Grant recipients must certify immigration compliance

Summary#

The Grant Integrity and Border Security Act would create a new federal grant requirement; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to require grant applicants to certify that they have not violated, are not violating, and will not violate section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bill is introduced and has not become law.

  • Each federal agency head must require every federal grant applicant to make that certification. The bill defines a federal grant by cross-reference to the definition of “Federal award” in another law.
  • An agency head may determine that a grantee violated the bill based on information from the Homeland Security Secretary or the Office of Management and Budget Director, certain employee conduct, or other credible information.
  • If the agency head makes that determination, the agency must withhold funds from the grantee.
  • The Attorney General must send the OMB Director information about individuals convicted of or admitting to a section 274(a) violation, and individuals the Attorney General believes there is a reasonable basis to suspect violated it. The deadline is within 90 days after the relevant conviction, admission, or investigation is completed.

What it means for you#

  • Federal grant applicants and recipients: Applicants would have to certify past, current, and future compliance with section 274(a). A recipient determined by an agency head to be in violation would have funds withheld.
  • Employees and former employees of recipients: Their conviction or admission to a section 274(a) violation while performing official duties for the grantee may be a basis for an agency’s determination about the grantee.
  • Federal agencies and the Attorney General: Agency heads would have to collect certifications and withhold funds after a qualifying determination. The Attorney General would have to send specified information to the OMB Director.
  • General public: The bill does not create a new grant program, tax, fine, or direct service. It does not say that every grant applicant would be investigated.

Money#

The bill requires new certification, information-sharing, and grant-withholding duties, but no cost estimate is available.

  • The bill does not set a budget or say how many staff or how much funding agencies or the Justice Department would need.
  • A grantee could lose federal grant funds if an agency head determines it is in violation. The bill does not specify an amount or duration of withholding.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “credible information” or explain what standard an agency head must use to determine that a grantee violated the bill.
  • It does not set out notice, a hearing, an appeal process, or a deadline for an agency’s determination.
  • It does not explain whether withholding applies to one grant or all funds from the grantee, or how long withholding lasts.
  • It does not explain how the certification requirement interacts with existing grant rules.
  • The text does not include the full wording of section 274(a), so its underlying legal terms cannot be verified from the supplied material.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to prevent federal grant funds from going to recipients that violate the referenced immigration law.
  • Requiring applicants to certify past and future compliance gives agencies a clear condition to apply to federal grants.
  • Allowing agencies to consider several sources of information may help them act on concerns beyond a conviction.

Case against#

  • A grant could be affected by information about an employee or former employee, even though the bill does not explain how that conduct would establish a violation by the grantee.
  • The bill permits decisions based on “other credible information” but does not define that term or set out a decision process.
  • The Attorney General’s required information-sharing includes people the Attorney General believes there is a reasonable basis to conclude violated the law, not only people convicted of or admitting to a violation.
  • The bill does not explain how applicants can correct mistakes or challenge a decision before funds are withheld.