)
Restriction on ICE Operations and Support Funds
This section explicitly prohibits funds provided to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for "Operations and Support" from being used for civil immigration enforcement activities, including arrests, detention, removal, or processing charging documents. It also forbids using these funds to enforce criminal offenses where immigration status is an essential element, such as illegal entry or re-entry.
Section 3
Establishment of Community-Based Support Services
This section establishes a grant program within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to fund community-based non-profit organizations. These organizations would provide voluntary, opt-in wrap-around social services to individuals affected by immigration enforcement, including housing, mental health, healthcare, employment assistance, English classes, education, and legal aid. Crucially, eligible entities must not have been involved in immigration or law enforcement activities, and they are prohibited from sharing personal identifying information with federal entities or subjecting individuals to surveillance.
Amends INA 287(a) to significantly restrict the power of immigration officers to arrest noncitizens without a warrant. It limits such arrests to aliens entering or attempting to enter illegally in the officer's presence or view, and only if the alien is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
Section 1(b)(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects civil liberties by limiting arbitrary arrests and ensures due process, requiring warrants unless immediate flight is a clear risk.
Case against: Opponents would argue this severely hampers immigration officers' ability to apprehend individuals who have violated immigration laws, making enforcement much more difficult and increasing the risk of abscondment.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the scope of warrantless arrests by ICE and CBP, impacting daily enforcement operations.
Repeals paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227). These paragraphs currently define "public charge" and "unlawful voter" as grounds for removal for noncitizens.
Section 1(b)(10)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for repealing specific subsections of existing statutes.
Case for: Proponents argue that the "public charge" rule unfairly penalizes immigrants for using public benefits they are legally entitled to, creating a chilling effect on accessing essential services. Repealing "unlawful voter" grounds for removal addresses concerns about disproportionate punishment for minor or unintentional infractions.
Case against: Opponents would argue that the "public charge" rule is essential to ensure immigrants are self-sufficient and do not become a burden on taxpayers. They would also contend that removing "unlawful voter" as a ground for removal undermines election integrity and the principle that only citizens should vote.
Estimated impact: Eliminates two significant grounds for removal for noncitizens, potentially affecting many individuals who might otherwise be deemed deportable.