ASSIMILATION Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill proposes a comprehensive, restrictive transformation of U.S. immigration policy, prioritizing economic self-sufficiency and national interest over family reunification and diversity, while also challenging the current interpretation of birthright citizenship.
What it actually does
The ASSIMILATION Act fundamentally overhauls the U.S. immigration system by shifting from family- and lottery-based admissions to a merit-based, national-interest standard. It significantly restricts family-sponsored immigration, eliminates the diversity visa lottery, reforms employment-based visas (including H-1B and OPT), tightens public charge rules, revises naturalization requirements, and imposes stricter asylum procedures and enforcement measures. It also redefines birthright citizenship.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is necessary to ensure immigration serves the economic, cultural, and national security interests of the United States, reduces strain on public resources, protects U.S. workers' wages, and promotes assimilation. They believe it replaces an outdated system with a merit-based approach that prioritizes skilled labor, self-sufficiency, and a clear definition of citizenship.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend the bill dismantles core tenets of U.S. immigration policy, such as family reunification and humanitarian protections, leading to reduced diversity, increased family separation, and potentially harming sectors reliant on immigrant labor. They argue it creates overly restrictive barriers to legal immigration and naturalization, makes the system less humane and accessible, and includes unconstitutional provisions like the redefinition of birthright citizenship.
The bill is extensive and highly technical, requiring significant time for review. Given its comprehensive nature and far-reaching implications, the time typically allotted for public and legislative review would be insufficient for a thorough understanding.
Sec. 104, Title I
Establishes a Universal National Interest Standard
This provision creates a new, universal 'national interest standard' for all immigration benefits (visa issuance, admission, adjustment of status). An alien's admission or employment must affirmatively further the economic prosperity, cultural cohesion, and national security of the U.S., as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This determination must be based on objective evidence and cannot rely solely on private interest, unsupported assertions, or speculative benefits.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this standard ensures that immigration serves the best interests of the United States, prioritizing contributions to the nation's economy, culture, and security. It shifts away from what they see as an outdated system that does not adequately vet immigrants for national benefit.
Critics contend
Critics contend this standard is overly broad and subjective, potentially leading to arbitrary denials and creating a highly restrictive system that prioritizes economic utility over humanitarian concerns or family ties. They argue it could disproportionately affect individuals from certain backgrounds or those without immediate high-income job offers.
Tradeoffs
Balances national economic/security interests with traditional immigration values like family reunification and humanitarian aid. It aims for a more selective immigration pool but risks excluding individuals who might otherwise contribute significantly over time.
Sec. 201, Title II
Family-Sponsored Immigration Reform
This section drastically redefines 'immediate relatives' to only include spouses and unmarried children under 18 of U.S. citizens, eliminating parents of U.S. citizens and adult children. It also reclassifies spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) into a single preference category with a worldwide cap of 88,000, eliminating other family-sponsored preference categories. Parents of U.S. citizens (21+) can apply for a new 5-year nonimmigrant visa (W visa) but are ineligible for employment or public benefits, and the citizen sponsor is financially responsible.
Sec. 202, Title II
Elimination of Diversity Immigrant Category
This section repeals the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) program, commonly known as the 'diversity lottery.' It removes the statutory basis for the program, meaning no new diversity visas can be issued, and any pending applications or prior selections are invalidated.
Sec. 203, Title II
Employment-Based Immigration Reform
This section caps employment-based immigrants at 140,000 annually and introduces a new 'national interest' certification standard. To qualify, aliens must meet at least one 'presumptive positive factor' (e.g., high compensation at 90th percentile, National Interest Occupation at 75th percentile, 5 years in a shortage position, strategic federal support, extraordinary ability, or entrepreneurship creating 5+ jobs) and rebut any 'presumptive negative factors' (e.g., sub-median compensation, limited English proficiency, employer labor noncompliance, insufficient self-sufficiency). A priority order is established if demand exceeds supply.
Sec. 204, Title II
H-1B Visa Reforms
This section significantly reforms the H-1B visa program by requiring employers to attest that the H-1B nonimmigrant's wage is not less than 200% of the median wage for the occupation in the area of employment. It also caps the total number of H-1B visas at 50,000 annually, limits the period of admission to 3 years with no extensions, and requires a 2-year continuous period outside the U.S. before adjusting to permanent residence. Exemptions from the cap are allowed for employment determined to be in the national interest.
Sec. 205, Title II
Elimination of Optional Practical Training (OPT)
This provision amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to state that an alien admitted as an F-1 nonimmigrant (student visa) shall not be considered authorized for employment in the United States. This effectively eliminates the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which currently allows international students to work in the U.S. for a period related to their field of study, often after graduation.
Sec. 301, Title III
Public Charge Inadmissibility and Deportability
This section significantly tightens public charge rules. An alien is inadmissible if they fail to establish the present ability and prospective capacity to support themselves and their dependents without reliance on 'means-tested public benefits.' A presumption of public charge arises if an alien receives one or more means-tested public benefits for more than 12 months in aggregate within any 36-month period, which can only be rebutted under very specific, unforeseeable circumstances. Similar provisions are added for deportability and rescission of adjustment of status.
Sec. 302, Title III
Affidavits of Support and Sponsor Financial Requirements
This section increases the income requirement for sponsors from 125% to 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. It also mandates that sponsors post a bond of not less than $20,000 for each sponsored alien, effective for 10 years or until naturalization/death/departure. The bond is conditioned on compliance with support obligations and reimbursement of public benefits. Unpaid amounts constitute a debt to the U.S., enforceable by liens.
Sec. 303, Title III
Visa Overstays Offense and Penalties
This section voids nonimmigrant visas 10 days after the authorized period of stay or material failure to maintain status. Aliens who overstay or violate status for 10 aggregate days or more commit a new federal offense, punishable by fines and imprisonment (up to 6 months for first offense, 2 years for subsequent). Civil penalties of $500-$1,000 (doubled for repeat offenders) are also imposed. Such aliens are generally ineligible for readmission except with a new visa from their home country or in extraordinary circumstances.
Sec. 304, Title III
Restrictions on Parole Authority
This section severely restricts the Secretary of Homeland Security's parole authority. Parole can only be granted temporarily (not exceeding 90 days), on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, requiring a written determination. It explicitly prohibits extensions beyond 90 days without an Act of Congress and bans categorical, class-wide, or programmatic parole. Parole cannot be used to circumvent numerical limitations, refugee processes, or labor certification requirements.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Expanded Statutory Bars to Good Moral Character
This section significantly expands the list of actions that automatically bar an individual from establishing 'good moral character' for naturalization purposes. New bars include conviction of any felony, conviction of one or more misdemeanors, a final administrative or judicial determination of violating immigration laws (including overstaying by more than 180 days), fraud in obtaining public benefits, participation in a criminal street gang, conviction for DUI or related offenses, and willful failure to satisfy federal tax or child support obligations.
Sec. 402, Title IV
Revised Naturalization Requirements
This section increases the continuous residence requirement for naturalization from 5 years to 10 years (and from 3 years to 10 years for spouses of U.S. citizens). It also raises the English proficiency standard to B2 level (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) and adds new requirements: 10 years of federal tax compliance (or approved payment arrangement), no receipt of means-tested public benefits (with limited exceptions), and demonstrated civic integration through objective evidence (e.g., Selective Service compliance, civic participation).
Sec. 403, Title IV
Clarification of Citizenship at Birth
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that a person born in the U.S. is 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' (and thus a U.S. citizen at birth) only if, at the time of birth, at least one parent was a U.S. citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident. It also states that proof of birth in the U.S. alone is not conclusive evidence of citizenship without objective evidence that the parent met these criteria.
Sec. 501, Title V
Asylum Reforms, Including Safe Third Country and Transit Bar
This section significantly restricts asylum eligibility. It expands the 'safe third country' bar, allowing removal to any country (not just contiguous ones with agreements) if the alien can be removed there. Crucially, it introduces a 'transit bar' denying asylum to aliens who transited through at least one country en route to the U.S., unless they sought and were denied protection in that country, were trafficked, or transited only through countries not party to major refugee conventions. It also eliminates employment authorization solely based on a pending asylum application and imposes a $500 asylum filing fee.
Sec. 502, Title V
Higher Credible Fear Standard and Expedited Removal Recording
This section raises the 'credible fear of persecution' standard for expedited removal proceedings. An alien must now establish that they are 'more likely than not' eligible for asylum and that their statements are 'more likely than not' true, a higher bar than the current 'significant possibility' standard. It also mandates recording of credible fear interviews and establishes quality assurance procedures for these interviews.
Sec. 503, Title V
Family Detention Mandate and Flores Agreement Preemption
This section mandates that the detention of alien children who are not unaccompanied (i.e., with parents) be governed by general immigration detention statutes, explicitly stating there is no presumption against detaining such children. It requires DHS to maintain care and custody of parents charged with misdemeanor illegal entry who entered with their alien child, detaining them together. It also explicitly preempts any State licensing requirements for facilities detaining children or families, and states its intent to satisfy the Flores Settlement Agreement's requirements regarding accompanied minors.
Sec. 601, Title VI
Mandatory E-Verify and Penalties
This section mandates that all employers in the U.S. enroll in and use the E-Verify system to confirm each new employee's identity and work authorization. It establishes that an individual not confirmed by E-Verify is unlawfully employed after a provisional period. Penalties for violations are tied to actual knowledge or failure to update information, and good-faith compliance is a defense.
Defines 'means-tested public benefit' broadly to include cash, medical, housing, nutrition, or other similar public benefits conditioned on income, resources, or financial need, with specific, narrow exceptions (e.g., emergency medical assistance, immunizations, school lunch, foster care, certain community-level services).
Sec. 101(a)(54), Title I (Definitions)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the specific exclusions and inclusions are critical to understanding the scope of public charge and naturalization bars.
Case for: Supporters argue a clear, comprehensive definition is necessary for consistent application of public charge rules and to ensure immigrants are self-sufficient.
Case against: Critics contend the broad definition, even with exceptions, could still deter immigrants from accessing crucial health or nutrition services out of fear of immigration consequences, even if technically exempt.
Estimated impact: This definition underpins the public charge inadmissibility/deportability and naturalization bars, affecting millions of current and prospective immigrants.
Amends the per-country limitations for immigrant visas, striking previous paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of INA 202(a) and revising subsection (e). The new subsection (e) allocates visas between family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants based on the worldwide ratio of those categories, if a country hits its ceiling. This implicitly removes the existing 7% per-country cap for employment-based visas and 7% for family-sponsored visas, replacing it with a proportional allocation.
Sec. 206, Title II (Per-Country Limitations)
Why it matters:Technical amendment to a complex part of immigration law. The effect is substantial but requires careful cross-referencing.
Case for: Supporters argue this creates a more equitable distribution of visas across countries when demand exceeds supply, preventing backlogs for certain nationalities while others have unused visas.
Case against: Critics might argue that removing explicit per-country caps could lead to dominance by a few large countries in certain categories, exacerbating backlogs for others, depending on the specific worldwide ratios.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter the national origin composition of immigrants, particularly in high-demand categories like employment-based visas.
Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General from adopting policies that prospectively exempt classes or categories of aliens from inspection, apprehension, detention, removal proceedings, or execution of removal orders. It also bans categorical deferred action or similar nonenforcement status. Individualized deferrals are allowed for specific, limited reasons (medical emergency, witness assistance, national security, compelling humanitarian circumstance) for periods not exceeding 180 days, requiring written determination, and do not confer immigration status or benefits.
Sec. 305, Title III (Limitations on Enforcement Discretion)
Why it matters:This provision targets a highly contentious area of immigration policy, often subject to executive action. Its technical phrasing might obscure its far-reaching impact on how immigration laws are enforced.
Case for: Supporters argue this restores the rule of law by preventing executive overreach and ensuring that all immigration laws are enforced, rather than selectively ignored for entire classes of individuals.
Case against: Critics contend this provision eliminates essential executive flexibility to manage immigration flows, prioritize enforcement resources, and respond to humanitarian needs, potentially leading to chaos at the border and in interior enforcement.
Estimated impact: Would drastically alter the operational landscape of immigration enforcement, potentially leading to a significant increase in detentions and removals.