Immigration Desk
Immigration Bills
21 bills in the Immigration desk, ordered for current relevance and readability.
ImmigrationHR-61-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Ensuring United Families at the Border Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Under current law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and related court settlements, including the Flores v. Meese agreement, establish standards for how the federal government detains immigrant children. These rules generally presume that children should not be detained and impose specific conditions on family detention — including requirements that detention facilities meet state licensing standards. The law distinguishes between unaccompanied children and children traveling with parents, with different protections applying to each group. This bill amends the William Wilberforce Act to clarify detention standards for children traveling with parents. The Department of Homeland Security is authorized to detain alien children who are not unaccompanied — meaning those traveling with a parent or guardian — under the same rules that apply to adult immigration cases, removing the presumption against their detention. The bill specifically permits DHS to maintain custody of parents charged only with misdemeanor illegal entry offenses and to detain those parents together with their children during pending immigration proceedings. Additionally, the bill preempts state licensing requirements, prohibiting states from requiring that immigration detention facilities holding children or families obtain state licenses. The changes take effect immediately upon enactment and apply retroactively to all prior actions. The bill does not specify new funding but operates within existing DHS detention authority and budgets. By removing the presumption against detaining accompanied children and eliminating state licensing oversight, the bill expands the federal government's capacity to hold families in immigration detention while reducing state-level regulatory requirements. This shifts detention standards away from the protections established by decades of litigation and toward alignment with general immigration enforcement procedures.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-64-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Grant’s Law
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Under current immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security can detain certain noncitizens without bail if they are arrested for specific serious crimes—including crimes of violence, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. However, DHS detention authority is limited to noncitizens convicted of these offenses or those who fall into narrow categories already defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The law does not currently require automatic detention of all unlawfully present noncitizens arrested for crimes, even serious ones, if they have not yet been convicted. Grant's Law amends Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any noncitizen who is unlawfully present in the United States and is arrested for any offense that would make them inadmissible or deportable under immigration law. The bill expands the trigger for mandatory detention from conviction to arrest alone. It also allows DHS to temporarily release a detainee to local authorities for criminal proceedings, but requires DHS to resume custody when the person is not in local custody and to continue holding them until removal proceedings conclude—even if they are not convicted of the arrest charge. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment. The bill also requires DHS to complete removal proceedings within 90 days of detention under this new authority, compressing the typical immigration court timeline. No new funding is explicitly appropriated, meaning DHS must absorb these detention and expedited processing costs within existing budgets. The change will likely increase the detained immigrant population in DHS custody and accelerate case processing in immigration courts, potentially straining both detention facilities and judicial resources.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-205-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20251 readersIn Committee
No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act
Sponsored by Beth Van Duyne
Congressional earmarks—funds that individual lawmakers direct to specific projects in their districts or states—are currently available to all jurisdictions regardless of their immigration enforcement policies. Some states and cities have adopted sanctuary policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, such as restricting the sharing of immigration status information or declining to honor certain Department of Homeland Security detention requests. These policies reflect different views on the appropriate role of local law enforcement in federal immigration matters, but they do not currently affect a jurisdiction's eligibility to receive earmarked federal funds. This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for congressional earmarks directed to any state or local government designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The bill defines a sanctuary jurisdiction as any state or political subdivision that has enacted a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice restricting government entities from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities or complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests under immigration law. The measure carves out an exception for policies that protect crime victims and witnesses from immigration enforcement inquiries. Congress would enforce this prohibition by declining to direct earmarked funds to qualifying jurisdictions. The prohibition takes effect for fiscal year 2026 and applies to all subsequent years. No new funding mechanism or enforcement agency is established; instead, individual members of Congress would need to avoid directing earmarks to jurisdictions meeting the sanctuary definition. The practical effect would reduce the flow of discretionary federal project funding to affected states and cities, potentially limiting infrastructure, community development, and other locally-targeted investments. Jurisdictions could regain eligibility by modifying their immigration policies to permit information-sharing and detainer compliance, though the exception for victim and witness protections would remain available.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-190-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
SEND THEM BACK Act of 2025
Sponsored by Andrew Ogles
Current immigration law provides asylum protections and due process rights to individuals who enter the United States and express fear of persecution, regardless of how they entered. The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes a credible fear screening process that allows asylum seekers to have their claims heard before an immigration judge. Expedited removal exists under current law but applies only to individuals apprehended within 14 days of entry and who do not express a fear of persecution. Those who claim asylum or fear of persecution are generally entitled to a full hearing before removal. The SEND THEM BACK Act of 2025 directs the Department of Homeland Security to apply expedited removal to any foreign national who entered the United States illegally on or after January 20, 2021, regardless of whether that person claims asylum or expresses fear of persecution. This change overrides existing protections by eliminating the credible fear screening process for this population. The bill carves out one exception: foreign nationals who are currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces as of January 1, 2025, remain subject to standard removal procedures rather than expedited removal. Implementation would require the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to process removals without the standard asylum interviews and immigration court hearings currently required by law. The bill provides no new funding and does not specify a timeline, meaning agencies would redirect existing resources to handle expedited cases. This change would substantially reduce the number of individuals receiving formal removal hearings, potentially affecting tens of thousands of cases annually. The downstream effect would be faster deportations but also elimination of legal review for claims that might otherwise succeed under asylum law.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-174-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act
Sponsored by Tom McClintock
Under current immigration law, the Immigration and Nationality Act establishes grounds for denying entry to foreign nationals and for removing those already in the United States. These grounds include crimes of moral turpitude, drug offenses, and certain violent felonies. However, Social Security fraud and identity document fraud are not explicitly listed as standalone grounds for inadmissibility or deportation, even though they involve federal crimes that harm both government programs and individual victims. This gap means that foreign nationals convicted of these offenses may remain in the country or avoid removal proceedings based on immigration violations alone. The Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish Social Security fraud and identity document fraud as grounds for both inadmissibility and deportability. The bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to treat foreign nationals who have been convicted of, admitted to committing, or admitted to committing acts constituting Social Security account fraud under federal law, identity document fraud under federal law, or COVID-relief fraud as ineligible for entry and subject to removal. The law covers fraud related to Paycheck Protection Program loans, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and grants under the American Rescue Plan Act. The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies to both prospective cases and those already in immigration proceedings. No new funding is required, as the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice already maintain conviction records and conduct deportation proceedings. The change will expand the categories of criminal conduct triggering mandatory removal, potentially increasing deportation cases handled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and immigration courts. Existing legal permanent residents and visa holders convicted of these offenses would become deportable, and foreign nationals seeking entry would face automatic bars to admission.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-32-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act
Sponsored by Nick LaLota
Currently, federal law allows states and localities to set their own policies regarding cooperation with immigration enforcement. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws or policies that limit their government entities from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities or complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests—actions aimed at protecting residents' privacy and building trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. These jurisdictions, often called "sanctuary" jurisdictions, operate under the principle that local resources should focus on public safety rather than federal immigration enforcement. The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act directs the Department of Homeland Security to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and renders them ineligible for federal funds intended to benefit undocumented immigrants. Specifically, beginning 60 days after enactment or the start of the next fiscal year (whichever comes first), any state or locality that prohibits sharing immigration status information or refuses to comply with DHS detainer requests loses access to federal funding earmarked for food, shelter, healthcare, legal services, and transportation for undocumented immigrants. The bill exempts jurisdictions from this definition if they only restrict information-sharing for crime victims or witnesses. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment. The Department of Homeland Security must compile and submit annual reports to Congress listing noncompliant jurisdictions. The funding restrictions apply to any federal dollars designated for benefits to undocumented immigrants, though the bill does not specify which existing federal programs fall into this category or identify a new funding source. The practical effect would be to redirect or withhold federal resources from sanctuary jurisdictions, potentially shifting costs to state and local budgets or reducing services available to undocumented immigrants in those areas.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-57-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Ending Catch and Release Act of 2025
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Under current immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security can use its parole authority to release asylum seekers into the United States while their cases are pending before immigration judges. This practice, sometimes called "catch and release," allows individuals who arrive at the border and express a fear of persecution to be released on their own recognizance or with minimal conditions while awaiting hearings that can take months or years. The existing standard for determining whether someone qualifies for asylum protection is whether there is a "significant possibility" they could establish eligibility — a relatively low threshold that many asylum applicants meet at initial screening. The Ending Catch and Release Act of 2025 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from using parole authority to release asylum applicants into the United States. The bill raises the legal standard for asylum eligibility from "significant possibility" to "more likely than not" — substantially increasing the burden asylum seekers must meet at the initial inspection stage. For individuals who arrive by land from contiguous countries (Mexico and Canada), the bill requires DHS to return them to that territory for further asylum consideration rather than detaining them in the United States. For those who cannot be removed within 72 hours, mandatory detention replaces the current option of release. Implementation would begin immediately upon enactment. The bill eliminates discretionary release options across all asylum processing scenarios, meaning individuals would either remain detained pending their hearings or be returned to contiguous countries. This change would substantially increase detention capacity demands on DHS and could accelerate asylum case processing timelines. The higher legal standard for initial asylum screening would likely reduce the number of individuals permitted to proceed with full asylum hearings, potentially decreasing caseloads in immigration courts but also limiting access to the asylum process for applicants who might ultimately qualify for protection.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-31-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
POLICE Act of 2025
Sponsored by Andrew Garbarino
Under current immigration law, the Immigration and Nationality Act establishes grounds for deportation of noncitizens convicted of certain crimes, including crimes of violence and felonies involving moral turpitude. However, assault of a law enforcement officer is not explicitly listed as a standalone deportable offense in federal immigration statute, even though such assaults represent serious threats to public safety and government operations. This gap means that noncitizens convicted of assaulting police officers, federal agents, or firefighters may not face deportation depending on how state or local courts classify the offense. The POLICE Act of 2025 amends Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish assault of a law enforcement officer as a deportable offense. The Department of Homeland Security will now be required to initiate removal proceedings against any noncitizen convicted of, or who admits committing, an assault against a law enforcement officer—defined as any person authorized by law to prevent, investigate, prosecute, or incarcerate individuals for criminal violations, including police officers, federal agents, and firefighters. The assault must have occurred while the officer was performing official duties, because of those duties, or because of the officer's status. The definition of "assault" follows the law of the jurisdiction where the act occurred. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment. The Department of Homeland Security will apply this new ground of deportability to all future convictions and admissions, and potentially to prior convictions depending on agency interpretation. The department must submit annual reports to Congress detailing the number of noncitizens deported under this provision. No new appropriations are specified, suggesting the department will absorb costs within existing immigration enforcement budgets. The change expands the pool of deportable offenses and may increase removal proceedings and deportations, affecting both immigration courts and detention capacity.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Immigration
ImmigrationHR-163-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Finish the Wall Act
Sponsored by Clay Higgins
Under current law, the Department of Homeland Security halted border wall construction activities in January 2021. Funds appropriated by Congress for wall construction since October 2016 remain available but have not been expended for that purpose. The bill responds to the status quo in which previously planned and underway construction projects along the U.S.-Mexico border remain incomplete, and appropriated funds designated for wall construction have not been deployed. The Department of Homeland Security must immediately resume all border wall system construction activities that were underway or planned before January 20, 2021, within 24 hours of the bill's enactment. DHS is prohibited from canceling any contracts for wall construction entered into on or before that date. The department must expend all funds appropriated or explicitly obligated for border wall construction beginning October 1, 2016, to carry out these activities. DHS must also submit an implementation plan within 30 days detailing how it will complete wall construction by September 30, 2026, and a second plan within 90 days identifying quarterly benchmarks and cost estimates for all remaining tactical infrastructure, technology, and other elements. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment, with DHS required to resume work within one day. The bill directs use of previously appropriated funds from fiscal year 2017 onward, with no new appropriations specified. DHS must honor all written agreements with private citizens, state and local governments, and tribal governments regarding wall construction. Additionally, within 14 days, DHS must certify that U.S. Customs and Border Protection complies with the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 at all border facilities processing adults in custody, ensuring DNA collection procedures align with federal requirements.
Immigration
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Immigration