Remigration Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 25, 2026
Bottom line
The Remigration Act proposes sweeping changes to U.S. immigration and citizenship law, dramatically expanding the government's power to revoke status and deport individuals, including U.S.-born children of denaturalized parents.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands the grounds for denaturalization and deportation, mandates a review of certain asylum and refugee grants, and redefines birthright citizenship to exclude children born in the U.S. to parents without lawful status. It also establishes new criteria for revoking various immigration statuses based on nationality, receipt of public benefits, or criminal convictions, and requires denaturalized individuals to repatriate with their U.S.-born children.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to restore integrity to the immigration system, enhance national security by removing individuals who pose a threat or commit serious crimes, prevent fraud in government programs, and ensure that citizenship is granted only to those who truly qualify and are loyal to the United States. They contend that the current system is vulnerable to abuse and that these measures are essential for national sovereignty and public safety.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding birthright citizenship and retroactive application of denaturalization grounds, and could lead to widespread family separations and statelessness. They argue it undermines due process, targets specific immigrant communities, and could create a climate of fear and instability for millions of individuals who have established lives in the United States.
This bill is moderately complex and requires careful reading to understand its far-reaching implications across multiple areas of immigration and constitutional law.
Sec. 2
Revocation of Citizenship for Felonies and Terrorism Support
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish new grounds for revoking naturalized citizenship. It mandates denaturalization for individuals convicted of fraud against a government program, an aggravated felony, or certain other federal felonies within 10 years of naturalization. It also applies to those who knowingly join or provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization within the same 10-year period. Denaturalized individuals would be treated as aliens without lawful status and subject to removal.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that individuals who commit serious crimes or support terrorism after naturalization have violated the trust placed in them and should not retain U.S. citizenship. They believe this provision strengthens national security and ensures the integrity of the naturalization process.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that the retroactive application of these grounds raises serious due process concerns and could destabilize the status of long-term citizens. They argue that existing laws already address criminal behavior and that expanding denaturalization to include non-fraudulent felonies is an extreme measure.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances national security and criminal justice concerns against the stability and finality of U.S. citizenship. It also weighs the principle of equal treatment for all citizens against the idea that naturalized citizens have a probationary period.
Sec. 3
Redefinition of Birthright Citizenship for Children of Unlawful Aliens
This section redefines the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment for persons born in the United States on or after the bill's enactment date. Under this new definition, a person born in the U.S. would only be a citizen if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident, or an alien with lawful status serving in the armed forces. This effectively limits birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are not in one of these categories, such as undocumented immigrants.
Sec. 4
Asylum and Refugee Status Review Task Force
This section establishes an Asylum and Refugee Status Review Task Force within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review all asylum grants, refugee admissions, and status adjustments made between January 20, 2021, and January 20, 2025. The Task Force will assess whether these grants were supported by credible evidence, complied with law, and if country conditions have changed. The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate or revoke status if the Task Force finds issues, subject to notice and an opportunity to respond for the alien.
Sec. 5
Revocation of Immigration Status for Nationals from Designated Countries
This section grants the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State the authority to revoke the visa, lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, or other immigration benefit for nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen who entered the United States during the 10-year period preceding the bill's enactment. Aliens whose status is revoked under this provision would be subject to removal.
Sec. 6
Revocation of Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Public Benefits Receipt
This section mandates the revocation of lawful permanent resident (LPR) status for any alien who has received any means-tested public benefits (as defined by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) during the 5-year period preceding the date of the bill's enactment. Aliens whose LPR status is revoked under this provision would become deportable.
Sec. 7
Revocation of Nonimmigrant Status for Criminal Convictions
This section mandates the termination of nonimmigrant status for any alien convicted of a 'serious criminal offense' as of the date of conviction. A 'serious criminal offense' is broadly defined to include any federal or state felony, certain misdemeanors (maximum imprisonment over 1 year or sentence over 90 days), or any offense that makes an alien inadmissible or deportable under existing law. The alien's visa would also be revoked, and they would be subject to removal, including expedited removal for aggravated felons.
Sec. 8
Deportability for Anti-American Statements or Affiliations
This section adds a new ground for deportability: any alien who 'publicly espouses an anti-American belief or affiliation that threatens national security or public safety,' as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security based on clear and convincing evidence. This expands the categories of individuals who can be deemed deportable based on their speech or associations.
Sec. 9
Enhanced English Language Proficiency Requirement for Naturalization
This section amends the English language requirement for naturalization, replacing 'able to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language' with 'able to demonstrate functional English literacy, including the ability to read, write, speak, and comprehend words and passages in ordinary usage in the English language, as verified through a standardized assessment administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.' It also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe regulations for this standardized assessment and minimum passing standards.
Sec. 10
Repatriation Requirement for Denaturalized Aliens and Dependent Children
This section mandates that any alien denaturalized under Section 340 (as amended by this Act) shall be required to repatriate with their children, including United States-born children, unless the other parent is a U.S. citizen who elects to retain custody in the U.S. It explicitly states that no separation of the alien and children shall be permitted during removal proceedings, except as provided, and that nothing in the subsection shall delay removal solely due to family detention capacity.
Sec. 11
Administrative Adjudication of Denaturalization Cases
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that revocation of naturalization under the new grounds (felonies, terrorism support, and effect of denaturalization) shall be determined administratively by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) through adjudication. It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish procedures for notice, a hearing before an immigration officer, and an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office of USCIS. Judicial review would be limited to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person resides.
The amendments made by Section 2 (revocation of citizenship for felonies and terrorism support) shall apply to any person who became a naturalized citizen before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 2(b)
Why it matters:While common for applicability clauses, its placement here makes the retroactive nature of a highly consequential provision less immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the severity of the offenses (felonies, terrorism support) justifies applying these denaturalization grounds to all naturalized citizens, regardless of when they obtained citizenship, to ensure national security and justice.
Case against: Opponents would argue that retroactive application is fundamentally unfair and raises serious constitutional concerns regarding due process and ex post facto laws, as individuals could be stripped of citizenship for actions that were not grounds for denaturalization at the time they occurred.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts all naturalized citizens who meet the criteria, regardless of how long they have held citizenship, significantly expanding the pool of individuals subject to denaturalization.
Nothing in subsection (b) (redefining birthright citizenship) shall be construed to deny citizenship under this section to any person whose denial of citizenship would render such person stateless within the meaning of applicable Federal law or international obligations of the United States.
Sec. 3(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to address potential conflicts or unintended consequences. However, in this context, it attempts to mitigate a major criticism (statelessness) without fully resolving the underlying issue.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clause demonstrates a commitment to international law and prevents the creation of stateless individuals, addressing a key humanitarian concern while still achieving the primary goal of limiting birthright citizenship.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this clause is insufficient to prevent statelessness in practice, as many countries do not automatically grant citizenship based on parentage, and the burden of proving statelessness would fall on the child, creating complex legal challenges and uncertainty.
Estimated impact: Potentially creates a complex legal loophole or exception for some children, but does not fundamentally alter the bill's intent to deny birthright citizenship to a large class of individuals.
The section on repatriation for denaturalized aliens and their children includes the phrase: 'No separation of the alien and children shall be permitted during removal proceedings, except as provided in this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to delay or prevent the removal of any alien solely on the basis of the availability of family detention capacity.'
Sec. 10
Why it matters:The phrasing attempts to balance a stated goal of family unity with the practicalities of removal, but the latter part suggests a prioritization of removal over family detention capacity, potentially leading to forced repatriation of U.S. citizen children.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that removal proceedings are not indefinitely delayed by a lack of family detention space, while still emphasizing family unity by requiring children to accompany denaturalized parents.
Case against: Opponents would argue this clause implicitly prioritizes the removal of the parent over the well-being and constitutional rights of U.S.-citizen children, potentially forcing them into repatriation even if family detention is unavailable, or if it is not in the child's best interest.
Estimated impact: This clause could lead to the forced repatriation of U.S.-born children with denaturalized parents even in circumstances where family detention is not available, or where the child's best interests are not served by removal.