Americans First Immigration Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 29, 2026
Bottom line
The bill dramatically shifts U.S. legal immigration towards a merit-based system, prioritizing skills and economic contribution while reducing family-based and diversity immigration, and imposing new ideological and economic conditions on immigrants.
What it actually does
This bill fundamentally overhauls the United States immigration system by replacing employment-based visas with a points-based system, eliminating the diversity lottery, and significantly restricting family-sponsored immigration to immediate nuclear family members. It introduces new attestation requirements for employers to protect American workers and for aliens to affirm adherence to American values. Additionally, it establishes a conditional permanent resident status for points-based immigrants and limits eligibility for public benefits and in-state tuition for non-permanent residents.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill protects American workers by ensuring U.S. citizens are prioritized for jobs and that immigrants meet high wage standards. They contend it safeguards American values by screening immigrants for adherence to constitutional principles and preventing participation in harmful practices. Furthermore, proponents believe it ensures immigrants are self-sufficient and contribute economically, thereby reducing the strain on public resources and promoting national interests.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that the bill drastically cuts legal immigration pathways, leading to family separation and reducing diversity. They argue that the introduction of ideological tests is discriminatory, difficult to enforce, and could lead to arbitrary denials. Opponents also express concern that the conditional permanent residency status creates a two-tiered system for immigrants, undermining stability and equal protection, while limiting access to education and essential public services for vulnerable populations.
The bill is extensive and makes numerous complex changes to existing immigration law, requiring careful reading and cross-referencing to fully understand its implications. The estimated reading time is appropriate for an informed reader.
Sec. 2(a), adding INA Sec. 220A
Protection of American Workers; Employer Attestation
This provision requires employers seeking to hire foreign workers under the new points-based system to attest that they first took good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers, offered the job to any equally or better qualified U.S. worker, and will not lay off U.S. workers in equivalent positions. Employers must also commit to paying the alien not less than the promised wage for three years and not placing the alien with another employer to evade these requirements. Violations can result in significant civil monetary penalties and debarment from sponsoring future immigrant petitions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to ensure that foreign workers do not displace American workers or depress their wages. The attestation process and penalties provide robust protections, ensuring that employers genuinely seek U.S. talent first and commit to fair labor practices, thereby safeguarding the domestic workforce.
Critics contend
Critics contend that these stringent attestation requirements create an excessive burden on employers, potentially discouraging them from hiring foreign talent even when U.S. workers are unavailable or lack specific skills. They argue that the definitions, such as 'essentially the equivalent,' could be vague and lead to costly litigation or administrative disputes, hindering legitimate business operations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to protect domestic workers with the need for businesses to access global talent. It creates a tension between minimizing administrative hurdles for employers and maximizing safeguards for U.S. labor.
Sec. 2(b), adding INA Sec. 220B
Protection of American Values; Alien Attestation
This provision requires alien petitioners for points-based immigrant status to attest that they will remain attached to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. Furthermore, they must attest that they have not and will not participate in, incite, or advocate for acts such as genocide, civil/criminal punishment for religious apostasy or blasphemy, establishment of governmentally enforced religious law, persecution based on protected characteristics, female infanticide, sex-selective abortion, honor killing, or female genital mutilation. They must also attest to not being affiliated with organizations that have carried out such actions.
Sec. 3, amending INA Sec. 203(c), 201(a), 201(e), 203(e)
Elimination of Diversity Lottery Immigrant Visa Program
This section eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (commonly known as the 'Diversity Lottery'), which currently allocates 55,000 visas annually to individuals from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S. In its place, it reallocates a worldwide level of 3,000 visas specifically for religious workers. It also invalidates pending petitions for other special immigrants previously classified under the same section as religious workers.
Sec. 4, amending INA Sec. 201, 203(a), 203(h), and other sections
Preserving Nuclear Family Immigration and Restricting Family-Based Categories
This section significantly redefines 'immediate relatives' to exclude parents of U.S. citizens, limiting it to spouses and children. It also amends family-sponsored immigrant categories to only include spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), eliminating preferences for adult children and siblings of citizens or LPRs. The worldwide level for these 'nuclear family-sponsored immigrants' is set at 87,934, reduced by the number of certain paroled aliens. Additionally, it tightens 'aging out' provisions, stating that an alien who marries or turns 25 before a visa is issued no longer qualifies as a child, regardless of age at petition filing.
Sec. 5, amending INA Sec. 201, 203(b), and adding Sec. 204A, Sec. 220
Replacement of Employment-Based Immigrant Visas with Points-Based System
This section repeals all existing employment-based immigrant visa categories (EB-1 through EB-5) and replaces them with a new 'Points-Based Immigrant Visa Program.' The worldwide level for these immigrants is set at 192,000, reduced by the number of certain paroled aliens released from mandatory detention. Aliens must submit a petition with a bona fide job offer meeting high salary thresholds (200% or 150% of state median wage, depending on U.S. degree), an 'American Values' attestation, and sufficient points (minimum 16) based on criteria like employment salary, extraordinary achievement (e.g., Nobel Laureate, Olympic medal), education (U.S. STEM degrees receive highest points), English language proficiency, military service, and age. Petitions are ranked by points, with tie-breaking factors prioritizing employment, then extraordinary achievement, education, English proficiency, military service, and age.
Sec. 6, adding INA Sec. 216B
Conditional Permanent Resident Status for Points-Based Immigrants
This section establishes a new conditional permanent resident status for points-based immigrants, their spouses, and children, lasting two years. During this period, their status can be terminated if the immigrant fails to comply with their 'American Values' attestation, is convicted of a crime with an aggregate sentence over one year, receives a means-tested public benefit, or is not employed in their qualifying job (or an equivalent/higher-paying job). To remove the conditional status, the immigrant must submit a petition and appear for an interview within a 90-day window before the two-year anniversary, demonstrating compliance with all conditions. Failure to do so results in termination of status.
Sec. 7(b), amending Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Sec. 505
Limitation on Eligibility for Preferential Treatment of Certain Aliens for Higher Education Benefits
This provision mandates that any alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence must pay tuition, fees, and other costs at postsecondary educational institutions that are not less than what is charged to out-of-state residents. Furthermore, it prohibits charging U.S. citizens or nationals a higher amount for the same academic workload than what is charged to non-LPR aliens, net of any discounts or benefits from government or the institution. This effectively eliminates in-state tuition rates or other preferential treatment for non-LPR aliens.
Prohibits employers from placing an alien with another employer at a worksite owned/operated/controlled by that other employer, or in close proximity, if the purpose is to avoid the requirements of the American Worker Protection section.
Sec. 2(a), INA Sec. 220A(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to prevent circumvention of the primary intent of the law, often placed in definitions or specific compliance subsections to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is vital to prevent employers from exploiting loopholes to bypass worker protection requirements, ensuring the integrity of the attestation process.
Case against: Critics might argue that the 'purpose of avoiding' language could be subjective and difficult to prove, potentially leading to overreach or unintended consequences for legitimate business arrangements involving temporary placements.
Estimated impact: Prevents employers from using third-party placements to circumvent wage and layoff protections for U.S. workers.
Mandates an automatic annual adjustment of civil monetary penalties for employer violations, specifically for willful noncompliance that resulted in a U.S. worker being laid off, which carries a $50,000 penalty.
Sec. 2(a), INA Sec. 220A(c)(3)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:Automatic adjustments are often placed in technical subsections to ensure penalties keep pace with inflation without requiring new legislation, which is standard practice. The specific high penalty for layoffs is a key deterrent.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a strong deterrent against willful employer misconduct, ensuring that penalties remain significant over time and effectively protect U.S. workers from wrongful layoffs.
Case against: Opponents might argue that automatic adjustments remove congressional oversight from penalty levels, and that a $50,000 penalty for a layoff, while severe, might be disproportionate in some contexts or lead to excessive litigation.
Estimated impact: Ensures the financial deterrent for employer noncompliance, especially for layoffs, remains robust over time, potentially increasing employer compliance costs.
The worldwide level of points-based immigrants (192,000) is reduced by the number of aliens who were never detained or released from mandatory detention under specific sections of INA 235(b) in the second preceding fiscal year.
Sec. 5(a), INA Sec. 201(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to tie legal immigration numbers to border enforcement outcomes, potentially to garner support from those concerned with border security, without making it a prominent, standalone policy statement.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provision creates a direct incentive for stricter border enforcement, ensuring that failures in detention policy do not indirectly increase the overall number of legal immigrants, thereby maintaining control over immigration levels.
Case against: Critics would contend that linking legal immigration numbers to detention statistics is an arbitrary and punitive measure that punishes legal immigrants for unrelated border enforcement challenges. They might argue it creates an unpredictable and unstable cap on points-based visas.
Estimated impact: Could significantly reduce the number of available points-based immigrant visas depending on border enforcement and detention policies, making the annual cap variable.
Conditional permanent resident status for points-based immigrants, their spouses, and children shall be terminated if the immigrant 'has received a means-tested public benefit.'
Sec. 6(c)(2)(C), INA Sec. 216B(c)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is a broad prohibition that could have significant consequences, placed within a list of termination triggers. The term 'means-tested public benefit' is defined in a separate subsection (a)(2), but the implication of any receipt leading to termination is significant.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that immigrants are self-sufficient and do not become a burden on public resources, aligning with the bill's 'Americans First' and 'protection of taxpayers' themes.
Case against: Critics would argue this is an overly harsh and potentially inhumane condition, especially if an immigrant faces unexpected hardship (e.g., job loss, medical emergency) and needs temporary assistance. It could lead to severe poverty or health crises for families.
Estimated impact: Effectively bars conditional permanent residents from accessing a wide range of federal, state, and local public assistance programs, regardless of need, for at least two years.