SB149 adds a new, mandatory detention category to Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It targets noncitizens who are inadmissible under specified Section 212(a) grounds and who have been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to conduct that meets the elements of burglary, theft/larceny/shoplifting, assault of a law-enforcement officer, or any crime that causes death or serious bodily injury.
Practically, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue a detainer for such individuals and to take them into federal custody if they are not otherwise held by federal, state, or local authorities. That change would expand the group of noncitizens subject to mandatory immigration custody, tie application to state-law crime definitions, and create new operational obligations for DHS and for cooperating jurisdictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) to add a new subcategory that triggers mandatory detention for aliens inadmissible under specific 212(a) provisions when they are charged with or admit to specified theft- and violence-related offenses. It requires DHS to issue a detainer and to take custody if the person is not otherwise detained.
Who It Affects
Primary actors are DHS/ICE (responsible for issuing detainers and taking custody), state and local law enforcement and jails (who will process and potentially transfer custody), immigration courts (through increased detention caseload), and noncitizens charged under the listed offenses.
Why It Matters
The bill converts certain charged offenses into a mandatory federal custody trigger rather than leaving detention to discretionary review. That widens mandatory detention, shifts resource burdens to DHS and local partners, and raises legal and operational questions about preconviction detention and intergovernmental cooperation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB149 inserts a new mandatory-detention trigger into the statutory list that governs who the Secretary of Homeland Security must detain while removal proceedings are pending. The trigger applies only to noncitizens who are simultaneously inadmissible under the particular Section 212(a) subparagraphs cited in the bill and who face allegations or admissions that meet the essential elements of specified crimes—primarily theft-related offenses, burglary, assault of law-enforcement officers, and any offense resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
The bill writes multiple event-based triggers into the statute: being charged with, being arrested for, being convicted of, or admitting to acts that constitute the essential elements of the enumerated offenses. By listing both charging/ arrest events and convictions or admissions, the statute creates several independent bases to classify an individual as subject to mandatory custody, including triggers that occur before conviction.To reduce ambiguity between federal and local criminal definitions, SB149 instructs that the covered criminal terms—burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law-enforcement officer, and serious bodily injury—are to be given the meaning they have in the jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
That choice ties immigration detention outcomes directly to often divergent state or local criminal codes and charging practices, rather than to a single federal definition.Finally, the bill obligates DHS to issue an immigration detainer for any alien who falls within the new category and requires DHS to "effectively and expeditiously" take custody if the person is not already held by federal, state, or local officials. The statutory language stops short of prescribing a deadline or specifying procedures for transfer, but it creates an affirmative federal duty to seek custody and a standard—albeit vague—about timeliness and effectiveness that DHS would have to interpret and operationalize.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB149 amends 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) by adding a new mandatory detention subcategory—identified in the bill as paragraph (1)(E)—that links inadmissibility under certain Section 212(a) grounds to specified theft- and violence-related offenses.
The statute triggers mandatory detention on multiple bases: an alien who is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to conduct that meets the essential elements of burglary, theft/larceny/shoplifting, assault of a law-enforcement officer, or any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
The bill makes the criminal terms operative according to the law of the jurisdiction where the acts occurred, meaning state or local statutory definitions (not a uniform federal definition) control whether an offense qualifies.
SB149 directs DHS to issue an immigration detainer for any alien covered by the new subcategory and to take the alien into federal custody if not already detained by federal, state, or local officials, using the statutory phrase "effectively and expeditiously" without setting a concrete timeline.
The amendment includes housekeeping changes—redesignating an existing paragraph number and inserting definition and detainer provisions—whose practical effect is to expand the pool of aliens subject to mandatory federal custody and to create affirmative transfer obligations for DHS.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds a mandatory detention trigger tied to specified inadmissibility grounds and listed offenses
This provision inserts a new subparagraph that makes certain inadmissible aliens mandatorily detainable when they are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to conduct meeting the elements of enumerated offenses. Practically, it expands the existing statutory list of aliens who must be held without discretionary release, bringing lower-level theft offenses and state-defined assaults into the mandatory category so long as the alien is also inadmissible under the cited Section 212(a) subparagraphs.
Uses local criminal-law definitions to determine covered offenses
Rather than imposing a federal construction, the bill instructs that terms like 'burglary', 'theft', and 'serious bodily injury' carry the meanings assigned by the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred. That means application will depend on state or local statutes and charging practices; identical conduct in two jurisdictions could produce different immigration detention outcomes because the statutory elements differ.
Requires DHS to issue a detainer and take custody if the alien is not detained
This section obligates the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue an immigration detainer for any alien who falls within the new subcategory and to 'effectively and expeditiously' take custody if no other authority currently holds the alien. The provision creates an affirmative federal duty to seek custody but leaves key operational details—timing, standards for 'effective' transfer, evidence required to issue a detainer—unaddressed, so DHS will need implementing guidance and likely coordination agreements with local jails.
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
- DHS/ICE enforcement units — gain a statutory duty to take custody in a broader set of cases, reducing reliance on discretionary detention standards and clarifying when they should issue detainers.
- State and local prosecutors and law-enforcement agencies seeking transfer for suspected criminal noncitizens — the detainer requirement provides a clearer federal pathway to move custody to immigration authorities.
- Retailers and community victims of theft-related crimes — by putting theft and related offenses on the mandatory-custody list, the bill aims to reduce repeat offending by increasing the likelihood of federal custody and removal proceedings.
- Federal removal authorities and immigration judges — a larger mandatory-detention cohort may simplify custody decisions in removal cases by reducing the need for individualized custody hearings under the discretionary framework.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS and ICE — will face higher detention demand, transport and case-management burdens, and associated budgetary pressures to house and process additional detainees.
- Local jails and sheriffs' offices — will incur administrative costs associated with processing detainers and coordinating transfers, and may face operational strains if transfers must occur rapidly.
- Noncitizens charged but not convicted — face expanded risk of preconviction federal detention based on charging decisions or admissions rather than conviction, increasing liberty and legal-cost burdens.
- Immigration courts and legal-services providers — increased detention caseloads and removal proceedings may drive higher demand for counsel, hearings, and expedited case processing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives—protecting public safety and ensuring victims' recourse—against the liberty interests and procedural protections of noncitizens and the practical limits of federal and local agencies: it mandates federal custody based on preconviction charging and locally defined offenses, which increases immediate detention as a public-safety response but raises due-process, uniformity, and resource-allocation problems with no built-in mechanisms to resolve them.
The statute's reliance on charging events ("charged" or "arrested for") and on admissions, alongside convictions, erects multiple and potentially inconsistent bases for mandatory custody. Charging practices vary widely across jurisdictions and can be influenced by local prosecutorial discretion; tying immigration detention to those practices risks disparate application and early, pretrial federal detention based on preliminary allegations rather than adjudicated guilt.
The bill attempts to mitigate definitional conflict by delegating substantive crime definitions to the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred, but that choice embeds state-by-state variance into a federal detention rule.
Operationally, the detainer obligation raises unresolved implementation questions. The statutory phrase "effectively and expeditiously take custody" imposes a performance expectation but provides no timeline, evidentiary threshold, or mechanism for resolving conflicts with jurisdictions that decline to honor detainers.
That creates friction with municipalities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and with legal constraints courts have placed on ICE detainers in the past. Finally, expanding mandatory custody to conduct that includes non-violent theft and shoplifting shifts resource burdens to DHS and the immigration court system, which can exacerbate detention and adjudication backlogs without parallel appropriations or procedural guardrails.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.