For the relief of Ingrid Encalada Latorre.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5991
Last Updated: November 8, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another case of Congressional idiocy, masquerading as "relief" for some poor soul named Ingrid Encalada Latorre. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a classic example of legislative theater, designed to make its sponsor, Mr. Neguse, look like a hero while accomplishing nothing meaningful. The main purpose is to grant permanent resident status to Ingrid Encalada Latorre, a single individual, because... well, that's not entirely clear.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill waives various grounds for removal or denial of admission, essentially granting Ms. Latorre a get-out-of-jail-free card. It also allows her to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, despite any previous issues with immigration authorities. The bill's sponsors are trying to sneak this through by claiming it's a "relief" measure, but in reality, they're creating a special exemption for one person.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Ms. Latorre is the obvious beneficiary of this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: Mr. Neguse and his colleagues, who get to grandstand about their "compassion" while ignoring the broader immigration issues plaguing the country. The American people are also affected, as they're being asked to foot the bill for this special treatment.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill sets a terrible precedent, encouraging others to seek similar exemptions and undermining the rule of law. It's a Band-Aid solution that ignores the systemic problems with our immigration system. The "relief" granted to Ms. Latorre will likely be cited as a justification for future special treatment cases, creating a slippery slope.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of **Legislative Narcissism**, where politicians prioritize their own self-interest and publicity stunts over meaningful policy solutions. The symptoms include:

* Grandstanding and posturing by the sponsor * Special exemptions for favored individuals or groups * Ignoring broader systemic issues * Creating unnecessary precedents

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out this legislative farce for what it is – a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties State & Local Government Affairs Transportation & Infrastructure Small Business & Entrepreneurship Government Operations & Accountability National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Federal Budget & Appropriations Congressional Rules & Procedures
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$80,000
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$7,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$72,200

No PAC contributions found

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$5,800
2
YUROK TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
EKLUND, PAUL
2 transactions
$12,800
2
CARLSON, DAVID K.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
RADOW, LINDA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
RADOW, NORMAN
2 transactions
$6,600
5
BATCHELOR, AMY
2 transactions
$6,600
6
KLARMAN, SETH
1 transaction
$3,300
7
GROSS, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
8
WEAVER, LINDSAY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
BLOOM, BRADLEY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
ZIMLICH, JOE C
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BROWNSTEIN, NORMAN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BEARD, CYNTHIA
1 transaction
$3,300
13
GLUSTROM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
14
ABRAMS, MELISSA METTLER
1 transaction
$3,300
15
HEIZER, DEAN
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 19 nodes and 24 connections

Total contributions: $80,000

Top Donors - Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs15 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 54.8%
Pages: 30-32

— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies

Introduction

Low 54.8%
Pages: 30-32

— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies — xxx — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Paul Ray, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Reddan, Flexilis Forestry, LLC Jay W. Richards, The Heritage Foundation Jordan Richardson, Heise Suarez Melville, P.A. Jason Richwine, Center for Immigration Studies Shaun Rieley, The American Conservative Lora Ries, The Heritage Foundation Leo Rios Mark Robeck, Energy Evolution Consulting LLC James Rockas, ACLJ Action Mark Royce, NOVA-Annandale College Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal Foundation William Ruger, American Institute for Economic Research Austin Ruse, Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) Brent D. Sadler, The Heritage Foundation Alexander William Salter, Texas Tech University Jon Sanders, John Locke Foundation Carla Sands, America First Policy Institute Robby Stephany Saunders, Coalition for a Prosperous America David Sauve Brett D. Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Matt Schuck, American Cornerstone Institute Justin Schwab, CGCN Law Jon Schweppe, American Principles Project Marc Scribner, Reason Foundation Darin Selnick, Selnick Consulting Josh Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom Judy Shelton, Independent Institute Nathan Simington Loren Smith, Skyline Policy Risk Group Zack Smith, The Heritage Foundation Jack Spencer, The Heritage Foundation Adrienne Spero, U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Thomas W. Spoehr, The Heritage Foundation Peter St Onge, The Heritage Foundation Chris Stanley, Functional Government Initiative Paula M. Stannard Parker Stathatos, Texas Public Policy Foundation William Steiger, Independent Consultant

Introduction

Low 52.1%
Pages: 180-182

— 148 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Unaccompanied minors 1. Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),9 which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed. 2. If an alternative to repealing Section 235 of the TVPRA is necessary, the section should be amended so that all unaccompanied children, regardless of nationality, may be returned to their home countries in a safe and efficient manner. Currently, the TVPRA allows only children from contiguous countries (Canada and Mexico) to be returned while every other unaccompanied minor must be placed into a lengthy process that usually results in the minor’s landing in the custody of an illegal alien family member. 3. Congress must end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing. Such standards should focus on meeting human needs and should allow for large-scale use of temporary facilities (for example, tents). 4. Congress should amend the Homeland Security Act and portions of the TVPRA to move detention of alien children expressly from the Department of Health and Human Services to DHS. l Asylum reform 1. The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim. 2. Codify former asylum bars and third-country transit rules. 3. Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B- that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.10 — 149 — Department of Homeland Security l Parole reform. Congress should end the widespread abuse of parole in contravention of statute and return it to its origins as an extraordinary remedy for very limited purposes. l NGOs and processing. Congress should halt funds given to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to process and transport illegal aliens into and throughout the United States. Such funds and infrastructure, including the DHS joint processing centers, should be redirected to secure the border, detain aliens, and provide space for immigration court proceedings. l Other pathways for border crossers. While Congress should use its oversight authority to ensure that Expedited Removal is used to the fullest extent and followed to the letter of the law, other paths for border crossers should be included in a legislative package. 1. Migrant protection protocols. Update the statutory language providing the basis for the Remain in Mexico program as needed to withstand judicial scrutiny and executive inaction. 2. Asylum Cooperative Agreements. While the agreements themselves must be negotiated, Congress should mandate that the executive branch work faithfully to negotiate and execute ACAs and set parameters to ensure that an unwilling executive cannot renege on an existing agreement or abandon the effort. 3. Other expedited pathways. Congress should explicitly permit programs akin to the Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR) and Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP) programs. l Employment authorization 1. Congress should reassert control of employment authorization, which is subject to rampant regulatory abuse, and limit it to certain categories of legal immigrants and non-immigrants. 2. Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory. l State and local law enforcement

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.