The bill inserts a new section 238A into the Immigration and Nationality Act that makes certain noncitizens subject to mandatory detention and expedited removal whenever the Department of Homeland Security determines they are criminal gang members, members or supporters of a foreign terrorist organization, or have convictions in broadly defined criminal categories. It also defines a small set of "vulnerable group" characteristics and expressly bars aliens covered by the new section from receiving withholding of removal under the INA.
This change shifts key discretionary decisions into an expedited-removal pathway, narrows forms of statutory protection for covered individuals, and places practical demands on DHS detention and screening processes. Compliance officers, defense counsel, and agencies coordinating removals need to anticipate new detention triggers, uncertain evidentiary standards for DHS determinations, and checkpoints where international-protection claims may be curtailed.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Chapter 4 of the INA by adding §238A. It makes mandatory detention and expedited removal available when DHS determines an alien is a criminal gang member, an FTO member/supporter, or has certain criminal convictions, and it disqualifies those aliens from withholding of removal under the INA.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DHS (CBP and ICE) enforcement and detention operations, immigration defense counsel, state and local prosecutors whose convictions can trigger federal removal, and noncitizens—including long-term residents—convicted of felonies or enumerated offenses.
Why It Matters
It converts broad criminal conduct and membership findings into automatic removal triggers and removes a statutory form of protection (withholding), concentrating decision-making power in DHS and accelerating removal timelines with significant due-process and resource implications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a stand-alone statutory hook—section 238A—so that DHS can place certain noncitizens into mandatory detention and pursue expedited removal whenever the agency ‘‘determines’’ the person fits one of three categories: criminal gang/organization member, member or supporter of a foreign terrorist organization (as defined by INA §219(a)), or someone convicted of a long list of crimes. That list includes all felonies and a set of offenses targeted at vulnerable people (assaults on certain groups, sexual offenses, crimes against children, domestic violence, stalking, and violations of protective orders).
The statutory text leaves the operative trigger as the agency’s determination and ties the remedy to the expedited-removal framework already in INA §238.
The statute also defines ‘‘member of a vulnerable group’’ with four discrete descriptions: children under 16, pregnant women, people with severe physical or mental disabilities, and individuals older than 65. The definition is used only to identify certain misdemeanors and crimes against those groups as removal-triggering offenses.
The bill does not create special procedural protections for people who meet the vulnerable-group definition; it only uses the label to expand the list of covered crimes.A critical substantive change is the express bar: any alien subject to removal under §238A ‘‘is not eligible for withholding of removal under any provision of this title.’’ The text does not expressly mention asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture, nor does it define standards for DHS’s factual determinations, appeals processes, or detention timelines. Practically, the measure accelerates removal for broad classes of noncitizens while narrowing one statutory relief route, leaving multiple implementation questions—evidentiary benchmarks, interaction with asylum/CAT protections, and detention capacity—open to administrative rulemaking or litigation.Finally, the bill makes a clerical amendment to the INA table of contents to insert the new section.
There are no funding provisions, no specified evidentiary standard for DHS decisions, and no exemptions for long-term lawful permanent residents who meet the listed criteria; the statute relies solely on DHS’s operational practices to effectuate the new authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new INA provision—§238A—making covered aliens subject to mandatory detention and expedited removal upon a DHS determination.
It defines "member of a vulnerable group" as under-16 children, pregnant women, individuals with severe disabilities, and persons over 65, but provides no special release or parole protections for them.
The removal-triggering criminal scope includes "any felony" plus specified misdemeanors against vulnerable groups, assaults on law enforcement, sexual offenses, domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children (explicitly including sex trafficking of a minor), and violations of protection orders.
The bill extends expedited-removal authority to individuals identified as members or supporters of foreign terrorist organizations (cross-referencing INA §219(a)) and to those who have provided material support to such organizations.
Section 238A(c) expressly makes aliens covered by subsection (b) ineligible for withholding of removal under any provision of the INA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s short name, "Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act." This is purely stylistic but signals the sponsor intent to prioritize expedited enforcement in statutory language rather than in regulation.
Creates a new INA authority for expedited removal
Adds §238A to Chapter 4 of the INA. The new section integrates with the existing expedited-removal scheme under §238 by making the listed categories automatic triggers for mandatory detention and expedited removal whenever DHS ‘‘determines’’ the alien fits them. Practically, this places the initial gatekeeping role with DHS rather than with a judicial officer or independent adjudicator.
Defines 'member of a vulnerable group'
Specifies four categories—children under 16, pregnant women, individuals with severe disabilities, and persons over 65—used to identify certain crimes as removal-triggering. The definition is narrow in form but does not afford tailored protections; it functions only to expand the list of covered offenses when the victim falls into one of these categories.
Enumerates covered categories and criminal offenses
Lists three bases for expedited removal: (1) membership in a criminal gang/organization, (2) membership or support for a foreign terrorist organization or providing material support, and (3) conviction of broadly specified crimes (including any felony and several categories of offenses against vulnerable persons and law enforcement). The provision defers to DHS’s determination without setting a statutory evidentiary standard or process for how DHS makes that determination.
Bans withholding of removal and updates table of contents
Subsection (c) states that aliens subject to subsection (b) are not eligible for withholding of removal under any provision of the INA, removing that statutory remedy for covered individuals. The bill also inserts the new section into the statute’s table of contents. It includes no language about asylum, CAT protections, funding, or administrative procedures for appeals or review.
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 law enforcement and DHS: The bill grants DHS clearer statutory authority to detain and expedite removal of a wide swath of noncitizens, reducing procedural steps and potentially accelerating removals of individuals identified as gangs, FTO affiliates, or convicted of the listed crimes.
- State and local victims’ advocacy groups: By prioritizing removal for offenders convicted of crimes against victims (including children and domestic-violence victims), the measure aligns federal removal priorities with certain victim-protection interests.
- Communities concerned about transnational or organized-crime influence: Removing persons DHS identifies as gang members or FTO supporters could be framed as reducing local security risks tied to organized criminal or extremist networks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Noncitizens with convictions, including lawful permanent residents: The statute applies broadly to "any felony," potentially triggering expedited removal for convictions that may be decades old or unrelated to public-safety risk.
- Department of Homeland Security and detention system: Mandatory detention and expedited processing for broader categories will increase demand for detention beds, screening resources, and casework capacity without accompanying appropriations in the bill.
- Immigration defense counsel and courts: Accelerated removal timelines and curtailed statutory relief (withholding) compress lawyer preparation time, increase litigation over DHS determinations, and may shift caseloads into removal-review litigation and habeas proceedings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits an administrative, enforcement-centered approach to public safety—speedy detention and removal of broad criminal and associational categories—against commitments to due process and international protection: speeding removals and narrowing statutory relief reduces risk to communities in the short term but concentrates power in DHS, raises questions about fairness for individuals with contested or old convictions, and creates operational burdens for detention and legal systems that lack clear procedural safeguards.
The bill centralizes power in DHS by making agency ‘‘determinations’’ the operative trigger for detention and expedited removal without specifying an evidentiary standard, notice procedures, or required findings. That invites litigation over what showing DHS must make to classify someone as a gang member, FTO supporter, or as having provided material support, and over challenges to the factual basis for relying on state-court convictions—particularly where convictions are old, vacated, or related to conduct that may be ambiguous under federal immigration law.
The explicit bar on withholding of removal raises compliance and treaty questions in practice. The text removes a statutory avenue of protection under the INA for covered individuals but is silent about asylum and Convention Against Torture obligations; implementation will require DHS and DOJ to reconcile the statutory withholding ban with international non-refoulement duties and existing administrative and judicial interpretations.
Operationally, mandatory detention for groups that include children under 16, pregnant women, people with severe disabilities, and seniors creates acute pressures on medical and custodial standards and on decisions about parole or humanitarian release—issues the bill does not address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.