I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6519 

To protect any State or local authority that limits or restricts compliance 

with an immigration detainer request remains eligible for grants and 

appropriated funds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2016 

Mr. QUIGLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To protect any State or local authority that limits or restricts 

compliance with an immigration detainer request remains 

eligible for grants and appropriated funds. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safeguarding Sanc5 tuary Cities Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6519 IH

1 (1) Existing Federal law authorizes any author2 ized immigration officer to issue an immigration de3 tainer that serves to advise another law enforcement 

4 agency that the Federal department seeks custody of 

5 an undocumented immigrant presently in the cus6 tody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and 

7 removing the undocumented immigrant. 

8 (2) Unlike criminal detainers, which are sup9 ported by a warrant and require probable cause, 

10 there is no requirement for a warrant and no estab11 lished standard of proof, such as reasonable sus12 picion or probable cause, for issuing an ICE detainer 

13 request. Immigration detainers have erroneously 

14 been placed on United States citizens, as well as im15 migrants who are not deportable. 

16 (3) Galarza v. Szalczyk, U.S. Court of Appeals 

17 for the Third Circuit ruled in March 2014 that 

18 states and counties are not required to keep undocu19 mented immigrants in jail on immigration detainers; 

20 and in April 2014, Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas 

21 County, the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon 

22 found that county governments would be exposed to 

23 civil rights lawsuits for honoring detainers not issued 

24 in compliance with Fourth Amendment protections, 

25 including a showing of probable cause. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6519 IH

1 SEC. 3. DISCRETION TO COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION DE2 TAINERS. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (includ4 ing section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Im5 migrant Responsibility Act of 1996), if a State or unit 

6 of local government has in place any policy that limits or 

7 restricts compliance with a detainer or otherwise does not 

8 comply with a detainer, Federal financial assistance (as 

9 such term is defined in section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, 

10 United States Code) that the State or unit of local govern11 ment would otherwise receive may not be reduced or not 

12 made available to that State or unit of local government 

13 by reason of such noncompliance. 

14 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

15 In this Act, the term ‘‘detainer’’ means any order or 

16 request by the Secretary of Homeland Security to a State 

17 or local official— 

18 (1) to temporarily hold a person in the custody 

19 of that State or unit of local government until such 

20 person may be taken into Federal custody; 

21 (2) to transport such a person for transfer to 

22 Federal custody; or 

23 (3) to notify the Secretary prior to the release 

24 of such a person. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS