Secure America Act

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that CBP and ICE have faced chronic staffing shortages and outdated technology that have hampered effective border security, and that multi-year funding provides the operational stability needed to address those gaps. They contend that 287(g) agreements are a proven force-multiplier — as of recent years, hundreds of jurisdictions have used them to identify and remove individuals with criminal records — and that expanded state-local coordination directly improves public safety outcomes. They further argue that reconciliation is a legitimate and frequently used legislative tool, employed by both parties, to advance budget-related priorities.

Opponents argue

Opponents argue that dramatically expanding ICE and CBP funding without corresponding oversight mechanisms risks scaling up an enforcement apparatus that has documented records of civil rights violations, including wrongful detentions of U.S. citizens and legal residents. They contend that 287(g) agreements blur the line between local policing and federal immigration enforcement, eroding community trust and making immigrant communities less likely to report crimes — a concern raised by law enforcement officials in multiple jurisdictions. They further argue that using the reconciliation process to pass sweeping immigration enforcement spending bypasses the deliberative debate and amendment process that major policy changes warrant.