Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill substantially narrows and codifies the federal parole authority in INA 212(d)(5), limiting parole to specific, enumerated circumstances and defining "case-by-case" narrowly. It restricts employment authorization for most parolees, bars many parolees from adjusting status, imposes one-year parole limits (with limited extensions), requires annual reporting to Judiciary Committees, and creates a private right to sue the federal government for financial harms over $1,000 from unlawful application of the statute.
Liberals stress narrowed humanitarian grounds and blocked status adjustment
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, detailed statutory rewrite of the parole authority in 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5).
The bill substantially narrows and codifies the federal parole authority in INA 212(d)(5), limiting parole to specific, enumerated circumstances and defining "case-by-case" narrowly.
It restricts employment authorization for most parolees, bars many parolees from adjusting status, imposes one-year parole limits (with limited extensions), requires annual reporting to Judiciary Committees, and creates a private right to sue the federal government for financial harms over $1,000 from unlawful application of the statute.
Narrow but ideologically loaded rewrite of parole with litigation risks and strong opposition vectors; modest administrative appeal insufficient to guarantee enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, detailed statutory rewrite of the parole authority in 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). It specifies substantive eligibility constraints, definitions, durations, reporting requirements, and limited enforcement mechanisms, and it integrates explicitly with existing INA provisions.
Liberals stress narrowed humanitarian grounds and blocked status adjustment
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress narrowed humanitarian grounds and blocked status adjustment
Views the bill as a restrictive rollback of executive discretion in parole, likely to reduce humanitarian flexibility and family reunification.
Appreciates some narrow protections (military spouses, Cuban commitments) but sees many harmful limits on vulnerable people.
Sees sensible clarifications and congressional oversight in limiting open-ended parole, but worries about operational consequences and unintended harms.
Would weigh transparency and system integrity against humanitarian and administrative costs.
Favors the bill as restoring statutory limits on parole, preventing class-based or mass parole operations, and protecting immigration system integrity.
Approves limits on benefits and tighter definitions of humanitarian and public-benefit parole.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically loaded rewrite of parole with litigation risks and strong opposition vectors; modest administrative appeal insufficient to guarantee enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress narrowed humanitarian grounds and blocked status adjustment
Narrow but ideologically loaded rewrite of parole with litigation risks and strong opposition vectors; modest administrative appeal insuffi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, detailed statutory rewrite of the parole authority in 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). It specifies substantive eligibility constraints, definitions, durations, repor…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.