The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to award annual grants to states that commit to producing and publishing a yearly report on migrants charged with or convicted of crimes. It directs states to collect county-level data from their law enforcement agencies, analyze that information, publish the results on a state website, and submit the report to DHS.
The measure creates a federal funding incentive for states to assemble a new dataset on noncitizens (defined by inability to present a set of U.S.-issued identity documents). That combination of money plus mandatory public reporting reshapes how jurisdictions will measure and disclose encounters between migrants and the criminal justice system — with implications for accuracy, privacy, and how data may be used by policymakers and the public.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Homeland Security must, subject to appropriations, award migrant crime reporting grants to eligible States and require grant recipients to collect county-level counts of migrants charged or convicted and to publish and submit an annual migrant crime report. Eligibility ties to a State having produced and submitted a migrant crime report in the prior fiscal year.
Who It Affects
State public safety and criminal justice agencies that will gather and analyze county-level arrest and conviction records, DHS as the federal recipient of reports, migrants whose immigration or identity status is used for categorization, and researchers or advocacy groups that consume publicly released reports.
Why It Matters
By attaching federal dollars to a specific reporting requirement, the bill pushes states toward producing a nationwide mosaic of state reports rather than a single federal database — a structural choice that will affect comparability, methodology, and the potential for political or enforcement-driven uses of the data.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 defines the statutory terms the program uses. The definition of “migrant” is operational: a person who cannot present any one of a short list of U.S.-issued identity documents (including a Permanent Resident Card, U.S. passport, U.S. birth certificate, or certain naturalization/citizenship forms).
The bill also defines what counts as a “migrant crime report” and identifies the Secretary of Homeland Security as the administering official.
Section 3 creates the grant program. Beginning in fiscal year 2027, and for each fiscal year thereafter subject to available appropriations, the Secretary shall award a migrant crime reporting grant to each State that qualifies as an “eligible State.” The grants are intended to fund the collection and analysis of data from county, parish, borough, or similar local law enforcement agencies on the number of migrants who have been charged with or convicted of a criminal offense.
The statute requires grant recipients to make that report publicly available on a State-operated website and to submit it to DHS for the fiscal year covered.The bill conditions eligibility on a State’s prior-year behavior: a State is eligible only if it requested a grant for the current fiscal year and, in the prior fiscal year, both published a migrant crime report on its website and submitted that report to the Secretary. Section 4 locates the funding authority by adding the grant activity to a list of awards in an existing public law, tying the program into the broader appropriations language and noting that awards are subject to the availability of appropriations.Notably, the text concentrates on counts (number charged or convicted) and on the reporting chain (local law enforcement → State collection and analysis → public posting and DHS submission).
It does not specify technical standards for data collection, matching rules for identities, privacy protections, de-identification requirements, auditing procedures, or enforcement penalties for inaccurate reporting; those implementation details would be left to the Secretary and the States unless later amended.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of Homeland Security must award a migrant crime reporting grant to each eligible State for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter, subject to availability of appropriations.
A State becomes eligible only if it requests a grant and had, in the prior fiscal year, both published a migrant crime report on a State-operated website and submitted that report to the Secretary.
The statute defines “migrant” as a person who is unable to present certain specified U.S.-issued identity documents (including Permanent Resident Card I–551, U.S. passport, official U.S. birth certificate, and several naturalization/citizenship forms).
Grant funds must be used to collect and analyze data from every county, parish, borough, or similar general-purpose political subdivision about the number of migrants charged with or convicted of criminal offenses, with the State required to publish and submit the annual report.
The bill amends a specified provision of an existing public law to authorize the migrant crime reporting grants, so the program’s operation is expressly tied to appropriations language and the broader funding bill.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who can receive a grant (prior-year report requirement)
This subsection makes a State’s past behavior a gating condition: a State must have already produced and submitted a migrant crime report in the prior fiscal year to qualify. Practically, that creates a rolling requirement that can lock in jurisdictions that commit early and exclude those that have not already adopted the reporting practice, which incentivizes continuity but may disadvantage states that need initial support to start reporting.
Operational definition of 'migrant' tied to possession of specific documents
The bill lists specific documents; a person is a ‘migrant’ under the statute if they cannot present any of those documents. That turns a legal or administrative fact (possession of documents) into the operational criterion for counting people, which matters because people can lack documents for many lawful and unlawful reasons and because the definition focuses on presentation rather than immigration status determined by federal agencies.
Annual federal grants to eligible States (subject to appropriations)
The Secretary is required to award a grant to each eligible State every fiscal year starting 2027, subject to appropriations. Embedding the program in recurring annual awards makes it a steady funding stream in statute, but the explicit subject-to-appropriations language means actual disbursement depends on future budget decisions.
Collect and analyze county-level migrant charge/conviction data
This provision requires States to pull data from local law enforcement across every county-style jurisdiction and to perform analysis on the number of migrants charged or convicted. That creates an operational burden across many local agencies, and it raises methodological questions about how arrests, charges, and convictions are identified and matched to the statute’s definition of migrant.
Publication/submission requirement and appropriation connection
Section 3(c) requires States receiving grants to publish their migrant crime report on a State-operated website and to submit it to DHS. Section 4 adds the grant program to the list of award authorities in an existing appropriations statute, signaling Congress’s intent to fund the program through that vehicle. Together these clauses create a public reporting regime backed by an identified appropriations hook.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State governments that receive grants — they get federal funds to build or expand data collection and analysis capacity specific to migrant-related criminal counts, which can offset state personnel and IT costs.
- Policy researchers and analysts who can use publicly posted state reports to study patterns of criminal charging and conviction among migrants, subject to the reports’ methodology and comparability.
- Federal policymakers (DHS and other agencies) who gain an annual stream of state-submitted reports that can inform immigration policy, resource allocation, and congressional oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies and county IT systems — they must supply standardized data to the State, which may require new data extractions, case-level matching, or manual review, imposing time and technology costs.
- States that do not already have robust data infrastructure — even with grant money, implementing consistent county-by-county collection, quality control, and public reporting will require sustained administrative effort and possibly ongoing funding beyond a single grant.
- Migrants and communities — public reporting based on document possession risks privacy exposure and could facilitate political or enforcement uses of the data that affect migrants’ safety and community trust in law enforcement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the public interest in producing transparent, state-level counts of migrants charged or convicted (which proponents argue informs policy and public debate) and the risk that mandating and publicizing those counts — under an operational definition tied to document possession and without federal standards or privacy protections — will produce inconsistent, potentially misleading data and expose migrants to privacy harms or enforcement actions.
The bill converts document possession into the key operational test for counting a person as a migrant, but it provides no standardized methodology for how States must identify and classify individuals across arrest, charging, and conviction records. That gap creates a high risk of inconsistent metrics across states: variations in local arrest reporting practices, differences in how courts record convictions, and diverse approaches to associating a person’s immigration-related documentation with criminal case records will undermine comparability.
Privacy and civil liberties concerns receive no specific statutory attention. The text requires public posting and submission to DHS but does not require de-identification, limit the use of personally identifiable information, or set rules for data retention and access.
That leaves open the possibility that individual-level data could be used for immigration enforcement, public naming, or other purposes that either exceed the program’s stated purpose or create chilling effects on community policing and reporting. Finally, attaching funding to prior-year reporting privileges jurisdictions that have already adopted reporting practices and may create perverse incentives (e.g., overcounting, classifying ambiguous cases to meet targets) in the absence of audits or federal methodological standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.