Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill adds a new ground of deportability to the Immigration and Nationality Act: assault of a law enforcement officer. It defines covered assaults as those committed while the officer was performing official duties, because of those duties, or because of the officer’s status, and defines law enforcement officer broadly to include firefighters and other first responders.
Progressives emphasize due-process and disparate-impact risks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly defines a new deportable ground for assaulting a law enforcement officer and adds an annual public reporting requirement.
The bill adds a new ground of deportability to the Immigration and Nationality Act: assault of a law enforcement officer.
It defines covered assaults as those committed while the officer was performing official duties, because of those duties, or because of the officer’s status, and defines law enforcement officer broadly to include firefighters and other first responders.
The bill treats conviction or an admission that the essential elements were committed as sufficient for deportability.
Narrow statutory change aids passage chances among enforcement proponents, but high ideological salience, opposition from immigrant‑rights allies, and Senate hurdles lower overall likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly defines a new deportable ground for assaulting a law enforcement officer and adds an annual public reporting requirement. The statutory language includes definitional detail and situational qualifiers but leaves important implementation, fiscal, and procedural interactions unspecified.
Progressives emphasize due-process and disparate-impact risks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize due-process and disparate-impact risks.
Likely opposed.
Supporters’ goal of protecting first responders is understandable, but the provision is overbroad and risks harsh immigration consequences without adequate procedural safeguards.
The inclusion of admissions (not only convictions) and a broad definition of officers raises due-process and equity concerns.
Mixed but cautiously receptive.
The bill pursues a legitimate public-safety goal by targeting assaults on officers, and the reporting requirement is constructive.
However, it needs clearer thresholds and procedural safeguards to avoid disproportionate or inconsistent application.
Generally supportive.
The bill expands tools to remove noncitizens who assault officers, underscores law-and-order priorities, and sends a deterrent message.
The reporting requirement helps demonstrate enforcement outcomes.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow statutory change aids passage chances among enforcement proponents, but high ideological salience, opposition from immigrant‑rights allies, and Senate hurdles lower overall likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize due-process and disparate-impact risks.
Narrow statutory change aids passage chances among enforcement proponents, but high ideological salience, opposition from immigrant‑rights…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly defines a new deportable ground for assaulting a law enforcement officer and adds an annual public reporting requirement…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.