No Immigration Without Assimilation Act of 2026
HB9030, titled the No Immigration Without Assimilation Act of 2026, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new mandatory “assimilation likelihood screening” for immigration applicants. Before granting any immigration benefit, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have to interview the applicant, review public statements, and, where feasible, interview relatives or others familiar with the applicant’s character and beliefs to assess whether the person holds views deemed incompatible with U.S. principles, is unlikely to assimilate to U.S. culture, or would be detrimental to cultural cohesion.
The bill also expands grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. It would make a noncitizen inadmissible or deportable if the assimilation screening finds that the person holds certain disqualifying views, including support for implementing or prioritizing religious law over U.S. law, justification of religiously or politically motivated violence, denial of constitutional rights, rejection of constitutional supremacy, support for authoritarian government over representative democracy, or refusal to learn English when not already fluent. It further gives the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, authority to identify additional beliefs as incompatible with U.S. principles.
If enacted, the bill would significantly alter federal immigration law by adding a new ideological and cultural screening layer to nearly all immigration benefit applications, including applications to confer, certify, change, adjust, or extend immigration status. It would broaden the statutory grounds for denying admission and for removing noncitizens, and it would place substantial discretion in the Department of Homeland Security, with some coordination from the State Department, to evaluate beliefs, conduct interviews, and determine whether an applicant is sufficiently assimilated. The bill would affect applicants for visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration benefits, as well as noncitizens already present in the United States who could become deportable under the new standards.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsor as a national security and civic-integration proposal emphasizing constitutional values, English language acquisition, and opposition to violence and authoritarianism. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented bipartisan support or opposition in the available materials. The language of the bill itself suggests a strongly assertive stance on assimilation and ideological screening, which would likely generate significant interest and controversy.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad and subjective standards, especially phrases such as “views incompatible with the principles of the United States,” “unlikely to assimilate,” and “detrimental to cultural cohesion.” Critics would likely argue that these terms are vague, invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, and raise First Amendment, due process, and equal protection concerns. Supporters would likely defend the bill as a way to screen out applicants who endorse violence, reject constitutional supremacy, or oppose democratic governance. The bill also gives DHS and the State Department wide discretion to identify additional disqualifying beliefs, which could be a major source of concern.