This bill rewrites core criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make unauthorized entry and reentry into the United States more severely punishable. It expands existing unlawful-entry offenses, establishes enhanced penalties for people who reenter after removal (including new aggravated categories), and creates mandatory minimum prison terms for certain classes of reentry-related convictions.
The measure shifts prosecutorial-reference language from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security and defines removal to include stipulation agreements. For practitioners, the result is a tougher sentencing landscape, new statutory hooks for federal prosecution, and changes to how consent to reapply and prior removals are treated in criminal cases — all without creating new administrative relief mechanisms within the bill itself.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the INA’s criminal-entry and reentry provisions by revising the unlawful-entry statute and overhauling the reentry-after-removal statute. It creates enhanced penalty categories for offenders with certain prior convictions or multiple removals, and adds mandatory minimum terms for reentry following serious prior crimes.
Who It Affects
Federal prosecutors and the Department of Homeland Security will gain broader statutory sentencing options; noncitizens charged with illegal entry or reentry face higher exposure to imprisonment; immigration defense counsel and state courts handling related criminal matters will see shifts in charging and plea dynamics. Detention and corrections systems will likely receive more long-term custody cases originating from immigration-related prosecutions.
Why It Matters
The bill changes sentencing leverage in immigration prosecutions, narrows prosecutorial discretion by statutory mandatory terms for certain prior convictions, and imports immigration adjudicative concepts (consent to reapply, removal-by-stipulation) into criminal sentencing. Compliance officers, defense counsel, and DHS attorneys must reassess charging, plea negotiation, and consent procedures under the revised statutory framework.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statutory edits tighten two separate criminal entry pathways the federal government uses: the general unlawful-entry offense and the reentry-after-removal offense. For unlawful entry, the bill increases the penalty ceiling and adds a standalone aggravated provision that triggers enhanced sentencing when a person unlawfully enters or conceals material facts and later is convicted of more serious crimes.
That creates a two-step exposure: a simple illegal-entry charge plus a separate elevated sentence tied to later criminal convictions.
For reentry after removal, the bill restructures the statutory layout, replacing the prior subsection mapping with a new tripartite scheme that distinguishes a baseline reentry offense, a set of enhanced penalty categories based on prior criminal history or the basis for removal, and a distinct mandatory-minimum subsection for people with certain prior serious convictions. The restructure groups prior-conviction-based enhancements together and clarifies that some enhanced penalties are intended to run separately from other sentences.The bill also formalizes two operational definitions that matter on the ground.
First, it treats some removal orders entered via agreement or stipulation during criminal proceedings as the same as formal statutory removals for reentry purposes. Second, it explicitly conditions the legality of reentry in some cases on an express advance consent-to-reapply granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security, adding an administrative precondition to avoid criminal exposure.
Practically, prosecutors will look to removal histories, plea-stipulation records, and DHS consent records when crafting charges.Although the bill heightens criminal exposure, it does not create parallel administrative relief mechanisms nor provide new statutory parole or prosecutorial-decline standards. The changes therefore rely on existing DHS and DOJ practices to implement consent processes and to determine which prior convictions trigger the statute’s harsher paths.
That means much of the bill’s effect will depend on how DHS records, communicates, and applies consent, and how prosecutors interpret the new categories during charging and plea bargaining.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The unlawful-entry statute’s maximum imprisonment term is increased to a higher ceiling than prior law for general illegal entry offenses.
The bill adds an aggravated unlawful-entry provision that imposes a multi-year mandatory minimum when an unlawfully present alien later is convicted of any crime punishable by more than one year.
The reentry-after-removal statute is rewritten so a baseline reentry offense is punishable by an increased maximum penalty unless the Secretary of Homeland Security expressly consented to reapplication; the statutory text conditions criminal liability on the absence of that advance consent.
Enhanced reentry penalties cover specific prior histories: three or more qualifying misdemeanors tied to drugs or crimes against persons, exclusion/removal on certain national-security grounds, prior removal under specified statutory subsections, and three or more prior deportation/removal events — each triggering higher statutory maximums or consecutive sentences.
A separate mandatory-minimum reentry subsection applies when the person had been convicted before removal of an aggravated felony, any jurisdictional felony, or any crime punishable by more than one year; that subsection requires at least a decade of imprisonment and permits life terms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the act the 'Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025.' This is a formal caption with no operative effect on substantive enforcement or statutory interplay.
Tougher unlawful-entry offense and new aggravated trigger
The bill revises the unlawful-entry statute to increase the statute’s punitive reach and appends an aggravated clause that converts later criminal convictions into a statutory trigger for enhanced sentencing. Practically, the new subsection creates a conditional sentencing exposure: prosecutors can charge unlawful entry and, when a defendant subsequently is convicted of a qualifying offense, seek the aggravated statutory term, which carries a floor sentence. Defense counsel will need to litigate both the underlying entry issues (e.g., where and how entry occurred, whether examination was eluded, and whether representations were materially false) and the connection between that entry and any later criminal conviction asserted to trigger the enhancement.
Rewrites reentry statute into baseline, enhanced categories, and a mandatory-minimum tier
This provision replaces the prior reentry subsections with a three-part structure: a baseline reentry offense subject to a higher maximum penalty and conditioned on the absence of express DHS consent to reapply; a set of enhanced penalty categories keyed to particular prior convictions or removal bases; and a separate mandatory-minimum subsection that applies when the person’s pre-removal record includes certain serious convictions. The redesign groups and clarifies which prior histories escalate exposure and signals prosecutorial intent to pursue longer terms for repeat or serious offenders.
Removal-by-stipulation, non-concurrent sentencing, and DHS substitution
The bill defines 'removal' to include agreements or stipulations to removal entered during criminal proceedings, expands language to make some enhanced sentences run consecutively to other sentences, and changes statutory references that formerly invoked the Attorney General so they now invoke the Secretary of Homeland Security. These technical shifts matter: they broaden the universe of prior proceedings that can trigger reentry penalties and give DHS an explicit gatekeeping role for consent-to-reapply determinations that determine criminal exposure.
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 — The statutory overhaul gives U.S. Attorneys clearer, harder statutory sentencing options and fresh statutory enhancement hooks to pursue longer terms in reentry and illegal-entry cases.
- Department of Homeland Security — The bill elevates DHS’s role by tying criminal liability to DHS consent decisions and by replacing Attorney General references, increasing DHS leverage in admission-and-removal determinations.
- Victims of qualifying crimes — Prosecutors can use the enhanced provisions to prioritize and pursue longer sentences where a noncitizen’s entry or reentry coincides with subsequent serious criminal conduct.
- Private prison and detention contractors — A legislative shift toward longer mandatory terms and higher maximums is likely to increase long-term custody placements that these providers serve.
Who Bears the Cost
- Noncitizen defendants subject to removal or reentry prosecutions — The statutory changes increase exposure to longer custodial sentences and reduce plea-leverage options for those with prior convictions.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons and DHS detention systems — Longer mandatory terms and enhanced sentencing will raise incarceration and detention demand, increasing operating costs and pressure on bed space.
- Defense counsel and public defender systems — The more complex statutory landscape, new factual predicates (e.g., removal-by-stipulation), and constrained plea options will increase defense workload and litigation expense.
- State and local prosecutors/courts — The bill’s recognition of stipulation agreements and local convictions in triggering federal reentry enhancements may import local criminal-case records into federal sentencing decisions, complicating coordination and recordkeeping.
- Congressional and executive budgets — Because the bill creates longer and mandatory sentences without accompanying appropriations, the fiscal burden of increased incarceration and detention likely falls on existing federal and state budgets unless separately funded.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between stronger statutory deterrence and the loss of individualized sentencing discretion: the bill prioritizes longer, mandatory punishment to deter reentry and serious misconduct, but those mandatory terms can be blunt instruments that punish old or marginal prior convictions harshly, produce crowded detention and prison systems, and restrict prosecutors’ and judges’ ability to tailor punishment to individual circumstances.
The bill creates sharp implementation and proportionality questions. By converting certain prior immigration adjudications and criminal plea agreements into triggers for harsher federal sentences, it may incentivize removal-by-stipulation in criminal cases and reduce incentives for defendants to contest removability — a dynamic with procedural and fairness implications.
The statutory linkage between DHS consent-to-reapply and criminal exposure raises operational questions about how DHS will document, process, and publish consent determinations so that defense counsel and courts can verify whether consent exists.
Mandatory minimums and elevated maximums will compress plea bargaining and expand mandatory detention and incarceration. That raises predictable capacity and cost issues for BOP and DHS, and it limits judicial sentencing discretion even where a defendant’s prior conviction is old, rehabilitated, or contextually minor compared with the mandatory sentence.
The bill also risks uneven application: its enhanced categories rely on review of state, local, Tribal, or foreign conviction records, which vary in discoverability and reliability, potentially producing disparate outcomes across jurisdictions. Finally, because the bill does not create new administrative relief or parole pathways, the criminal penalties operate without parallel mitigation mechanisms, increasing the policy trade-off between deterrence and humanitarian or fiscal costs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.