A Democratic bill with 27 Democratic cosponsors · See all 27 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the No Kids as Bait Act. It stops the Secretary of Homeland Security from taking a child into custody to catch an alien parent, step-parent, legal guardian, adult relative, or a sponsor of an unaccompanied child. It requires written documentation within 72 hours when a child is taken into custody. It also bans forcing children to translate during immigration interviews. Furthermore, it stops the Secretary of Health and Human Services from sharing a sponsor's immigration status information with the Department of Homeland Security for civil enforcement. Finally, it requires regular public reports from Inspectors General on how well these rules are being followed.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +9
Would children be better off under this?
The bill explicitly prohibits taking children into custody as bait to apprehend family members and bans forcing children to act as translators during immigration interviews.
- Scored +8
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The legislation prevents DHS from using children as bait, bans forcing children to translate in interviews, and blocks HHS from sharing sponsors' immigration status with DHS for civil enforcement.
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill mandates written documentation within 72 hours when a child is taken into custody, ensuring families and attorneys know the legal basis for detention.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) bans taking children into custody to catch their parents, legal guardians, adult relatives, or sponsors. This protects children from being used as bait in immigration enforcement actions.
-
Section 2(b) requires the Secretary to provide written documentation explaining the legal basis for detaining a child within 72 hours. This holds officials accountable and ensures families and attorneys know why a child was detained.
-
Section 2(c) prohibits forcing any child to act as an interpreter or translator during an immigration enforcement interview. This keeps kids out of stressful legal interrogations involving their family members.
-
Section 2(e) stops the Secretary of Health and Human Services from sharing the immigration status of sponsors or their household members with the Department of Homeland Security. This protects sponsors from being targeted by civil immigration enforcement when stepping up to care for unaccompanied alien children.
-
Section 2(f) requires the Inspectors General to submit reports to Congress and make them publicly available every 180 days. This keeps our elected officials and government agencies accountable to the people regarding their compliance with the law.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — The bill explicitly prohibits taking children into custody as bait to apprehend family members and bans forcing children to act as translators during immigration interviews. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The legislation prevents DHS from using children as bait, bans forcing children to translate in interviews, and blocks HHS from sharing sponsors' immigration status with DHS for civil enforcement. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults acting as parents, legal guardians, or sponsors are protected from deceptive immigration enforcement tactics involving children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Immigrant families from Latin America are disproportionately affected by immigration enforcement practices and benefit directly from these protections.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill mandates written documentation within 72 hours when a child is taken into custody, ensuring families and attorneys know the legal basis for detention. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires Inspectors General to submit regular public reports to Congress on compliance with the new prohibitions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — The bill protects sponsors of unaccompanied alien children from having their immigration status shared with DHS for civil enforcement, making it safer for them to participate in the legal process.
- 11/12/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 27 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
Jasmine CrockettDemocrat · Texas
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
Maxine DexterDemocrat · Oregon
Glenn IveyDemocrat · Maryland
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Adam SmithDemocrat · Washington
Janice SchakowskyDemocrat · Illinois
Mary Gay ScanlonDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Mark TakanoDemocrat · California
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Nydia VelázquezDemocrat · New York
Nikema WilliamsDemocrat · Georgia
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey