Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1326 to substantially increase criminal penalties for aliens who reenter, attempt to enter, or are found in the United States after being denied admission, excluded, deported, removed, or who departed while removal was outstanding. It raises maximum prison terms for basic illegal reentry, creates higher penalties for those with prior convictions or multiple removals, and establishes a mandatory minimum prison term (5–20 years) for aliens previously convicted of an aggravated felony or convicted twice of illegal reentry.
Progressives emphasize mass incarceration and asylum harms.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that specifies enhanced criminal penalties for illegal reentry.
The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1326 to substantially increase criminal penalties for aliens who reenter, attempt to enter, or are found in the United States after being denied admission, excluded, deported, removed, or who departed while removal was outstanding.
It raises maximum prison terms for basic illegal reentry, creates higher penalties for those with prior convictions or multiple removals, and establishes a mandatory minimum prison term (5–20 years) for aliens previously convicted of an aggravated felony or convicted twice of illegal reentry.
The bill also expands the definition of "removal" to include stipulations in criminal proceedings and updates certain statutory references to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Substantive toughening of immigration criminal penalties increases controversy and fiscal costs; plausible House support but steep Senate hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that specifies enhanced criminal penalties for illegal reentry. The statutory mechanisms (penalty ranges, categories triggering enhancements, and some definitional clarifications) are stated with reasonable specificity.
Progressives emphasize mass incarceration and asylum harms.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize mass incarceration and asylum harms.
Likely to oppose the bill overall.
They would view harsher criminal penalties and mandatory minimums as further criminalization of migration, risking increased incarceration, procedural fairness concerns, and harm to asylum-seekers and families.
Likely mixed or cautiously critical.
The persona may accept stronger penalties for dangerous repeat offenders but worries about mandatory minimums, cost, legal defensibility, and unintended consequences for asylum processing and courts.
Likely broadly supportive.
Views bill as restoring law-and-order through stronger, deterrent penalties for repeated illegal reentry and dangerous prior offenders, and as clarifying enforcement authority under DHS.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive toughening of immigration criminal penalties increases controversy and fiscal costs; plausible House support but steep Senate hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize mass incarceration and asylum harms.
Substantive toughening of immigration criminal penalties increases controversy and fiscal costs; plausible House support but steep Senate h…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that specifies enhanced criminal penalties for illegal reentry. The statutory mechan…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.