Key Takeaways
• SB 153 mandates NC law enforcement to partner with ICE via 287(g) agreements for immigration enforcement.
• The bill bans UNC universities’ sanctuary policies and audits benefits to exclude undocumented immigrants.
• Opponents warn SB 153 will increase fear, wrongful detentions, and penalize local governments for sanctuary policies.
In early 2025, North Carolina found itself at the center of a heated debate over immigration laws, following the introduction and advancement of several bills aimed at undocumented immigrants. The most well-known of these is Senate Bill 153 (SB 153), which the state legislature referred to as the North Carolina Border Protection Act. The bill, along with a smaller group of related legislative efforts, has sparked widespread protests and statements from civil rights groups, raising important questions for lawmakers, immigrant families, students, and the broader public.
What Does Senate Bill 153 Propose?
Senate Bill 153 introduces a series of rules and requirements. Supporters argue these will improve public safety and make sure that only those who qualify receive state benefits. Opponents, however, see the bill as a harsh measure that would create fear in immigrant communities and penalize local governments and schools for trying to protect those populations.
State Law Enforcement Must Work With ICE
One of the central points of SB 153 is its clear push for cooperation between North Carolina law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The bill requires state agencies—including the Department of Public Safety, Department of Adult Correction, State Highway Patrol, and State Bureau of Investigation—to enter into formal agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These agreements, known as 287(g) partnerships, would give state officers new responsibilities to help enforce federal immigration laws.
This step means that local and state police officers could gain the power to question people about their citizenship or immigration status while in their custody or under their supervision. If an officer cannot determine a person’s immigration status, the bill instructs the officer to contact ICE.
Supporters say this cooperation can help remove those who break laws from the country. However, critics see these actions as having broader and more damaging effects, particularly for families fearing separation or deportation.
Checking Residency Status in Police Custody
SB 153 tells officers to check if every person in their custody is a United States citizen or has legal status to be in the country. If that status is unclear, officers must contact ICE.
While this may sound simple on paper, civil rights advocates warn that it could lead to mistakes, wrongful detentions, or profiling based on appearance, language, or accent—especially since determining someone’s legal status is not always straightforward.
Auditing State Benefits
Another key part of SB 153 deals with public benefits, like Medicaid, rental assistance, or food stamps. The bill orders the Office of State Budget and Management to audit these programs to ensure undocumented immigrants are not using benefits beyond what federal law allows.
Advocates for immigrants point out that, even without these audits, undocumented immigrants are already barred from most public benefit programs. They also say many undocumented people pay taxes that contribute to these services, though most will not be allowed to receive them.
University Sanctuary Ban
SB 153 would make it illegal for University of North Carolina schools to set up what are called “sanctuary” policies. These are rules that limit how much a university must cooperate with federal immigration authorities, or that stop schools from sharing information about a student’s immigration or citizenship status.
If passed, this rule would force UNC institutions to help immigration authorities and to provide information if asked. Critics believe this could push undocumented students further into hiding and would make it much riskier for them to seek higher education.
Suing Sanctuary Jurisdictions
A controversial component of SB 153 says that if a local government in North Carolina sets up sanctuary policies and an undocumented immigrant later commits a crime in that area, the local government could be sued.
This would give private citizens or organizations the power to bring lawsuits against local governments. Critics worry that this could have a chilling effect on city and county leaders, discouraging them from adopting any rules that might make immigrants feel safer interacting with law enforcement.
Related Legislation: H261 Ups the Stakes
SB 153 is not the only bill in North Carolina aimed at undocumented immigrants. House Bill 261 (H261) proposes to make penalties tougher for undocumented people who commit felonies, meaning that they could face even longer sentences if convicted.
Both bills, taken together, would not just increase monitoring and enforcement but also raise the penalties for undocumented residents. This is a trend that has led to fierce opposition from civil rights and immigrant support groups.
Why Are Civil Rights Groups Protesting?
The response to SB 153 and related bills has been strong and organized. The ACLU of North Carolina, one of the most active voices against the bills, published a clear statement expressing their frustration and fear for immigrant communities. Liz Barber, Policy & Advocacy Director for ACLU NC, said:
“This bill isn’t about protecting our communities; it’s about furthering an anti-immigrant agenda… SB 153 would exacerbate the climate of uncertainty for immigrants and their families in North Carolina. No one should have to live in constant fear…”
Advocates list several reasons for their opposition:
- They believe the bills support untrue stories that connect immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, with crime and danger.
- Many undocumented immigrants already pay taxes but remain excluded from nearly all public benefit programs. Audits and restrictions, therefore, target only a small part of public spending.
- Forcing local law enforcement to work so closely with ICE creates deep fear in immigrant communities. People might become afraid to report crimes they witness or to seek help—including medical care—if they worry it could lead to arrest or deportation.
Community organizations have responded by urging people to call their lawmakers and ask them to vote against SB 153 and similar bills. Their message is that these laws punish people simply because of their immigration status, not because of any crime they committed.
The Political Tone: Divided Views
The debate over undocumented immigrants in North Carolina reflects a national divide. Supporters of SB 153 and similar bills say stronger measures are necessary for public safety and to maintain order at the border. They argue that local and state governments must not block cooperation with federal authorities and claim sanctuary policies make it easier for undocumented immigrants to avoid detection, potentially causing public safety problems.
On the other side, opponents insist that these bills do not make communities safer. They say that targeting undocumented immigrants and local governments creates more fear without real benefits. Some cities and counties have chosen to reduce their role in federal immigration enforcement because they believe it strains trust and makes it harder for police to do their jobs—especially when it comes to getting witnesses and victims to come forward.
Analysis from VisaVerge.com suggests that the move to strengthen cooperation between state agencies and ICE could lead to more detentions, more deportations, and greater strain on families, school districts, and local governments. The costs, both in dollars and in community well-being, could be severe.
Historical Context
Sanctuary policies, 287(g) agreements, and debates over state help with federal immigration enforcement are not new. Over the past decade, several states have considered or adopted similar laws. Some states have tried to limit how much their local governments must work with ICE, while others have passed rules forcing cooperation.
North Carolina’s own history includes several rounds of debate on these topics, but SB 153 marks the state’s strongest push yet to involve local officers in the immigration system and to penalize local governments or schools that resist.
It’s important to understand that the federal government has the main say over immigration law in the United States 🇺🇸. States like North Carolina, however, can decide how much they wish to participate in federal programs like the 287(g) agreement. The tension between state and federal control is at the core of many such debates.
What Could Happen Next?
If passed, SB 153 and related bills would start a wave of changes for law enforcement, universities, local governments, and undocumented immigrants living in North Carolina.
Likely Immediate Effects
- Law enforcement agencies across the state would have to sign 287(g) agreements with ICE. This could mean more stops, detentions, and checks for people even suspected of being undocumented.
- Undocumented immigrants could become less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or get help in emergencies, for fear of being reported to ICE.
- Universities in the UNC system would have to rewrite their rules, likely making it harder for undocumented and DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) students to feel safe or even attend school.
- Local governments could face lawsuits if a crime is committed by an undocumented person, especially if the area has any policy even mildy in favor of immigrants.
Longer-Term Outcomes
Only time will tell, but if North Carolina keeps moving in this direction, other states may consider similar laws. Immigration advocates worry that these changes could break families apart, frighten children in schools, and hurt local economies.
Businesses that depend on immigrant workers may struggle to find enough staff and may have to spend more on paperwork, legal checks, and audits. School districts and cities could spend more money on training and legal advice to avoid lawsuits from angry citizens or groups.
Many believe that the bill will not actually reduce crime or lower risk, but instead will make basic tasks—like going to the doctor or sending kids to school—feel risky for undocumented families.
Points of Controversy
SB 153 is part of a wider national conversation about immigration and the role of state and local governments. Supporters insist they’re acting to protect citizens and uphold the law. Critics argue that states should not take federal immigration law into their own hands, and that mixing local policing with immigration enforcement damages trust between police and the people they serve.
There is fear that these policies can lead to unfair profiling of people based on their looks, language, or racial background. Many groups worry that innocent people, including citizens or legal residents, could be mistakenly detained or targeted.
Resources and Official Information
For those wanting to see the full text of Senate Bill 153 or learn more about immigration law enforcement agreements, the official North Carolina General Assembly website offers all primary sources.
Individuals concerned about their rights or seeking legal help can turn to recognized organizations such as the ACLU of North Carolina or national groups that focus on immigrants’ legal protections.
Conclusion
North Carolina’s Senate Bill 153 and related measures highlight a sharp split in beliefs about undocumented immigrants and public safety. The bill’s supporters see it as a way to keep their communities safe by ensuring local help for federal immigration checks. Civil rights groups, immigrant advocates, and many students and families see it as an unfair attack that spreads fear and disrupts communities.
As protests continue, the discussion touches on many deep questions: Who should decide what happens to people living in a state without legal status? Can local governments make their own choices about safety and community, or must they follow every federal direction? The next steps in North Carolina, and how legislators respond to these concerns, will shape not only state policy but could impact national debates for years to come.
For anyone living in the state, especially undocumented immigrants and those who care about them, keeping informed is more important than ever. The discussion is ongoing, and outcomes remain uncertain. For now, people are encouraged to learn more about their rights and participate in the process wherever they can.
Learn Today
Senate Bill 153 (SB 153) → A North Carolina law proposal expanding state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and banning sanctuary policies.
287(g) partnership → Agreements allowing local/state law enforcement to perform federal immigration enforcement duties with ICE.
Sanctuary policies → Rules limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect undocumented immigrants.
Undocumented immigrants → People residing in a country without legal authorization or proper immigration status.
Auditing state benefits → Reviewing public assistance programs to prevent unauthorized access by undocumented individuals.
This Article in a Nutshell
North Carolina’s Senate Bill 153 aims to expand immigration enforcement through cooperation with ICE, targeting undocumented immigrants. The bill bans sanctuary policies at universities and audits public benefits, sparking protests from civil rights groups concerned about fear and discrimination in immigrant communities.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Medicaid Federal Match Penalty Slams Aid for Undocumented Immigrants
• Danbury Rally Demands TRUST Act to Shield Immigrants
• Judge blocks Oklahoma law targeting undocumented immigrants for now
• LGBTQ+ immigrants in Berkeley find support at Oasis Legal Services
• California Colleges See Immigrants Flee ESL Programs
