INFO PROTECTION-IMMIGRATION
SB1995 amends the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act to add immigration or citizenship status information to the list of protected personal information. The bill defines that term broadly to include information about a person’s citizenship in the United States or any other country, the person’s legal right to be present in the United States, and related nationality or country-of-origin information. It also makes clear that this information is treated as “personal information” for purposes of the Act’s data-security provisions.
The core operative change is a new prohibition stating that a data collector may not own, maintain, license, store, or disclose records containing immigration or citizenship status information about an Illinois resident. The bill exempts government agencies, public and private universities, and financial institutions from that prohibition. It leaves in place the Act’s existing requirement that data collectors use reasonable security measures for personal information and continues to regulate contracts for disclosure of such information.
In practical terms, the bill would expand state privacy law to cover immigration-related data and impose a categorical restriction on private handling of that data by covered data collectors. It would affect businesses and other entities that collect or store resident information, while expressly carving out several institutional categories from the new restriction. The bill would also amend the statutory definition of personal information so that immigration or citizenship status information is treated similarly to other sensitive identifiers such as Social Security numbers, medical information, and biometric data.
The available context shows no committee transcript, vote record, or formal action history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears privacy- and protection-oriented, with a focus on limiting the retention and disclosure of sensitive immigration data. Because no recorded debate is provided, there is no evidence of organized support or opposition in the materials supplied.
The main point of potential contention is the breadth of the prohibition on data collectors and whether the exemptions for government agencies, universities, and financial institutions are appropriate. Another likely issue is how the new restriction would be implemented in practice by private entities that lawfully collect identity-related information for business, compliance, or service purposes. The bill’s treatment of immigration status as a protected data category may also raise concerns about compliance burdens, data retention practices, and the scope of enforcement under the Personal Information Protection Act.
SB1995 would amend the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act (815 ILCS 530) by adding immigration or citizenship status information to the definition of personal information and by creating a new subsection prohibiting data collectors from owning, maintaining, licensing, storing, or disclosing records containing that information about Illinois residents. The bill would also define “immigration or citizenship status information” and exempt government agencies, public and private universities, and financial institutions from the new prohibition. As a result, the measure would expand state privacy protections and impose new limits on private-sector handling of sensitive immigration-related data.
No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s text suggests a protective, privacy-focused purpose aimed at limiting the collection and disclosure of sensitive immigration data. In the absence of debate or voting history, support or opposition cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s apparent intent to strengthen data privacy protections for residents.
The likely points of contention are the scope of the new ban on storing or disclosing immigration or citizenship status information and the exemptions for government agencies, universities, and financial institutions. Opponents could question whether the restriction is too broad or difficult to administer for entities that handle identity and compliance records, while supporters would likely emphasize privacy and protection from misuse of sensitive immigration data. The bill also raises implementation questions about how covered entities would identify, segregate, and manage such information under existing data-security practices.