Immigration Enforcement — Week of May 11, 2026

Several significant immigration actions converged this week in Congress and the executive branch. Identical bills introduced in both the House and Senate — the ASSIMILATION Act — would eliminate family-based immigration categories, end the diversity visa lottery, overhaul asylum procedures, and replace current admissions standards with a broad "national-interest" test. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security waived unspecified laws to accelerate border barrier construction in Texas without publicly identifying which protections were being set aside. The administration may view these waivers as necessary for border security, though the lack of specificity makes it difficult for the public to assess that claim.

This might matter because the proposed legislation could shift control over who enters the country from a system of statutory rights — built through decades of congressional action — to one based largely on executive discretion, potentially weakening Congress's own role in setting immigration policy. On the Senate floor, Senator Durbin described how roughly 500,000 DACA recipients who have been voluntarily registering with the government and passing background checks now risk arrest when they try to renew — potentially turning a cooperation program into an enforcement tool. A separate bill, the BOOT Sharia Law Act, would bar people from immigration benefits based on their views about religious law, raising serious First Amendment questions, though supporters may see it as addressing national security concerns.

Important context: comprehensive immigration bills are introduced in nearly every Congress and rarely become law. The ASSIMILATION Act is at its earliest stage with no committee action, and proponents may view it as streamlining immigration rather than concentrating authority. The border barrier waiver authority has been used by both Democratic and Republican administrations and has been upheld by courts. Senator Durbin's account reflects one senator's characterization of an administrative ruling, and the full picture may differ. Many of these bills may be intended more as political statements than as legislation expected to pass.

Limitations: This analysis is based on publicly available legislative text and official records. Bill introductions do not mean bills will become law. Floor speeches represent political arguments, not established facts.