The bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose tougher penalties on aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States and commit crimes, and to raise penalties for aliens who have been removed previously. It creates higher imprisonment terms for unlawful entrants who are convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year, and codifies a new minimum sentence for these offenders.
It also alters penalties for aliens who were removed and later convicted, increasing the potential prison term and clarifying the categories of offenses that trigger enhanced punishment. Taken together, the provisions expand the punitive toolbox available to federal prosecutors and immigration authorities in cases involving criminal conduct by unlawfully present noncitizens.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 2 amends 8 U.S.C. 1325 to raise penalties for improper entry and adds a new mandatory term if the alien is convicted of a crime with >1 year imprisonment. Section 2 also amends 8 U.S.C. 1326 to raise penalties for aliens previously removed, including higher minimums for certain convictions.
Who It Affects
Aliens unlawfully present in the U.S. who commit crimes; individuals previously removed who are convicted after removal; federal prosecutors, ICE, and federal courts.
Why It Matters
The bill expands sentencing options and increases minimums in key immigration crime scenarios, signaling a tougher stance on criminal conduct by unlawfully present aliens and those who have been removed.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tightens the knock-on penalties when unlawful entrants commit crimes. For crimes punishable by more than a year, the maximum term under existing law for improperly entering aliens is raised from two years to five years, and a new subsection adds a mandatory minimum of five years for those who are unlawfully present and later convicted of such crimes.
The penalties also extend to aliens who have previously been removed; the base penalties tied to removal are increased from two to ten years, with further adjustments that raise minimum terms in certain situations to as much as fifteen years. In addition to longer prison time, convicted aliens remain subject to fines under federal law.
The overall effect is to heighten consequences for criminal conduct by unlawful entrants and for those who were removed but reoffend or are convicted after reentry, aligning penalties with the seriousness of the offenses and the status of the offender.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill raises penalties for unlawfully entering aliens convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year, increasing the potential prison term.
A new minimum sentence of five years applies in addition to the punishment for such offenses.
For aliens previously removed, the base penalty is increased from 2 years to 10 years.
In certain removal-after-conviction scenarios, the minimum term is adjusted to 15 years.
The bill allows for fines under title 18, United States Code, alongside the imprisonment terms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Penalties for aliens unlawfully present who commit crimes
This section amends 8 U.S.C. 1325 to raise the penalty for aliens who improperly enter the United States and are convicted of any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from two years to five years. It also adds a new subsection (e) stating that an alien who unlawfully enters and is convicted of such crimes shall, in addition to the punishment for the crime, be imprisoned for not less than five years. The net effect is to create a mandatory, substantive increase in the sentencing floor for qualifying offenses by unlawfully present entrants.
Penalties for aliens previously removed
This section amends 8 U.S.C. 1326. It raises the baseline penalty for aliens who have been removed and are later convicted from two years to ten years. It also revises the targeting of penalties by removing certain language and increasing the minimum term in the relevant paragraph from 10 to 15 years where applicable. Finally, it preserves a requirement that, where removal occurred after conviction for a qualifying offense (including aggravated felonies and other felonies defined by law or punishable by more than one year), the offender shall face a minimum term—specifically, not less than 10 years, with fines possible under title 18.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal prosecutors in districts handling immigration-crime cases gain clearer, higher penalties for offenders, improving leverage in prosecutions and sentencing.
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other DHS enforcement agencies gain statutory support for strengthened enforcement actions and post-conviction handling.
- Crime victims, particularly in cases involving unlawfully present offenders, may see enhanced deterrence and accountability.
- Courts handling immigration and criminal cases benefit from clearer minimums and alignment with offenses, potentially reducing sentencing disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Detention and incarceration systems face increased demand and longer average stays for offenders, raising operating and facility costs.
- State and federal budgets bear higher costs for longer prison terms and associated administrative overhead.
- Defendants face longer sentences and related legal costs, as well as potential collateral consequences such as extended detention and removal proceedings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether substantially raising minimum and maximum penalties for unlawfully present offenders serves justice and public safety without imposing excessive, potentially disproportionate punishment or overwhelming detention resources.
The bill’s higher penalties rely on existing criminal-immigration overlap and could interact with other immigration and criminal justice policies, including appeal and removal processes. A key tension is balancing deterrence with fairness and proportionality, particularly for offenders whose crimes and immigration status intersect with broader policy concerns (detention capacity, due process, and the possibility of disproportionate punishment for certain populations).
The staged increases also raise questions about the federal-state interplay in enforcement and how these penalties will be implemented across jurisdictions with varying resources and judicial practices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.