Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · HR 8984 Public Summary

119-HR-8984 Journalist Public Summary

119 · HR 8984 Respect Our Communities Act

A House bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (and other federal agencies) to get public input, secure written approval from state and local officials, and give Congress advance notice before opening any new Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing or detention site. Introduced May 21, 2026, it is at the committee stage and has not received a vote yet.

Published
02 Jun 2026
Updated
02 Jun 2026
Tags
immigration · DHS · CBP
Unvetted
01 · Section

Headline Summary

Before DHS can open any new CBP or ICE processing or detention site, it must take public comments, sign agreements with local and state leaders, and notify Congress in advance.

02 · Section

What It Does

The Respect Our Communities Act (H.R. 8984) would pause DHS (or any federal agency acting for DHS) from constructing, acquiring, renovating, or operating new immigration processing or detention facilities until three steps happen: (1) a public notice in the Federal Register with at least 30 days for comments, including the project’s scope, how the agency will meet immigration-detention standards and environmental rules, plus an economic impact analysis and an engineering review covering waste, water, and electrical needs; (2) after reviewing comments, the agency head must issue responses to significant comments and enter a signed agreement with the Governor and local officials where the site would be located; and (3) at least 30 days must pass after the agency submits a report—with the signed agreement attached—to key congressional committees.

03 · Section

Who’s For It

  • Sponsor: Rep. Joseph Morelle (D–NY).
  • Local and state officials seeking a formal say over new federal detention or processing sites may view the bill favorably because it requires their written agreement.
  • Community members near proposed sites who want more transparency and public input could support the comment and disclosure requirements.
  • No additional endorsements or cosponsors were provided in the materials; party-line support is not yet clear.
04 · Section

Who’s Against It

  • Critics may argue the bill could delay urgent capacity expansions during migration surges by adding multiple approval steps.
  • Some may warn that requiring gubernatorial and local sign-off effectively gives state and local officials a veto over federal operations, potentially shifting strain to other communities.
  • Others could contend that added process increases costs and bureaucracy without directly improving detention conditions.
05 · Section

What’s Next

Introduced in the House on May 21, 2026, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee and, additionally, to the Homeland Security Committee. It remains at the committee stage; next steps would be hearings and/or markups, a House floor vote if advanced, then consideration in the Senate, and finally the President’s desk if passed by both chambers.

Discussion