
Rep. Nancy Mace introduces legislation to redirect FEMA funds from migrant hotels to ICE, sparking debate on immigration policy and resource allocation.
At a Glance
- Rep. Nancy Mace introduced the Alien Removal Not Resort Stays Act to end FEMA’s program aiding undocumented migrants
- The bill aims to redirect funds from FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program to ICE for enforcement, detention, and deportation
- Mace criticizes the current administration for spending on benefits for illegal aliens
- The act proposes to terminate FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program and block future funding for similar programs
- FEMA’s program was created to support local governments and NGOs assisting noncitizens released by immigration authorities
Mace’s Bill Targets FEMA Migrant Aid
Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) has introduced the Alien Removal Not Resort Stays Act, a bold move to redirect government resources from housing undocumented immigrants to bolstering immigration enforcement. The legislation seeks to terminate FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program, which has been providing funds to local governments and organizations for migrant support.
Mace’s proposal comes in response to what she views as excessive federal spending on accommodations for illegal aliens. The South Carolina congresswoman has been vocal in her criticism of the current administration’s approach to immigration, particularly the use of taxpayer funds for housing migrants in hotels.
@RepNancyMace Introduces Bill to Stop FEMA from Funding Migrant Hotel Stayshttps://t.co/BJymmNyGC5 🤙🇺🇸🏆 While the #donothingdemocrats support the status quo. @TheDemocrats
— Mark R Smith (@MarkDaVinciGrp) February 23, 2025
Mace is on fire lately…
The core of Mace’s legislation is the redirection of funds from FEMA’s program to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This shift in resources is intended to strengthen ICE’s capabilities in enforcement, detention, and deportation operations. The move aligns with a more stringent approach to immigration control, prioritizing removal over accommodation.
“The past four years have been a free-for-all for illegal aliens—sanctuary cities handing out benefits and Biden’s DHS waving people through like it’s a theme park entrance,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R, S.C.-01) said.
Heck yeah!
FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program, which was allocated $650 million for the fiscal year 2024, was originally created to assist local governments and non-governmental organizations in supporting noncitizens released by immigration authorities. Mace’s bill proposes not only to terminate this program but also to block any future funding for similar initiatives.
Controversy Surrounding Migrant Accommodations
The introduction of this bill follows a series of controversies regarding the housing of migrants in hotels across the country. In May 2023, New York City Mayor Eric Adams reported that many city hotels were being used to house migrants, sparking debate about resource allocation and the strain on local infrastructure.
“The left has spent billions of our tax dollars housing illegal aliens in hotels. It’s insanity, and it stops now,” Rep. Nancy Mace said.
Adding fuel to the controversy, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered a $59 million FEMA payment for housing illegal aliens in luxury hotels in New York City. This revelation contradicted earlier statements from the Biden administration denying FEMA’s involvement in such funding, leading to heightened scrutiny of federal spending on migrant support.
Mace’s proposed legislation has reignited the debate over U.S. immigration policy and the appropriate use of federal resources. Supporters of the bill argue that it represents a necessary shift towards stronger border enforcement and fiscal responsibility. Critics, however, express concerns about the humanitarian implications of reducing support for migrants.
“If you break our laws, you shouldn’t get a taxpayer-funded stay at a resort—you should be detained and deported. It’s time to shut off the gravy train,” Rep. Nancy Mace said.
Remember when common sense statements like that weren’t considered controversial?