Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends INA 212(d)(5) to restrict immigration parole to case-by-case determinations for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. It bans parole for nationals of ‘‘countries of concern’’ without a Secretary of State waiver, caps annual paroles at 3,000 starting in FY2029, and grants State attorneys general standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security for violations, with expedited judicial review.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian access impacts and discriminatory effects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill makes clear and specific substantive changes to the statutory parole authority (tightening discretionary parole to explicit case-by-case standards, adding a country-of-concern waiver, imposing a 3,000-per-year cap beginning FY2029, and granting State officials a private right to sue).
This bill amends INA 212(d)(5) to restrict immigration parole to case-by-case determinations for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
It bans parole for nationals of ‘‘countries of concern’’ without a Secretary of State waiver, caps annual paroles at 3,000 starting in FY2029, and grants State attorneys general standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security for violations, with expedited judicial review.
Technically narrow but politically polarizing and legally fraught; Senate hurdle and litigation risk lower odds of enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill makes clear and specific substantive changes to the statutory parole authority (tightening discretionary parole to explicit case-by-case standards, adding a country-of-concern waiver, imposing a 3,000-per-year cap beginning FY2029, and granting State officials a private right to sue).
Progressives emphasize humanitarian access impacts and discriminatory effects.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian access impacts and discriminatory effects.
Likely views the bill as a significant restriction on humanitarian and discretionary parole authority.
Concerned that the 3,000 annual cap and new state enforcement undermine asylum access and executive flexibility in crises.
Supports clarifying parole should be case-by-case and limiting executive overreach, but worries the rigid cap and state standing create legal and operational problems.
Sees need for clearer definitions and measured implementation.
Likely strongly supports the bill as restoring congressional intent and limiting executive parole abuses.
Views cap and state enforcement as necessary to protect borders and rule of law.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but politically polarizing and legally fraught; Senate hurdle and litigation risk lower odds of enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian access impacts and discriminatory effects.
Technically narrow but politically polarizing and legally fraught; Senate hurdle and litigation risk lower odds of enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill makes clear and specific substantive changes to the statutory parole authority (tightening discretionary parole to explicit case-by-case standards, adding a country-o…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.