Georgia’s New Criminal Alien Track and Report Act and What It Might Mean for Immigrant Communities

The 411 on HB 1105

The insidious nature of racial profiling has allowed it to remain a tool of oppression in America despite the country’s other advancements in civil rights. For centuries, local law enforcement officers in the U.S. have singled out individuals who do not meet the standard of whiteness and subjected them to unfair treatment under the law. Although instances of racial profiling have been challenged in courts on numerous occasions, the practice continues to play a major role in modern policing. The ACLU has reported that as many as forty-one percent of Black Americans have been stopped or detained because of their race. Much of today’s discussion around racial profiling has focused on that of men of color, particularly Black men, by police officers. However, a recent Georgia law has opened up the conversation to include anyone who might be suspected to be an undocumented immigrant. This new law has troubling implications for Atlanta’s immigrant communities.

House Bill 1105 (HB 1105) was signed by Governor Brian Kemp in May of 2024 and made significant changes to the way that Georgia’s local law enforcement interacts with federal immigration authorities. Known as the Criminal Alien Track and Report Act, the law forces police officers to report to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when they have arrested an individual who cannot prove that they are in the U.S. legally. The Act also gives police the authority to arrest people who they suspect of being in the country illegally and detain them for possible deportation. In addition, state-run prisons are required to report the immigration status of their inmate population. Failure to comply with the Act will result in a loss of federal funding for Georgia’s local law enforcement agencies, and misdemeanor charges for local law enforcement officers.

The Troubling Implications of the Bill’s Passage

HB 1105 was the subject of frequent criticism when it was first proposed and has remained controversial even now that it has passed. Proponents of the Act have argued that it will enhance public safety by giving local law enforcement the authority to apprehend potentially dangerous undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, by acting as an extension of the federal government, police officers can increase the number of undocumented immigrants who can be detained for deportation. The Act’s defenders have claimed that this will help tackle the socioeconomic issues that an influx of undocumented persons purportedly create. 

Critics of the Act have pushed back on these arguments, contending that the new law will only result in an increase in instances of racial profiling. Immigrants in the U.S. already have to endure an unwelcoming sociopolitical environment, and they are often victims of increased surveillance and scrutiny by local authorities. The new Act is sure to exacerbate this reality for Georgia’s immigrant population.

Because of the racialized nature of the Act and the expansive power it grants, police officers will be just as prone to harass and harm people who are American citizens as they are noncitizens. An officer tasked with identifying someone who is in the country illegally has nothing to rely on other than their knowledge of stereotypes and their own personal biases. After all, what does an “undocumented immigrant” look like? Far from creating a sense of safety for all Georgians, the new law will likely foster fear and distrust of the police within the state’s immigrant communities.

In addition to the impact that the Act will certainly have on immigrants, the law may also be detrimental for Georgia’s local government and public servants. The Act imposes restrictions on federal funding for agencies that fail to comply with reporting requirements. Moreover, law enforcement officers and other officials who knowingly and willingly violate the law could potentially face misdemeanor charges.

It may be too soon since its passing to understand the magnitude of the law’s impact on Georgia, and its potential ripple effects into other states. The proponents and critics of the Act account for just a few of the voices in the ongoing national debate about the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration matters. Unfortunately, similarly discriminatory bills have already been proposed in other parts of the Southern U.S., including Texas and North Carolina. This “crack-down” on illegal immigration is evidence of a startling trend in legislation in the South–one that is bound to have a negative effect on the region’s already marginalized immigrant population.

Caitlyn Tillett

Class of 2026, Staff Member