S-4983-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Bernie Moreno (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would make sweeping changes to U.S. immigration law across ten areas. It would sharply reduce legal immigration by cutting employment-based visas from roughly 140,000 to 40,000 per year, eliminating the diversity visa lottery (55,000 visas), and capping family-sponsored immigration at 300,000 minus refugee admissions. It would tighten asylum rules by imposing strict filing deadlines (30 days to file notice, 45 days to file application), raising the standard of proof, and severely limiting judicial review of exclusion decisions. It would also expand the definition of "aggravated felony" for deportation purposes, increase criminal penalties for illegal reentry and visa fraud, and require state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement as a condition for federal assumption of incarceration costs.
Who benefits
U.S. workers in industries where they compete with foreign-born labor, particularly lower-wage sectors. Employers who prefer a streamlined, merit-based immigration pipeline focused on extraordinary ability, outstanding researchers, and multinational executives. State governments that request federal assumption of incarceration costs for unauthorized immigrants convicted of felonies. Communities that supporters argue would benefit from reduced pressure on public services and lower crime rates. Law enforcement agencies that would gain clearer deportation authority for criminal aliens. Individuals who have been victims of crimes committed by people who were previously deportable but not removed.
Who is hurt
Prospective immigrants in family-sponsored categories beyond immediate relatives (spouses and children of citizens), as parents of U.S. citizens would lose immediate relative status and adult unmarried children's visa category would be restructured. Foreign nationals seeking asylum who cannot meet the strict 30/45-day filing deadlines, particularly those who are unaware of the requirements or face language barriers. Refugees, as the annual cap would be set at 50,000. Employers in agriculture, hospitality, construction, and technology who rely on a broader range of employment-based visa categories. U.S. citizen children and spouses of deportable immigrants. Immigrants convicted of felonies who would lose access to most discretionary relief. Legal aid organizations and immigration attorneys whose clients would face sharply curtailed judicial review. Sanctuary jurisdictions that decline to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current immigration system prioritizes extended family ties over economic contribution and national security, and that reducing overall numbers would protect American workers from wage competition while focusing admissions on the highest-skilled immigrants. They contend that strict asylum deadlines and a higher burden of proof are necessary to deter fraudulent claims — pointing to a backlog of over 3 million pending immigration court cases — and that expanding the aggravated felony definition and limiting judicial review would accelerate removal of dangerous individuals who have exploited procedural delays to remain in the country.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that cutting employment-based visas by more than 70% and eliminating the diversity lottery would damage U.S. economic competitiveness and sever family ties for millions of people with lawful immigration pathways. They contend that the 30-day asylum filing deadline is far shorter than international norms and would effectively bar protection for genuine refugees who face language barriers, trauma, or lack of legal counsel — and that stripping courts of jurisdiction over exclusion orders, beyond narrow habeas review, raises serious Due Process concerns under the Fifth Amendment for individuals who may face persecution upon return.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) gives Congress broad authority to set immigration rules, and Trump v. Hawaii (2018) confirmed wide executive discretion in entry restrictions. However, the bill's near-total elimination of judicial review over exclusion orders raises Fifth Amendment Due Process concerns, as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) established that non-citizens inside the United States retain constitutional protections; courts would need to assess whether habeas-only review satisfies due process for individuals facing persecution. Post-Loper Bright (2024), agency interpretations of the expanded "aggravated felony" definition and asylum regulations would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than automatic deference.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Attorney General and DHS) gains significant new deportation authority with reduced administrative hearing requirements and sharply curtailed judicial review; checks include the narrow habeas corpus review preserved by the bill, the 14-day window before deportation orders are executed, and constitutional limits on detention under Zadvydas.
Historical precedent
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made similarly broad changes to enforcement, employer sanctions, and deportation procedures, with the 1996 law also expanding the aggravated felony definition and restricting judicial review in ways that generated extensive litigation.