Nuclear Family Priority Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2705
Last Updated: April 16, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

ID: C001132

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

âś…

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 brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. The Nuclear Family Priority Act (HR 2705) is a masterclass in doublespeak and bureaucratic obfuscation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to "amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants." Ah, yes, because what America really needs is more restrictive immigration policies. The real objective, however, is to pander to xenophobic voters while pretending to address the complexities of our broken immigration system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Redefining "immediate relative" to exclude parents (because who needs family reunification, anyway?) * Limiting the number of visas available for spouses and children of permanent residents * Introducing a new numerical limitation on family-sponsored immigrants from any single foreign state * Amending various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act to conform with these changes

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will be affected by this bill:

* Immigrant families, particularly those from countries with already limited visa allocations * Permanent residents who want to sponsor their spouses or children for immigration * Xenophobic voters who will no doubt be thrilled by this "tough on immigration" posturing

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be predictably disastrous:

* Further restrict access to family-based immigration, exacerbating the already lengthy wait times and backlogs * Create more bureaucratic hurdles for immigrants and their families, because who doesn't love a good paperwork nightmare? * Embolden xenophobic sentiments and further polarize an already divided country

In short, this bill is a cynical exercise in nativist posturing, designed to appease the most reactionary elements of our society while doing nothing to address the underlying issues with our immigration system. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another piece of legislation that will only serve to further marginalize and harm vulnerable populations.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of xenophobia and bureaucratic incompetence. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because at this point, it's just too late.

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)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$183,003
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$6,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$176,403

No PAC contributions found

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600

No committee contributions found

1
HALE, STEVEN L. MR.
2 transactions
$19,800
2
JOHNSON, BENJAMIN MR.
2 transactions
$19,800
3
STALLINGS, KYLE MR.
2 transactions
$16,600
4
ADAMS, MICHAEL A.
2 transactions
$13,200
5
METCALF, MICHAEL MR.
1 transaction
$9,900
6
MILES, PHILLIP MR.
1 transaction
$9,900
7
SANDWICH, JAMES T.
1 transaction
$9,900
8
SANDWICH, JAMES T. DR.
1 transaction
$9,900
9
BATES, KATHY MRS.
3 transactions
$9,900
10
HILL, VERNON
1 transaction
$7,318
11
ADAMSON, KEVIN MR.
2 transactions
$6,874
12
GUESS, CHRIS MR.
2 transactions
$6,874
13
ASPINWALL, JIM DR.
2 transactions
$6,600
14
BATES, RANDY MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
15
MIRELES, OMAR
1 transaction
$6,600
16
HINMAN, ROY H. MR. II
1 transaction
$6,600
17
KEMMERER, KAREN
1 transaction
$6,600
18
ADAMSON, ALLISON MS.
1 transaction
$3,437

Donor Network - Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 20 nodes and 30 connections

Total contributions: $183,003

Top Donors - Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 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 53.2%
Pages: 183-185

— 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.

Introduction

Low 53.2%
Pages: 183-185

— 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.

Introduction

Low 52.0%
Pages: 27-29

— xxvii — Contributors Joseph Edlow, The Heritage Foundation Jen Ehlinger, Booz Allen Hamilton John Ehrett, Office of Senator Josh Hawley Kristen Eichamer, The Heritage Foundation Robert S. Eitel, Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies Will Estrada, Parents Rights Foundation Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation Travis Fisher, The Heritage Foundation George Fishman, Center for Immigration Studies Leslie Ford, The Heritage Foundation Aharon Friedman, Federal Policy Group Bruce Frohnen, Ohio Northern University College of Law Joel Frushone Finch Fulton Diana Furchtgott-Roth, The Heritage Foundation Caleigh Gabel, American Cornerstone Institute Christopher Gacek, Family Research Council Alexandra Gaiser, River Financial Inc. Mario Garza Patty-Jane Geller, The Heritage Foundation Andrew Gillen, Texas Public Policy Foundation James S. Gilmore III, Gilmore Global Group LLC Vance Ginn, Economic Consulting, LLC Alma Golden, The Institute for Women’s Health Mike Gonzalez, The Heritage Foundation Chadwick R. Gore, Defense Forum Foundation David Gortler, Ethics and Public Policy Center Brian Gottstein, The Heritage Foundation Dan Greenberg, Competitive Enterprise Institute Rob Greenway, Hudson Institute Rachel Greszler, The Heritage Foundation DJ Gribbin, Madrus Consulting Garrison Grisedale, American Cornerstone Institute Joseph Grogan, USC Schaeffer School for Health Policy and Economics Andrew Guernsey Jeffrey Gunter, Republican Jewish Coalition Joe Guy, Club for Growth Joseph Guzman Amalia Halikias, The Heritage Foundation Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Foundation Richard Hanania, Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology — xxviii — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Simon Hankinson, The Heritage Foundation David Harlow Derek Harvey, Office of Congressman Devin Nunes Jason Hayes, Mackinac Center for Public Policy Jennifer Hazelton Lou Heinzer Edie Heipel Troup Hemenway, Personnel Policy Operations Nathan Hitchen, Equal Rights Institute Pete Hoekstra Gabriella Hoffman, Independent Women’s Forum Tom Homan, The Heritage Foundation Chris Horner Mike Howell, The Heritage Foundation Valerie Huber, The Institute for Women’s Health Andrew Hughes, American Cornerstone Institute Joseph Humire, Center for a Secure Free Society Christopher Iacovella, American Securities Association Melanie Israel, The Heritage Foundation Ken Ivory, Utah House of Representatives Roman Jankowski, The Heritage Foundation Abby Jones Emilie Kao, Alliance Defending Freedom Jared M. Kelson, Boyden Gray & Associates Aaron Kheriaty, Ethics and Public Policy Center Ali Kilmartin, Alliance Defending Freedom Julie Kirchner, Federation for American Immigration Reform Dan Kish, Institute for Energy Research Kenneth A. Klukowski Adam Korzeniewski, American Principles Project Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, Sagitta Solutions, LLC Bethany Kozma, Keystone Policy Matthew Kozma Julius Krein, American Affairs Stanley Kurtz, Ethics and Public Policy Center David LaCerte, Baker Botts, LLP Paul J. Larkin, The Heritage Foundation Kent Lassman, Competitive Enterprise Institute James R. Lawrence III, Envisage Law Paul Lawrence, Lawrence Consulting Nathan Leamer, Targeted Victory David Legates, University of Delaware (Ret.)

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.