REMOVE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 20, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to drastically accelerate the timeline for immigration removal proceedings, especially for individuals who have committed deportable offenses, by imposing a strict 15-day completion deadline for all court actions.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to mandate that removal proceedings for all aliens, particularly those convicted of deportable offenses, commence as promptly and expeditiously as possible. Crucially, it requires all immigration court proceedings for these aliens to be completed within 15 days of their commencement, explicitly overriding other provisions of law, including those related to asylum claims.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current immigration system is plagued by delays, allowing individuals who should be removed to remain in the country for extended periods, especially those who have committed crimes. They contend that the REMOVE Act would streamline the process, enhance national security, and restore integrity to immigration enforcement by ensuring swift justice and deterring unlawful presence.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that a 15-day deadline for all immigration court proceedings is an unrealistic and unworkable timeline that would severely undermine due process rights for asylum seekers and other migrants. They would contend that such a rapid process would prevent proper legal representation, adequate presentation of evidence, and fair hearings, potentially leading to erroneous removals and violating international human rights obligations.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are profound and require significant consideration beyond the text itself.
Section 2, amending Section 239(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229(d))
Mandate for Prompt Commencement and 15-Day Completion of Removal Proceedings
This provision requires the Attorney General to initiate removal proceedings for all aliens as quickly as possible after a Notice to Appear is filed. For aliens convicted of deportable offenses, proceedings must begin 'as expeditiously as possible' after conviction. Most significantly, it mandates that all immigration court proceedings for these individuals must be completed within 15 days of their start, explicitly overriding other legal provisions, including those related to asylum claims.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to address the severe backlog in immigration courts and to ensure that individuals who are legally deportable, especially those with criminal convictions, are removed swiftly. They contend it will deter illegal immigration and enhance public safety by preventing individuals from exploiting lengthy legal processes to remain in the country.
Critics contend
Critics contend that a 15-day deadline is an impossible timeframe for complex legal cases, particularly those involving asylum claims where extensive evidence and testimony may be required. They argue it would effectively deny due process, lead to wrongful removals, and place an unmanageable burden on immigration judges and legal aid providers, compromising the fairness and integrity of the system.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for expedited immigration enforcement and reduced court backlogs against concerns for due process, fair hearings, and the ability of individuals to present legitimate claims, such as asylum. It creates a tension between efficiency and judicial fairness.