Americans First Immigration Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 23, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Americans First Immigration Act' fundamentally shifts U.S. immigration policy towards a merit-based system focused on high-skilled workers and nuclear families, while imposing new ideological and economic conditions on immigrants and educational institutions.
What it actually does
This bill comprehensively reforms the U.S. immigration system by prioritizing American workers, eliminating the Diversity Lottery, significantly narrowing family-based immigration to nuclear families, replacing employment-based visas with a new points-based system, establishing conditional permanent residency for points-based immigrants, and imposing new restrictions on public benefits and higher education tuition for non-permanent resident aliens. It introduces new employer attestations and an 'American values' attestation for immigrants.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill protects American jobs by ensuring employers prioritize U.S. workers, modernizes the immigration system to attract highly skilled individuals who can contribute significantly to the economy, and upholds American values by requiring immigrants to attest against certain practices. They also contend it reduces the burden on U.S. taxpayers by limiting access to public benefits and ensuring fair tuition rates for citizens.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill severely restricts legal immigration pathways, particularly for family reunification and diversity, which could harm family unity and reduce the diversity of the immigrant population. They argue the points-based system may disadvantage lower-skilled workers needed in various sectors, and the 'American values' attestation could be discriminatory or difficult to enforce, potentially leading to arbitrary denials. Critics also suggest that limiting access to public education and benefits for non-permanent residents could create a marginalized underclass and undermine integration.
The bill is 26 pages long and introduces complex changes to existing law, requiring a dedicated reading time to understand its full implications. The time given for public review is not specified, but its comprehensive nature suggests that a thorough understanding would require more than a cursory glance.
Sec. 2(a), new INA Sec. 220A
Protection of American Workers; Employer Attestation
This section 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 equally or better qualified U.S. workers, and did not lay off U.S. workers in an equivalent job 90 days before or during the alien's employment. Employers must also attest they will not place the alien with another employer to evade these rules and will pay the promised wage for three years. Non-compliance can result in civil monetary penalties up to $50,000 per willful violation, debarment from filing petitions for up to 15 years, and remedial actions like hiring laid-off U.S. workers or paying compensatory damages.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these provisions are crucial to ensure that immigration serves the interests of American workers first, preventing foreign workers from displacing U.S. citizens or being used to depress wages. The penalties provide a strong deterrent against abuse.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these stringent attestation requirements and penalties create an excessive burden on employers, potentially discouraging them from hiring foreign talent even when U.S. workers are unavailable or less qualified. They could also lead to increased litigation and administrative costs for businesses.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to protect domestic labor markets with the need for employers to access global talent. The tension lies in ensuring genuine protection without creating undue barriers to legitimate hiring.
Sec. 2(b), new INA Sec. 220B
Protection of American Values; Alien Attestation
This section requires all alien beneficiaries of certain immigration petitions (including family-sponsored and points-based) to sign an attestation. The attestation requires them to affirm attachment to the U.S. Constitution, good disposition towards the U.S., and that they have not and will not participate in or advocate for specific actions 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, sexual assault, domestic violence, or female genital mutilation. It also requires attestation against affiliation with organizations that carry out such actions.
Sec. 3(a), INA Sec. 203(c)
Elimination of Diversity Lottery Immigrant Visa Program
This section repeals the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (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. This change takes effect on the first day of the fiscal year following enactment, with no diversity visas issued on or after the enactment date.
Sec. 4(a), INA Sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and 201(c)
Preserving Nuclear Family Immigration
This section redefines 'immediate relatives' to exclude parents of U.S. citizens, limiting it to spouses and children of U.S. citizens. It also eliminates several existing family-sponsored preference categories, specifically those for married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, and unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. The only remaining family-sponsored category is for spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), with a worldwide level of 87,934 visas annually, reduced by the number of certain paroled aliens who did not adjust status. Petitions for the eliminated categories pending on the date of enactment are invalidated.
Sec. 5(b), new INA Sec. 203(b) and Sec. 5(c), new INA Sec. 204A, 220
Replacement of Employment-Based Immigrant Visas with Points-Based Program
This section repeals existing employment-based immigrant visa categories and replaces them with a new points-based system. Aliens must submit a petition demonstrating eligibility for at least 16 points based on criteria including salary (higher points for higher salaries, with different thresholds for those with/without U.S. degrees), extraordinary achievement (Olympic medals, Nobel Laureates, sustained acclaim), educational attainment (preference for U.S. STEM degrees, doctoral degrees), English language proficiency, military service, and age (preference for younger applicants). A worldwide level of 192,000 points-based immigrants is set, reduced by the number of certain paroled or released detained aliens. Visas are issued quarterly, ranked by points, with tie-breaking factors prioritizing employment, then extraordinary achievement, education, English proficiency, military service, and age.
Sec. 6(a), new INA Sec. 216B
Conditional Permanent Resident Status for Points-Based Immigrants
This section establishes a two-year conditional permanent resident status for points-based immigrants and their accompanying spouses and children. This status can be terminated if the immigrant fails to comply with their 'American values' attestation, is convicted of certain offenses (imprisonment >1 year), receives any means-tested public benefit, or fails to maintain employment at an equivalent or higher salary than their initial job offer. To remove the conditional status, the immigrant must petition DHS within a 90-day window before the two-year anniversary, demonstrating compliance with all conditions, and attend a personal interview. Failure to file or appear for the interview results in termination of status.
Sec. 7(a), Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Sec. 400
National Policy on Public Education and Immigration
This section amends the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to add a new national policy statement. It finds that free public education for non-lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens burdens state/local budgets and promotes immigration law violations. The policy states that non-LPR aliens should not be entitled to public education benefits in the same manner as U.S. citizens and LPRs, and states should not be obligated to provide such benefits to non-LPR aliens.
Sec. 7(b), 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 section 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 the amount charged to out-of-state residents. It also prohibits U.S. citizens from being charged higher tuition than non-LPR aliens, net of any discounts. Postsecondary institutions violating this rule can be debarred by the Secretary of Homeland Security from approving F or M student visas for five years. This applies to all tuition paid on or after the enactment date.
The worldwide level for points-based immigrants (192,000 annually) is reduced by the number of aliens who were never detained or were released from mandatory detention during the most recently concluded fiscal year.
Sec. 5(a)(2), new INA Sec. 201(d)(2)
Why it matters:This linkage is a policy choice that ties legal immigration numbers to immigration enforcement outcomes, which might be seen as a way to incentivize stricter enforcement or to penalize perceived leniency in detention practices. It's a substantive policy directive embedded in a numerical formula.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a strong incentive for robust immigration enforcement, ensuring that those subject to mandatory detention are not released, thereby maintaining border security and the integrity of the immigration system. It links the consequences of enforcement directly to legal immigration pathways.
Case against: Opponents might argue that linking legal immigration numbers to detention outcomes is an arbitrary and punitive measure that could lead to overcrowding in detention facilities or pressure to detain individuals unnecessarily. It conflates enforcement with legal immigration policy, potentially reducing avenues for needed workers based on unrelated factors.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly reduce the number of available points-based immigrant visas, depending on the number of aliens released from mandatory detention each year.
The definition of 'United States doctoral institution of higher education' for purposes of awarding points for advanced degrees is highly specific, referencing Carnegie Foundation classifications from February 13, 2025, and National Science Foundation criteria for research spending and doctorate production.
Sec. 5(d), new INA Sec. 220(b)(4)
Why it matters:The specificity of this definition is a tactical choice to narrowly define which institutions' degrees are most highly valued for immigration purposes. By referencing specific, future-dated classifications, it aims to ensure that only degrees from top-tier research institutions are given maximum weight, potentially shaping the academic focus of prospective immigrants.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures the U.S. attracts the highest caliber of academic talent by prioritizing degrees from leading research institutions, thereby boosting scientific innovation and economic competitiveness.
Case against: Critics might argue that this overly narrow definition could exclude graduates from other reputable institutions that contribute significantly to various fields, or that it creates an elitist system that does not fully capture the breadth of valuable academic contributions.
Estimated impact: This definition will significantly influence which foreign graduates receive the highest points for their education, potentially funneling more foreign students into a select group of U.S. universities.