PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 25, 2018
No Enforcement, No Grant for Sanctuary Cities Act of 2018
This bill prohibits a sanctuary jurisdiction from receiving federal funds under the state criminal alien assistance program for the fiscal year in which it was determined to be a sanctuary jurisdiction by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
"Sanctuary jurisdiction" means a state or political subdivision that has a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts a government entity or official from:
sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status; or
cooperating with a lawful DHS request to comply with a detainer for or notification about an individual's release.
A state or political subdivision shall not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on having a policy whereby its officials will not share information or cooperate with a DHS request to comply with a detainer for an individual who is a crime victim or witness.
People & committees
Rep. Donovan, Daniel M., Jr. [R-NY-11] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5617 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5617 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5617 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5617 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.