HR-9030-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Nancy Mace (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make any non-citizen inadmissible or deportable if they are found to hold views "incompatible with the principles of the United States," are deemed unlikely to assimilate to U.S. culture, or whose presence is considered detrimental to U.S. cultural cohesion. It would create a mandatory screening process — including interviews, review of public statements, and interviews with relatives — that the Department of Homeland Security must conduct before approving any immigration benefit application. The bill enumerates specific disqualifying beliefs, including support for religious law, belief in politically motivated violence, and the belief that learning English is unnecessary, and grants the DHS Secretary broad discretion to designate additional disqualifying beliefs.
Who benefits
U.S. citizens and lawful residents who support stricter cultural and ideological screening of immigrants. Communities that argue cultural cohesion reduces social friction. Employers and residents in areas where they believe assimilation reduces integration costs. Advocates for English-language primacy. Indirectly, immigration enforcement agencies that would receive expanded statutory authority and resources to conduct screenings.
Who is hurt
All non-citizens applying for any immigration benefit — including green cards, visas, asylum, and status adjustments — who would face new ideological and cultural screening. Applicants from countries with strong religious legal traditions (e.g., Islamic law, canon law, Jewish law) who may be disproportionately affected by the religious law provisions. Non-English-speaking applicants. Relatives of applicants who could be interviewed without consent. Immigration attorneys and legal aid organizations facing increased procedural complexity. Asylum seekers whose applications could be denied on cultural grounds. DHS, which would bear significant administrative costs to implement universal screenings. Employers and universities sponsoring foreign workers or students who face longer processing times.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that successful immigration depends on shared civic values and that the United States has a legitimate interest in ensuring newcomers embrace constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and peaceful civic participation. They contend that existing inadmissibility grounds already screen for security threats and criminal history, and that this bill fills a gap by addressing ideological incompatibility — pointing to examples in other democracies, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, that conduct civic integration assessments. They further argue that the enumerated disqualifying beliefs — such as support for violence or rejection of constitutional supremacy — are narrowly tied to foundational American principles, not ethnicity or religion.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's core criteria — "unlikely to assimilate," "detrimental to cultural cohesion," and "views incompatible with the principles of the United States" — are so vague that they vest nearly unchecked discretionary power in the DHS Secretary, raising serious First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process concerns. They contend that screening for beliefs, rather than conduct, is constitutionally suspect: the Supreme Court held in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that non-citizens retain due process protections, and viewpoint-based exclusions may conflict with those protections. Critics also argue the religious law provision would disproportionately target Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic applicants whose faiths incorporate legal traditions, effectively functioning as a religion-based screen in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) grants Congress broad authority to set immigration conditions, and Trump v. Hawaii (2018) confirmed wide presidential and congressional discretion over entry restrictions. However, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies to non-citizens present in the U.S. (Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001), and viewpoint-based screening may conflict with First Amendment principles as applied to those with established U.S. ties. Post-Loper Bright (2024), the bill's broad delegation to the DHS Secretary to define additional "incompatible beliefs" would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deferential review.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (DHS Secretary) gains substantial new discretionary authority to define disqualifying beliefs and conduct screenings; checks include judicial review of individual denials, congressional oversight, and post-Loper Bright independent court scrutiny of agency interpretations.
Historical precedent
The Immigration Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act) included ideological grounds for exclusion, such as membership in communist organizations, which were later narrowed by the Immigration Act of 1990; no directly analogous "cultural assimilation" screening has been enacted at the federal level.