AN ACT TO DEFINE TERMS; TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER AND IDENTITIES OF ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS RESIDING IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS AS AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAWS AND THE LAWS OF THIS STATE; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; TO REQUIRE EACH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OPERATING A COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY TO EXECUTE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IMMIGRATION PROGRAM ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 287(G); TO PROVIDE A FELONY OFFENSE FOR A PERSON WHO IS AN ALIEN, REGARDLESS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND ENTERS OR ATTEMPTS TO ENTER THIS STATE DIRECTLY FROM A FOREIGN NATION AT ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN A LAWFUL PORT OF ENTRY; TO PROVIDE A FELONY OFFENSE, IN ADDITION TO ANY EXISTING PENALTY FOR THE UNDERLYING CRIME, FOR A PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND IS DETERMINED TO BE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, REGARDLESS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES; TO AUTHORIZE A SENTENCING COURT TO ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER DISCHARGING THE PERSON AND REQUIRING SAID INDIVIDUAL TO RETURN TO HIS OR HER COUNTRY OF ORIGIN; TO DIRECT THE COURT TO REMAND THE PERSON SUBJECT TO THE ORDER TO THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO NOTIFY THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO ARRANGE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE REPATRIATION OF THE PERSON BACK TO HIS OR HER COUNTRY OF ORIGIN; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PROSECUTION UNDER THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT A DEFENDANT CHARGED OR CONVICTED UNDER THIS ACT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNCTION, AN INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM, NONADJUDICATION, PAROLE, OR ANY EARLY RELEASE PROGRAM; TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB 2114 is a Mississippi immigration enforcement bill that directs the Department of Public Safety to identify and track the number and identities of undocumented immigrants in the state using lawful investigative tools and information-sharing with federal, state, and local authorities. It also requires the department to seek a memorandum of agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Section 287(g), and requires county law enforcement agencies operating detention facilities to make a reasonable attempt to enter into similar written agreements with ICE.
The bill creates new state crimes tied to immigration status. It makes unlawful entry into Mississippi from a foreign nation at a location other than a lawful port of entry a misdemeanor, and it adds separate felony penalties for certain defendants who are unlawfully present in the United States and are convicted of qualifying state offenses. The penalties are enhanced for crimes of violence and sex offenses. The bill also limits post-conviction relief by making covered defendants ineligible for expunction, nonadjudication, parole, intensive supervision, and other early release options, and it authorizes courts and corrections officials to facilitate removal-related procedures.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial because it expands state-level immigration enforcement authority, creates new criminal penalties based on immigration status and manner of entry, and imposes new duties on DPS, county jails, the Department of Corrections, and the Attorney General. It also establishes affirmative defenses for lawful presence, asylum, certain DACA recipients, and conduct that does not violate federal illegal-entry law, while excluding some other federal programs from that defense. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2026, and repeal itself on July 1, 2028.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill had majority support but also notable opposition. It passed the Senate and House, including adoption of a conference report in both chambers, indicating that supporters were able to maintain the bill through the legislative process. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into floor debate, but the recorded votes show a clear partisan or policy split consistent with immigration enforcement legislation.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s criminalization of unlawful entry, the use of state resources to identify and track undocumented immigrants, and the mandate that local detention facilities seek ICE agreements. Opponents would likely focus on civil liberties, federalism, and the fairness of imposing additional criminal penalties based on immigration status, while supporters would emphasize public safety, cooperation with federal authorities, and stronger enforcement against unlawful presence and related crimes.
The bill amends Mississippi law by creating new immigration-related offenses, directing the Department of Public Safety to conduct ongoing identification efforts, and requiring state and county law enforcement coordination with ICE through 287(g) agreements. It also affects sentencing and post-conviction procedures by barring expunction, nonadjudication, parole, and certain early release options for covered defendants, while authorizing the Attorney General to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against noncompliant governmental entities.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support among legislative majorities, as shown by passage in both chambers and adoption of the conference report. At the same time, the substantial number of nays in each vote indicates meaningful opposition, likely centered on the bill’s immigration enforcement approach and the creation of new state penalties tied to immigration status.
The most notable disputes are over whether Mississippi should create state-level immigration crimes and require local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Critics are likely to object to the criminal penalties for unlawful entry and the enhanced felony sanctions for noncitizens convicted of other offenses, while supporters likely argue the bill is necessary for public safety and enforcement. The mandates on county detention facilities and the Department of Public Safety, along with the bill’s restrictions on expunction and early release, are also likely to have been contentious.