UPLIFT Act: Feds to Tighten Grip on Local Law Enforcement Over Immigration

The "Unhandcuffing Police to Locate and Interdict Foreign Transgressors Act," or UPLIFT Act, aims to force local and state governments to play ball with federal immigration enforcement. Basically, it's a big "no-no" to sanctuary policies, and there are some teeth to back that up.

Cracking Down on Sanctuary Cities

This bill, introduced as of [Date of drafting], amends existing laws (specifically Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) to make sure no government entity or even individual can restrict cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on immigration matters. Think of it as a blanket ban on anything that looks like a "sanctuary" policy. For example, if a local police department has a policy of not asking about immigration status during routine traffic stops, that's out the window. Under this act, they can ask, and they can also notify the feds about anyone they suspect might be in the country illegally. (Section 3).

Detainers: The 48-to-96-Hour Window

The UPLIFT Act also clarifies—and strengthens—the power of ICE detainers. If someone gets arrested for any criminal or motor vehicle violation, and there's "probable cause" to believe they're deportable, the DHS can issue a detainer. "Probable cause" can be something as simple as a biometric match, a hit in a federal database, or even just a "voluntary statement" (Section 4). Once the detainer is issued, DHS has a 48-to-96-hour window to pick up the individual after they're supposed to be released by local law enforcement.

Imagine a construction worker pulled over for a broken taillight. If something in their record flags them, even if it's just a database hit, they could be held for up to four extra days just for DHS to check things out.

Lawsuits and Liability

Here's where things get interesting. If a local government doesn't honor a detainer, and the released individual later commits murder, rape, or any felony with at least a one-year sentence, the victim (or their family) can sue that local government (Section 4). The lawsuit has to be filed within 10 years of the crime, and if the plaintiff wins, they're entitled to attorney fees.

On the flip side, states and local governments that do comply with detainers are protected from liability in civil suits. They're considered to be acting under federal authority. However, this protection doesn't apply if the detained individual is mistreated.

The Bigger Picture

This bill fits into a broader context of federal-state tension over immigration. It essentially forces states and local governments to become extensions of federal immigration enforcement, whether they want to or not. It's also worth noting that private companies running immigration detention facilities are explicitly protected – no restrictions on contracts, property sales, or payments related to them (Section 3). The Secretary of Homeland Security will also be reporting to Congress annually, by March 1, on which states or local entities are not complying with the provisions. (Section 3)

While the bill says law enforcement isn't required to report victims or witnesses of crimes, the overall effect is likely to be a significant shift in how immigration enforcement works on the ground, with potentially major implications for both immigrant communities and local law enforcement resources.