Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(7) to remove the existing 10-year limit on ineligibility for adjustment of status for aliens ordered removed after failing to appear at a removal proceeding. As written, the change makes that ineligibility effectively permanent, except where "exceptional circumstances" apply.
Progressives stress humanitarian and due-process harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly focused substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that replaces a 10-year temporary bar with a permanent bar by striking a specific statutory phrase.
This bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(7) to remove the existing 10-year limit on ineligibility for adjustment of status for aliens ordered removed after failing to appear at a removal proceeding.
As written, the change makes that ineligibility effectively permanent, except where "exceptional circumstances" apply.
The bill contains a single, targeted statutory modification removing the temporal limitation.
Narrow text increases clarity but high controversy, weak compromise features, and Senate difficulty make enactment unlikely absent broader dealmaking.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly focused substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that replaces a 10-year temporary bar with a permanent bar by striking a specific statutory phrase. The textual mechanism is precise. However, it omits fiscal, definitional, transitional, and oversight detail that would clarify administrative implementation and consequences.
Progressives stress humanitarian and due-process harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress humanitarian and due-process harms
Likely to oppose the bill as excessively punitive toward migrants and asylum seekers.
They would argue it removes an important chance for relief and disproportionately harms vulnerable people who miss hearings for legitimate reasons.
They would call for stronger due-process protections and narrow, clearly defined exceptions.
Mixed reaction: appreciates the goal of enforcing immigration orders and reducing gaming, but worries about the harshness of a permanent bar.
Would seek data, narrowly tailored exceptions, and administrative safeguards to avoid unintended humanitarian harms and litigation.
Generally supportive: views the bill as closing a loophole that allows noncompliant aliens future access to green cards.
Sees permanence as necessary to deter missing hearings and protect integrity of immigration system.
Might still want limited safeguards to prevent abuse of exceptions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow text increases clarity but high controversy, weak compromise features, and Senate difficulty make enactment unlikely absent broader dealmaking.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress humanitarian and due-process harms
Narrow text increases clarity but high controversy, weak compromise features, and Senate difficulty make enactment unlikely absent broader…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly focused substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that replaces a 10-year temporary bar with a permanent bar by striking a spe…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.