Passed
231 Yea186 Nay15 Not voting1/2 required
HR-1958-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by David Taylor (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make non-citizens who have been convicted of — or who admit to — a specific list of fraud-related offenses both inadmissible (barred from entering the U.S.) and deportable (subject to removal if already here). Covered offenses include SNAP benefits fraud, Social Security fraud, identity document fraud, major fraud against the U.S. government, mail fraud, theft from federally funded programs, and conspiracy to commit any of those offenses. The bill would also bar any person who qualifies under these new grounds from receiving any form of immigration relief, including asylum.
Who benefits
U.S. taxpayers and federal program administrators who would see stronger enforcement against fraudulent use of public benefits. Lawful immigrants who followed program rules and could face less competition for limited benefit resources. Victims of identity theft and document fraud, who may benefit from stronger deterrence. Federal agencies (SSA, USDA, DHS) that administer the affected programs and bear enforcement costs from fraud.
Who is hurt
Non-citizens — including lawful permanent residents and visa holders — convicted of any covered offense, who would face deportation in addition to criminal penalties. Non-citizens who committed minor or low-level fraud offenses (e.g., small-dollar SNAP violations) and would face the same consequences as those who committed large-scale fraud, with no graduated scale. Asylum seekers and refugees who might otherwise qualify for protection but would be permanently barred from all relief, including under the Convention Against Torture. Family members — including U.S. citizen children — of deported individuals who would face family separation. Immigration courts and DHS, which would bear increased caseload and administrative costs from processing a broader class of deportable individuals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that non-citizens who defraud the U.S. government or unlawfully collect public benefits have violated the public trust and should not be permitted to remain in or enter the country. They contend that existing law already bars non-citizens for crimes involving moral turpitude and that this bill simply closes a gap by explicitly naming fraud against federal programs — offenses that directly harm American taxpayers. Supporters also argue that the bar on all immigration relief ensures that immigration judges cannot grant discretionary relief to individuals who have demonstrably abused the systems they sought to benefit from.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's blanket bar on all immigration relief — including asylum — is disproportionate and could violate U.S. treaty obligations by removing individuals to countries where they face persecution or torture, regardless of the severity of their offense. They contend that the covered statutes are extremely broad: 18 U.S.C. Chapter 63 alone encompasses dozens of distinct fraud offenses, and 18 U.S.C. § 1028 can apply to minor document irregularities, meaning low-level offenders would face the same permanent, irrevocable consequences as major fraudsters. Opponents further argue that eliminating all judicial discretion removes the individualized review that due process requires under the Fifth Amendment.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause give Congress broad authority to define grounds for inadmissibility and deportability. However, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause is relevant: the bill's absolute bar on all immigration relief — including protection from torture — may raise due process concerns, particularly for long-term residents facing removal. Under Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Court recognized that non-citizens inside the U.S. retain due process protections, and courts may scrutinize whether eliminating all individualized review satisfies constitutional minimums.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by expanding the statutory grounds for deportability and inadmissibility; the Executive Branch (DHS, DOJ) implements and enforces removals; immigration courts retain jurisdiction over proceedings but would lose discretionary relief authority under this bill, reducing judicial checks on removal outcomes.
Historical precedent
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) similarly expanded deportability grounds and restricted immigration relief for non-citizens with criminal convictions, and its broad scope was upheld in subsequent federal court decisions.
Passed