The BE GONE Act adds sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence to the list of offenses that qualify as aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It achieves this by amending INA 101(a)(43) to insert a new subparagraph (V) and by adjusting the punctuation around existing subparagraphs (T) and (U).
The practical effect is to make individuals convicted of these crimes subject to the aggravated felony removal ground, thereby expediting removal under the current immigration framework. This is a focused statutory change that relies on existing enforcement mechanisms rather than creating new processes or penalties.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends INA 101(a)(43) to add subparagraph (V) for 'sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence' and adjusts the list's punctuation to accommodate the new item. This expands the grounds for removal under the aggravated felony category without altering other existing grounds.
Who It Affects
Directly affects noncitizens convicted of sexual assault or aggravated sexual violence, and the DHS/ICE adjudicators, immigration courts, and counsel who handle removal proceedings under the INA.
Why It Matters
Sets a clearer, more expansive removal benchmark for serious sex offenses, signaling a tighter immigration stance on such crimes and shaping how enforcement prioritizes cases involving sexual violence.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The BE GONE Act is a concise change to the INA that broadens the grounds for removal by classifying sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence as aggravated felonies. Specifically, it adds a new subparagraph (V) to INA 101(a)(43) and adjusts the surrounding punctuation to fit the new item within the existing enumeration.
This is a mechanical expansion rather than a creation of new offenses; it leverages the current removal framework to enable quicker action against aliens convicted of these crimes. The net effect is that individuals with these convictions can be pursued under the aggravated felony ground for removal, consistent with the Act’s goal of stronger enforcement against serious offenses.
Implementing this change requires applying the current removal process—there are no new court procedures, funding provisions, or separate enforcement programs introduced by the bill. Practitioners should monitor how courts interpret the scope of the offenses described as sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence and how state-defined offenses map into the federal definition for removal purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subparagraph (V) to INA 101(a)(43), labeling 'sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence' as an aggravated felony.
To fit the new item, the bill modifies the punctuation around subparagraphs (T) and (U) within INA 101(a)(43).
Convictions for sexual assault or aggravated sexual violence become grounds for removal under the aggravated felony category.
No new offenses are created; the change expands the set of crimes that trigger removal under existing law.
There are no new funding or enforcement mechanisms; the bill relies on the current INA removal framework.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short titles
This section designates the BE GONE Act as the short title of the measure. It does not alter substantive immigration law beyond naming the act.
Expanding the definition of aggravated felonies under the INA
Section 2 amends INA 101(a)(43) by adding a new subparagraph (V): 'sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence.' It also reshapes the transition between subparagraphs (T) and (U) to accommodate the addition. The practical effect is to bring sexually violent offenses into the aggravated felony removal ground, expanding the pool of offenses that trigger expedited removal and other consequences tied to the aggravated felony category, while preserving the existing framework and other listed offenses.
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
- DHS and ICE: clearer, codified grounds to pursue removal for individuals convicted of sexual offenses, enabling more efficient case processing under the aggravated felony framework.
- Federal immigration prosecutors and adjudicators: stronger leverage to pursue removal cases involving serious sex offenses within the INA structure.
- Victims’ advocacy groups and communities affected by sexual violence: potential reduction in risk from individuals with proven sexual-offense histories who are removed from the country.
- Local law enforcement and public safety partners in communities with persistent sex-offense concerns: aligned incentives with federal removal policy to address public safety.
Who Bears the Cost
- Noncitizens convicted of sexual assault or aggravated sexual violence face expanded exposure to removal and related immigration consequences.
- Immigration courts and DHS resources may experience increased caseloads or backlogs as more cases fall under the aggravated felony ground.
- Defense counsel representing noncitizen clients may confront added complexity and heighted litigation around removal implications.
- Taxpayers funding removal proceedings and related enforcement activities could bear indirect costs if caseloads rise.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing stronger public-safety enforcement against the risk of overexpansion of removal grounds for individuals convicted of sex offenses, which could affect due process and the treatment of offenses across jurisdictions with differing definitions.
The BE GONE Act broadens the aggravated felony ground by including sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence, but it leaves undefined the terms 'sexual assault' and 'aggravated sexual violence' within the bill itself. This raises questions about how different jurisdictions’ definitions map into the INA and how cases involving mixed facts or varying statutory definitions will be treated.
The bill does not contain funding provisions or new enforcement mechanisms; it relies entirely on the existing INA framework. Important tensions remain around potential impacts on due process, the timing of removals for those with prior convictions, and how retroactivity (if any) would be handled as courts interpret the new ground going forward.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.