For the relief of Ingrid Encalada Latorre.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5991

Last Updated: November 7, 2025

For the relief of Ingrid Encalada Latorre.

HR. 5991, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.

The sponsor

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

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$80,000 raised

24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 183-185 of the Mandate for Leadership.

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

Summary Style:

**HR 5991: A Private Bill with Limited Scope and No Significant Impact on My Interests**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll provide a concise analysis of HR 5991, a bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic processes. This private bill, introduced by Mr. Neguse, aims to grant permanent resident status to Ingrid Encalada Latorre, an individual with a unique set of circumstances.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to provide relief to Ingrid Encalada Latorre, allowing her to obtain permanent resident status in the United States. This narrow focus underscores the inefficiencies of democratic processes, where individual cases are often prioritized over broader policy reforms that could drive meaningful change.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing immigration laws to grant Ingrid Encalada Latorre eligibility for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. It also waives grounds for removal or denial of admission and rescinds any outstanding orders of removal. These provisions are specific to the individual in question and do not introduce significant changes to the broader immigration landscape.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiary of this bill is Ingrid Encalada Latorre herself. Other stakeholders, such as immigration advocacy groups or individuals with similar circumstances, may also take interest in this case. However, from a macro perspective, this bill has limited implications for the broader economy or my business interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This private bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall immigration landscape or the economy at large. As a thought leader and entrepreneur, I prioritize policies that drive innovation, deregulation, and growth. HR 5991 does not align with these objectives, and its passage would not substantially affect my business interests or wealth.

In conclusion, HR 5991 is a narrow, private bill that highlights the inefficiencies of democratic processes. As a visionary leader, I will continue to focus on policies that drive meaningful change and advance my interests, rather than getting bogged down in individual cases like this one.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, HR 5991, is a private relief bill, which means it's designed to benefit a specific individual or group.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to provide permanent resident status to Ingrid Encalada Latorre, who is likely facing deportation or other immigration-related issues. The objective is to grant her an immigrant visa or adjust her status to lawful permanent residence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 of the bill outlines the key provisions:

* Notwithstanding certain sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Ingrid Encalada Latorre will be eligible for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. * If she enters the US before a specified deadline, she'll be considered to have entered lawfully and can apply for adjustment of status under Section 245 of the INA. * The bill waives grounds for removal or denial of admission/adjustment of status that might otherwise apply to her.

These provisions essentially create an exception to existing immigration laws for Ingrid Encalada Latorre, allowing her to stay in the US and potentially become a permanent resident.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary affected party is, of course, Ingrid Encalada Latorre herself. However, this bill may also impact:

* The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which would need to rescind any outstanding removal orders or findings of inadmissibility. * The Visa Office of the Department of State, which would be responsible for processing her immigrant visa application. * Other immigrants from Ingrid's country of origin, as the bill reduces the number of available immigrant visas by one.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have significant implications for Ingrid Encalada Latorre and her family. It would allow her to remain in the US and potentially become a permanent resident, which could improve her quality of life and provide stability.

However, as I'm sure you recall from our 8th grade civics class discussions on checks and balances, this bill may also raise concerns about:

* The potential for unequal treatment under the law (i.e., why is Ingrid Encalada Latorre receiving special consideration when others in similar situations might not?). * The impact on immigration policy more broadly (e.g., could this set a precedent for future private relief bills?).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers and wonder what else I need to re-teach...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 5991, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill appears to be a simple relief measure for one Ingrid Encalada Latorre, granting her permanent resident status. But, my friends, don't be fooled. There's more to this story than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 5991 is to provide a special exemption for Ingrid Encalada Latorre, allowing her to bypass normal immigration procedures and obtain permanent resident status. But why? What makes her so special? Is she connected to someone powerful? The government's not telling us the whole story here.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill introduces several key provisions that alter existing immigration law. For instance, it waives grounds for removal or denial of admission, essentially giving Encalada Latorre a free pass. It also allows her to adjust her status without going through the usual channels. But what about all the other immigrants who have been waiting in line for years? Don't they deserve the same treatment?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Encalada Latorre is the obvious beneficiary of this bill, but what about the broader implications? This legislation sets a precedent for future exemptions and special treatments. Who's next on the list? Will it be another individual or a whole group of people? The government's not being transparent about its intentions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching consequences that go beyond just one person. It undermines the existing immigration system, creating a slippery slope where special interests can influence policy decisions. What's to stop other individuals or groups from demanding similar exemptions? This could lead to a breakdown in the rule of law and create an uneven playing field for all immigrants.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this is just a simple bill to help one person." Ah, no! You see, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are forces at play here that we can't even begin to comprehend.

Mark my words: HR 5991 is just the beginning. It's a Trojan horse for more significant changes to our immigration system. Wake up, sheeple! The government's hiding something in plain sight, and it's up to us to connect the dots.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, we've got another doozy for you tonight! It's HR 5991, a bill that's going to make your head spin with its sheer audacity. (pauses for dramatic effect)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a "relief" package for one Ingrid Encalada Latorre, an individual who, apparently, has been living in the shadows of our great nation. The main objective here is to grant her permanent resident status, despite... well, we'll get into that later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill essentially gives Ms. Latorre a free pass to become a lawful permanent resident, bypassing the usual channels and requirements. It waives grounds for removal or denial of admission, rescinds any outstanding orders of removal, and even reduces the number of immigrant visas available to natives of her country of birth. Talk about special treatment! (smirking)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's pretty clear who the main beneficiary is here – Ingrid Encalada Latorre herself. But let's not forget about the American people, who are essentially being asked to foot the bill for this individual's... questionable decisions. And what about our brave men and women in law enforcement, who work tirelessly to uphold our immigration laws? Don't they deserve some respect?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill sets a terrible precedent, folks! If we start granting special favors to individuals like Ms. Latorre, where does it end? It's a slippery slope, and before you know it, we'll have an open-borders policy that undermines the very fabric of our nation. (dramatic music plays in the background) And what about national security? We can't just let anyone waltz into our country without proper vetting! (outraged tone)

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a humanitarian gesture?" Ah, no! This is a masterclass in elitist politics, where the interests of one individual are prioritized over those of the American people. Mark my words: this bill is a Trojan horse for more liberal immigration policies that will erode our sovereignty and freedom. (winking at the camera) Stay vigilant, folks!

(Leans back in his chair, with a self-satisfied smirk) That's all for tonight. Tune in tomorrow when we'll be discussing another example of government overreach... or maybe just another "relief" package for some well-connected individual.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: HR 5991 - For the relief of Ingrid Encalada Latorre**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HR 5991 is a private bill that aims to provide permanent resident status to Ingrid Encalada Latorre, an individual who has been affected by immigration laws. The bill's primary objective is to grant Ms. Latorre lawful permanent residence in the United States, notwithstanding certain grounds for removal or denial of admission.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key provisions:

1. Eligibility for immigrant visa or adjustment of status: Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Ms. Latorre is eligible for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. 2. Adjustment of status: If Ms. Latorre enters the United States before the filing deadline, she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 3. Waiver of grounds for removal or denial of admission: The bill waives certain grounds for removal or denial of admission that may apply to Ms. Latorre, including those related to sections 212(a), 237(a), and 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 4. Rescission of outstanding order of removal: The Secretary of Homeland Security shall rescind any outstanding order of removal or deportation against Ms. Latorre.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary affected party is Ingrid Encalada Latorre, an individual who will benefit from the bill's provisions. Other stakeholders include:

1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): Responsible for processing Ms. Latorre's application for immigrant visa or adjustment of status. 2. Department of Homeland Security: Responsible for rescinding any outstanding order of removal or deportation against Ms. Latorre. 3. Department of State: Responsible for reducing the total number of immigrant visas available to natives of Ms. Latorre's country of birth.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage would have several implications:

1. Granting lawful permanent residence to Ms. Latorre, allowing her to remain in the United States without fear of removal or deportation. 2. Providing a pathway for Ms. Latorre to become a U.S. citizen in the future. 3. Reducing the total number of immigrant visas available to natives of Ms. Latorre's country of birth by one.

Overall, HR 5991 is a private bill that aims to provide relief to an individual affected by immigration laws. Its passage would have significant implications for Ms. Latorre and her family, as well as for the broader immigration system.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, HR 5991, and see what's really goin' on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about helpin' out one person, Ingrid Encalada Latorre. It's a private relief bill, which means it's designed to provide a specific solution for an individual or a small group of people. The main objective here is to grant Ingrid permanent resident status in the United States.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to existing immigration law. It allows Ingrid to apply for an immigrant visa or adjust her status to become a lawful permanent resident, even if she wouldn't normally be eligible due to certain grounds for removal or denial of admission. The bill also waives any outstanding orders of removal or deportation that might have been issued against her.

Here's the thing: this bill is essentially giving Ingrid a second chance. It's acknowledging that she might have made some mistakes in the past, but it's willing to overlook those and give her a fresh start.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main person affected by this bill is obviously Ingrid Encalada Latorre herself. But there are also other stakeholders to consider, like the Department of Homeland Security and the Visa Office of the Department of State. These agencies will need to review and process Ingrid's application, and they'll have to follow the new rules laid out in this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If this bill passes, it could set a precedent for other private relief bills in the future. It might encourage more people to come forward and seek help from Congress when they're facing immigration issues. On the flip side, some folks might see this as a special favor being granted to one person, which could be perceived as unfair.

But here's the thing: this bill isn't just about Ingrid. It's also about the broader principles of compassion and fairness that we want our immigration system to reflect. By giving Ingrid a second chance, Congress is acknowledging that people can make mistakes, but they deserve the opportunity to redeem themselves.

Anyway, dude, that's HR 5991 in a nutshell. It's all about helpin' out one person, but it's also got some deeper implications for our immigration system as a whole.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 5991: A Private Bill with a Hidden Agenda?**

Main Purpose & Objectives:

HR 5991, introduced by Rep. Neguse (D-CO), is a private bill that seeks to grant permanent resident status to Ingrid Encalada Latorre, an individual who has been facing deportation proceedings. The bill's primary objective is to provide relief to Ms. Latorre and her family by allowing her to remain in the United States.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:

The bill waives various grounds for removal or denial of admission under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including sections 212(a), 237(a), and 240B. It also provides a pathway for Ms. Latorre to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, notwithstanding any previous orders of removal or deportation.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders:

While the bill appears to be a humanitarian effort to help one individual, it may have broader implications for immigration policy and enforcement. The affected parties include:

* Ingrid Encalada Latorre and her family * Immigration advocacy groups and organizations that support immigrant rights * Law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing immigration laws

Potential Impact & Implications:

On the surface, HR 5991 seems like a benevolent effort to help one person. However, it may set a precedent for future private bills that could undermine the integrity of the immigration system. The bill's provisions could also be seen as a backdoor attempt to circumvent existing immigration laws and procedures.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

A review of Rep. Neguse's campaign finance records reveals significant contributions from pro-immigrant advocacy groups, such as the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). These organizations have been vocal supporters of immigrant rights and may be influencing the congressman's legislative agenda.

**Committee Capture:**

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has a history of being influenced by special interest groups. The committee's chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), has received significant campaign contributions from pro-immigrant advocacy groups and may be sympathetic to their causes.

**Hidden Motivations:**

While HR 5991 appears to be a private bill with limited scope, it may be part of a larger effort to push for more comprehensive immigration reform. The bill's provisions could be seen as a test case for future legislation that seeks to provide relief to undocumented immigrants or undermine existing immigration laws.

In conclusion, while HR 5991 seems like a humanitarian effort on the surface, it may have broader implications for immigration policy and enforcement. The bill's provisions and potential impact warrant closer scrutiny, particularly in light of the monied interests and special interest groups that may be influencing its passage.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$80,000

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,800

Committees

Individuals

$72,200

No PAC contributions found

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$5,800

YUROK TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

EKLUND, PAUL

2 transactions

$12,800

CARLSON, DAVID K.

2 transactions

$6,600

RADOW, LINDA

2 transactions

$6,600

RADOW, NORMAN

2 transactions

$6,600

BATCHELOR, AMY

2 transactions

$6,600

KLARMAN, SETH

1 transaction

$3,300

GROSS, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

WEAVER, LINDSAY

1 transaction

$3,300

BLOOM, BRADLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

ZIMLICH, JOE C

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWNSTEIN, NORMAN

1 transaction

$3,300

BEARD, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$3,300

GLUSTROM, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

ABRAMS, MELISSA METTLER

1 transaction

$3,300

HEIZER, DEAN

1 transaction

$3,300

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 24 connections (61 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $80,000

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

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Private Prisons & Immigration Detentionconfidence 0.80
Section 1(c) provides a waiver of grounds for removal or denial of admission, which could reduce the number of individuals in private prisons and immigration detention centers, thereby potentially harming the private prisons industry.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 183-185AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5991 is a private immigration relief bill focused on granting permanent residency to a specific individual, which contrasts with Project 2025's emphasis on restrictive enforcement, limiting work authorization, and curbing mass migration through broad policy changes. While both involve immigration enforcement mechanisms, the bill's individualized, relief-oriented approach does not align with the systemic, restrictive goals outlined in the DHS section of Project 2025."

Key themes:immigration enforcementDepartment of Homeland Securityremoval proceedings

— 151 — Department of Homeland Security l Employment authorization. Along with the legislative proposal, take regulatory action to limit the classes of aliens eligible for work authorization. Executive Orders l Pathways for border crossers 1. Direct the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Northern Triangle Countries immediately. 2. Recommence negotiations with Mexico to fully implement the Remain in Mexico Protocols. 3. Reinstate, to the extent possible, expedited pathways with full credible fear/immigration court process (PACR and HARP). 4. Prohibit the use of Notices to Report, the use of any funds for travel into the interior of the United States, and government flights or transportation for aliens. 5. Mandate that ICE use all detention space in full compliance with Section 235 of the INA, issue weekly reports on detention capacity, and provide authority for low-level temporary capacity (for example, tents) once permanent space is full. 6. Eliminate the use of ATD for border crossers except in rare cases and only with the explicit authority of the Secretary. 7. Prohibit the use of parole except in matters that are certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as requiring action for humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, and prohibit the use of parole in any categorical circumstance. l Enforcement 1. Restrict prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. 2. Mandate the use of E-Verify for anyone doing business with the government. — 152 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Designate USCIS as Intelligence Community–adjacent, ensuring that it has access to national security and law enforcement databases. 4. Rescind all memoranda limiting enforcement of immigration laws including those identifying sensitive zones. 5. End ICE’s widespread use of termination and administrative closure of cases in immigration court. l Averting or curtailing a mass migration event 1. Provide that whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens en route to or arriving off the coast of the U.S. presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate federal response, the Secretary may make, subject to the approval of the President, rules and regulations prohibiting in whole or in part the introduction of persons from such countries or places as he or she shall designate in order to avert or curtail such mass migration and for such period of time as is deemed necessary, including through the expulsion of such aliens. Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2. Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the Secretary makes such a determination and then promulgates, subject to the approval of the President, such rules and regulations, the Secretary shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements of Title 8 that the Secretary, in his or her sole discretion, determines are necessary to avert or curtail the mass migration. Subregulatory Matters l USCIS priorities/structural changes 1. Ensure that focus is returned to vetting, base eligibility of applicants, and fraud detection. 2. Realign the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) to ensure agencywide consistency on implementation of fraud detection and vetting policies. 3. Review and repeal any internal agency memo that is inconsistent with the priorities described in this chapter.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 183-185AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5991 grants individual immigration relief through waivers and adjustment of status, which contrasts with Project 2025's emphasis on restricting prosecutorial discretion, expanding mandatory detention, and strengthening enforcement measures."

Key themes:immigration enforcementprosecutorial discretiondetention policy

— 150 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Congress should unequivocally authorize state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration and border security actions in compliance with Arizona v. United States.11 2. Congress should require compliance with immigration detainers to the maximum extent consistent with the Tenth Amendment and set financial disincentives for jurisdictions that implement either official or unofficial sanctuary policies. l Prosecutorial discretion. Congress should restrict the authority for prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. l Mandatory detention. Congress should eliminate ambiguous discretionary language in Title 8 that aliens “may” be detained and clarify that aliens “shall” be detained. This language, which contrasts with other “shall detain” language in statute, creates unhelpful ambiguity and allows the executive branch to ignore the will of Congress. Regulations l Withdraw Biden Administration regulations and reissue new regulations in the following areas: 1. Credible Fear/Asylum Jurisdiction for Border Crossers. 2. Public Charge. l T-Visa and U-Visa reform. Unless and until T and U visas are repealed, each program needs to be reformed to ensure that only legitimate victims of trafficking and crimes who are actively providing significant material assistance to law enforcement are eligible for spots in the queue. l Repeal TPS designations. l H-1B reform. Transform the program into an elite mechanism exclusively to bring in the “best and brightest” at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program. H-1B is a means only to supplement the U.S. economy and to keep companies competitive, not to depress U.S. labor markets artificially in certain industries. — 151 — Department of Homeland Security l Employment authorization. Along with the legislative proposal, take regulatory action to limit the classes of aliens eligible for work authorization. Executive Orders l Pathways for border crossers 1. Direct the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Northern Triangle Countries immediately. 2. Recommence negotiations with Mexico to fully implement the Remain in Mexico Protocols. 3. Reinstate, to the extent possible, expedited pathways with full credible fear/immigration court process (PACR and HARP). 4. Prohibit the use of Notices to Report, the use of any funds for travel into the interior of the United States, and government flights or transportation for aliens. 5. Mandate that ICE use all detention space in full compliance with Section 235 of the INA, issue weekly reports on detention capacity, and provide authority for low-level temporary capacity (for example, tents) once permanent space is full. 6. Eliminate the use of ATD for border crossers except in rare cases and only with the explicit authority of the Secretary. 7. Prohibit the use of parole except in matters that are certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as requiring action for humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, and prohibit the use of parole in any categorical circumstance. l Enforcement 1. Restrict prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. 2. Mandate the use of E-Verify for anyone doing business with the government.

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 174-176AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5991 is a private relief bill granting permanent residency to a specific individual, which runs counter to Project 2025's DHS emphasis on strict immigration enforcement, ending case closures, and limiting immigration benefits. There is no substantive alignment in objectives or approach."

Key themes:immigration enforcementremoval proceedingsvisa eligibility

— 141 — Department of Homeland Security enforcement. To return ICE to its primary mission, any new Administration that wishes to restore the rule of law to our immigration enforcement efforts should: l Order ICE to stop closing out pending immigration cases and apply the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as written by Congress.3 The Biden Administration closed out tens of thousands of immigration cases that had already been prepared and were slated for expedited removal processing or hearings before the U.S. Immigration Court. This misguided action constituted an egregious example of lawlessness that allowed thousands of illegal aliens and other immigration violators to go free in the United States. l Direct ICE to stop ignoring criminal aliens identified through the 287(g) program.4 Ultimately, Congress should prevent ICE from ignoring criminal aliens identified by local law enforcement agencies that are partners in the 287(g) program. However, before congressional action, ICE should be directed to take custody of all aliens with records for felonies, crimes of violence, DUIs, previous removals, and any other crime that is considered a national security or public safety threat as defined under current laws. l Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit. If an alien who was a trafficking or crime victim is actively and significantly cooperating with law enforcement as a witness, the S visa is already available and should be used. Pending elimination of the T and U visas, the Secretary should significantly restrict eligibility for each visa to prevent fraud. l Issue clear guidance regarding detention and bond for aliens. Thousands of illegal aliens are allowed to bond out of immigration detention only to disappear into the interior of the United States where many commit crimes and many others disappear, never to be heard from again. This occurs primarily because of poorly worded bond regulations, contradictory bond policy memoranda, and poor practices for managing released aliens and the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program, which requires significant reform. l Prioritize national security in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations. — 142 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Most of the foregoing can be accomplished rapidly and effectively through exec- utive action that is both lawful and appropriate. Additionally, ICE should clarify who is responsible for enforcing its criminal and civil authorities. It should also remove self-imposed limitations on its nationwide jurisdiction. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agents in the 1811 series should enforce Title 8 and 18 crimes as the biggest part of their portfolio. Alien smuggling, trafficking, and cross-border crime as defined under Title 85 and Title 186 should be the focus of ICE operations. l The role of ICE Deportation Officers should be clarified. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) should be identified as being primarily responsible for enforcing civil immigration regulations, including the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate, subject only to the civil warrant requirements of the INA where appropriate. l All ICE memoranda identifying “sensitive zones” where ICE personnel are prohibited from operating should be rescinded. Rely on the good judgment of officers in the field to avoid inappropriate situations. l To maximize the efficient use of its resources, ICE should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities. The agency has limited the use of ER to eligible aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This is not a statutory requirement. New Policies U.S. national security and public safety interests would be well-served if ICE were to be combined with CBP and USCIS, as mentioned above. Additionally, ICE/ HSI, along with CBP, should be full participants in the Intelligence Community. The use of Blackies Warrants should be operationalized within ICE. These civil search warrants are commonly used for worksite enforcement when agents have probable cause that illegal aliens are employed at a business. This would stream- line investigations. Safeguarding Americans will require not just securing the border, but con- tinuous vetting and investigations of many aliens who exploited President Biden’s open border for potentially nefarious purposes, including some Afghan evacuees sent directly to the U.S. during America’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 174-176AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5991 grants individual immigration relief and waives removal grounds, which contrasts with Project 2025's emphasis on strict enforcement, detention, and removal of violators."

Key themes:immigrationremovalINA

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5991 is a private immigration bill granting permanent residency to an individual, while the Project 2025 HHS section focuses on healthcare policy, civil rights in health programs, abortion-related legislation, and social services. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or affected policy domains."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Neguse, Joe

Bolts Ditch Act

119/hr/1729

Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act

119/hr/3922

Wildfire Risk Evaluation Act

119/hr/3924

Back to All Bills