The End Unaccountable Amnesty Act restricts executive authority over immigration by shifting Temporary Protected Status and parole powers to Congress, tightening asylum and processing rules for unaccompanied children, and prohibiting the use of certain immigration documents for air travel.
Jim Banks
Senator
IN
The End Unaccountable Amnesty Act seeks to restrict executive authority over immigration by shifting the power to designate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Congress and strictly limiting the Secretary of Homeland Security’s parole authority. The bill also mandates stricter processing and return procedures for unaccompanied alien children, eliminates certain pathways for cancellation of removal, and prohibits the use of specific immigration documents for air travel. These measures aim to tighten border enforcement and standardize immigration policies through increased congressional oversight.
End Unaccountable Amnesty Act: New Bill Shifts TPS Control to Congress and Caps Immigration Parole at 1,000 People Annually
This bill fundamentally rewrites the rules for how the U.S. handles humanitarian immigration, moving major decision-making power from the President to Congress and setting hard limits on who can enter or stay in the country. It targets three main areas: Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the treatment of unaccompanied children at the border, and the 'parole' system that currently allows certain groups to enter the U.S. for emergency or public interest reasons. By shifting authority and tightening eligibility, the bill aims to replace executive discretion with strict, law-defined categories and an annual cap on entry.
A Shift in Power for Protected Status
Under current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security can designate a country for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) if it’s hit by a war or natural disaster, allowing its citizens already in the U.S. to stay and work. This bill (Section 2) moves that entire power to Congress. From now on, only an Act of Congress can create, extend, or end a TPS designation. These designations would be capped at 12 months at a time, and for the first time, an individual must already be 'unlawfully present' to qualify—meaning if you are here on a valid student or work visa from a crisis-stricken country, you couldn't apply for TPS until your current visa expires. For a local business owner employing someone on TPS, this could mean more frequent uncertainty about their employee’s legal status as Congress debates yearly renewals.
New Rules for Kids and Travel
The bill also standardizes how the government handles unaccompanied minors (Section 3). It removes the distinction between children from neighboring countries like Mexico and those from further away, making it mandatory—not optional—for the government to return children who meet specific criteria to their home countries. It also tightens the 'Special Immigrant Juvenile Status' for children who have been abused or abandoned. Previously, a child could qualify if reunification with one parent wasn't possible; the new rule requires that reunification with both parents or any legal guardian be impossible. Additionally, for those traveling domestically, the bill (Section 5) prohibits the TSA from accepting the CBP One app or 'Notice to Appear' forms as valid ID at airport checkpoints, which could lead to significant travel delays or denials for individuals currently in the immigration process.
The End of Broad Parole
Perhaps the biggest change is the total overhaul of 'immigration parole' (Section 6). Currently used for various humanitarian groups, this bill limits parole to a tiny annual cap of just 1,000 people for the entire country. It defines 'urgent humanitarian reasons' very narrowly—think life-and-death medical emergencies or organ donation—and explicitly bars using parole for entire groups of people. It also adds a unique 'right to sue' provision: any person or local government that can prove $1,000 in financial harm because the government failed to strictly follow these new parole rules can take the federal government to court. This could mean that a hospital or a city claiming increased costs for services could potentially sue to block the entry of individuals under the parole system.