HR-8827-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Andrew Ogles (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would make sweeping changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would eliminate the diversity visa lottery, end most family-sponsored immigration categories (limiting family visas to spouses and minor children under 18), replace employment-based immigration with a merit and national-interest scoring system, tighten H-1B visa rules including a wage floor of 200% of median wage and a 50,000 annual cap, eliminate Optional Practical Training for F-1 student visa holders, restrict parole authority to 90-day case-by-case grants, tighten public charge rules and sponsor financial requirements (raising the income threshold to 200% of the poverty line and requiring a $20,000 bond), create new criminal and civil penalties for visa overstays, and revise asylum and expedited removal procedures.
Who benefits
U.S. workers in fields where H-1B visa holders compete for jobs, particularly in technology and STEM fields. Employers seeking high-wage, highly credentialed workers who would qualify under the new merit system. Startup founders and entrepreneurs who meet the investment thresholds. Workers in federally designated shortage occupations (medical, dental, veterans care). Taxpayers if public benefit usage by sponsored immigrants declines. Domestic STEM graduates who would be prioritized for H-1B visas over foreign graduates. Federal agencies (DoD, NASA, NSF, etc.) that gain a direct pathway to certify foreign workers for national-priority roles.
Who is hurt
Immigrants from high-demand countries (India, China, Mexico, Philippines) who currently benefit from per-country cap exceptions. Adult children and parents of U.S. citizens who would lose immigrant visa eligibility — parents would be limited to a non-immigrant, non-work, non-benefit visa requiring a $20,000 sponsor bond. Siblings and extended family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who would lose all visa pathways. F-1 international students who rely on Optional Practical Training (OPT) for post-graduation work authorization. Lower-wage H-1B workers and their employers, particularly outsourcing firms. Diversity visa lottery winners already selected before enactment who would lose their visa eligibility. Asylum seekers who would face tighter credible fear standards and expedited removal. Immigrants who have used public benefits and could face deportation or status rescission. Sponsors of immigrants who would face higher income requirements, mandatory $20,000 bonds, and potential property liens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current immigration system, built around the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, prioritizes extended family ties over economic contribution, resulting in what they describe as chain migration that suppresses wages for U.S. workers and strains public resources. They contend that shifting to a merit-based model — similar to systems used by Canada and Australia — would attract high-skill workers who demonstrably advance national economic and security interests, while the 200% median wage floor for H-1B visas would prevent employers from using the program to undercut American workers, a documented concern raised by the Government Accountability Office and multiple academic studies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating most family-based immigration categories would separate families and undermine a foundational principle of U.S. immigration law that has governed the system for 60 years, with research from the National Academies of Sciences showing that family-sponsored immigrants and their descendants are net fiscal contributors over a 75-year horizon. They contend that eliminating OPT and sharply restricting H-1B visas would harm U.S. universities and research institutions that depend on international talent, and that the bill's retroactive cancellation of already-selected diversity visas raises serious due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment, as recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis's broader principle that non-citizens retain constitutional protections once inside the U.S. legal process.
Constitutional context
Congress holds plenary authority over immigration under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause, giving it broad power to restructure visa categories and admissions criteria. However, the bill's tightened public charge deportability rules and retroactive cancellation of pending diversity visa selections could face Fifth Amendment Due Process challenges; Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) established that non-citizens within the U.S. legal process retain due process protections. The parole restrictions also implicate executive enforcement discretion, an area left unsettled after DHS v. Regents (2020) and United States v. Texas (2023). Post-Loper Bright (2024), the extensive rulemaking authority delegated to DHS under this bill would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than automatic deference.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain significant authority by codifying strict statutory limits on executive parole and enforcement discretion, directly constraining DHS flexibility that the executive branch has historically exercised; DHS retains rulemaking authority within the new statutory framework, and federal courts would review agency actions under heightened post-Loper Bright scrutiny.
Historical precedent
The Immigration Act of 1990 last comprehensively restructured employment-based visa categories and created the diversity visa lottery; the RAISE Act (proposed in 2017 and 2019) proposed a similar shift to a merit-based points system but did not pass.