Click to read LULAC's new report on the impact of H.R. 1 on Immigrants and Children of Immigrants Who are U.S. Citizens. Click Here

One Big Beautiful Bill

Impact of H.R. 1 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” on Immigrants and Children of Immigrants Who are U.S. Citizens.

Restrictions on Public Benefits Eligibility

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): H.R. 1 tightens SNAP eligibility by further limiting noncitizens’ access. Section 10012 (“Alien SNAP eligibility”) amends 7 U.S.C. 2015(f) to incorporate the 1996 welfare law’s alien restrictions and strikes several categories of non-citizens who were previously eligible. In particular, the bill removes SNAP eligibility for certain longstanding or humanitarian statuses, such as refugees, asylees, parolees, and those with suspended deportation, by deleting clauses (C)–(F) from the statute. The effect is that only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (with limited exceptions) would remain eligible for SNAP, eliminating benefits for many undocumented or humanitarian-status immigrants who previously qualified due to their status or long U.S. residency.

Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP): The bill imposes new verification mandates that will reduce access to Medicaid/CHIP for those who cannot promptly prove citizenship or status. Section 44110 amends Medicaid funding rules to deny federal funds (Federal Financial Participation) for any Medicaid or CHIP spending on individuals whose citizenship or immigration status isn’t verified within the statutory “reasonable opportunity” period. In other words, if an applicant’s documents are not confirmed by the end of the temporary eligibility window, the federal government will not pay its share of their coverage. H.R. 1 also removes the requirement that states must provide Medicaid during this pending verification period, making such interim coverage optional. The practical impact is that states are discouraged from covering immigrant applicants until verification is complete, likely resulting in coverage gaps or denial of care for otherwise eligible individuals (including U.S. citizens lacking paperwork) and undocumented applicants. In short, H.R. 1’s Medicaid provisions will tighten the proof-of-status requirements, risking more low-income immigrants (and even citizens) losing or missing out on health coverage.

Affordable Care Act Premium Subsidies: H.R. 1 explicitly bars many categories of “lawfully present” noncitizens from receiving ACA health insurance subsidies. Section 112102 provides that an individual will be treated as an “eligible alien” for premium tax credits “if and only if” they are not in certain immigration statuses. The bill enumerates the disqualifying categories, which include: anyone granted asylum or with a pending asylum application, anyone paroled into the U.S., individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), those with deferred action or Deferred Enforced Departure (e.g. DACA recipients), and those granted withholding of removal. Under current law, many of these “lawfully present” groups can buy marketplace coverage and qualify for subsidies, but H.R. 1 would make them ineligible for any ACA premium assistance. Furthermore, Section 112103 repeals the ACA provision that allowed certain lawfully present immigrants to get subsidies despite being Medicaid-ineligible due to their status. By striking the special rule that treated such individuals as subsidy-eligible, the bill ensures that if someone is barred from Medicaid because of immigration status, they also cannot receive ACA premium credits during that period. Together, these changes would mean thousands of low-income immigrants (including those on TPS, asylum seekers, etc.) lose access to affordable health coverage.

Medicare Eligibility: H.R. 1 restricts Medicare to citizens and a narrow set of noncitizens, potentially cutting off elderly or disabled immigrants. Section 112104 adds a new Section 1899C to the Social Security Act stipulating that an individual can enroll in Medicare only if they are: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, or (2) an LPR (green card holder), or (3) a very limited case such as certain paroled Cuban nationals under the 1994 migration accords, or (4) a person residing in the U.S. under a Compact of Free Association (COFA) agreement. Notably, refugees, asylees, and other humanitarian immigrants are not listed as eligible unless they naturalize or obtain an LPR card. This marks a change: currently “qualified aliens” (like asylees or refugees after a waiting period) can eventually receive Medicare if they meet age/disability and work credit requirements. Under H.R. 1, many lawfully present but non-LPR seniors would be cut off from Medicare benefits. The bill even mandates a review of current enrollees and requires terminating Medicare coverage for anyone not fitting the new criteria after one year. In effect, elderly immigrants who haven’t naturalized or obtained green cards (including some long-term legal residents or humanitarian cases) could lose their Medicare. This provision tightens the 1996 PRWORA welfare restrictions and would clearly exclude undocumented immigrants (who have no legal status) from Medicare, while also removing some lawful immigrants who currently can partake in Medicare under prior law.

Immigration Enforcement and Deportation Provisions

Massive Increase in Detention Capacity (Including Families): H.R. 1 heavily funds immigration detention and removes prior limits on detaining children. Section 70101 appropriates $45 billion to ICE to expand “adult alien detention capacity and family residential centers.”. The use of funds is restricted to building or operating more adult detention beds and facilities to hold immigrant families (parents with children) in custody. Crucially, the bill overrides the Flores settlement protections by allowing DHS to detain family-unit migrants for the full course of their immigration proceedings and until removal, with no 20-day limit. It defines “family residential center” to include facilities not licensed by any state for child care, effectively permitting federal family detention centers that don’t meet state child-welfare standards. In sum, H.R. 1 paves the way to re-open and vastly expand family detention, meaning migrant children can be held with their parents indefinitely until their cases resolve or they are deported. This reversal of prior policy (which generally released families after 20 days) will subject many undocumented families to prolonged detention.

“Remain in Mexico” Policy Codified: H.R. 1 provides $500 million to reinstate the policy of returning asylum-seekers to Mexico while their claims are pending. Section 70113 funds the “return of aliens arriving from contiguous territory”, explicitly for carrying out INA §235(b)(2)(C) – the statutory basis of the Migrant Protection Protocols. This means migrants who enter from Mexico or Canada and request asylum can be sent back across the border to wait for their U.S. hearings, rather than being allowed to stay in the U.S. during proceedings. By codifying and heavily financing this practice, the bill ensures a broad use of Remain-in- Mexico, exposing asylum-seekers (many of them undocumented entrants) to extended stays in often dangerous border camps and making it harder for them to access U.S. counsel or attend hearings. This will likely deter asylum claims and increase the hardship on those fleeing persecution.

Expanded Expedited Removal of Immigrants: The bill greatly expands “expedited removal” – fast-track deportation without a court hearing – for certain groups. Section 70123 allocates funding so that DHS can apply the expedited removal process (INA §235(b)(1)) to any noncitizen found inadmissible on criminal or security grounds (INA §212(a)(2) or (3)), regardless of how long they have been in the U.S.. Currently, expedited removal is generally limited to recent border crossers (within 2 years of entry) or those at the border; H.R. 1 overrides that by authorizing summary deportation of undocumented immigrants with criminal inadmissibility – even long-term residents – without immigration court review. Likewise, Section 70124 provides $25 million to use INA §235(c) for “removal of certain criminal aliens without further hearing.” This targets “arriving” aliens suspected of criminal or terrorist inadmissibility, allowing DHS to remove them immediately under INA §235(c) (a seldom-used provision) with minimal due process. In practice, these changes mean many undocumented individuals with prior criminal issues or even alleged gang ties could be deported rapidly by executive order, with no hearing or chance to present defenses– a significant escalation of enforcement.

Co-opting State and Local Law Enforcement: H.R. 1 encourages and funds state and local involvement in immigration enforcement. Section 70114 (“State and local participation in homeland security efforts”) and Section 70110 explicitly finance programs under INA §287(g). This means millions of dollars are dedicated to recruiting local police and sheriffs to enforce federal immigration laws in cooperation with ICE. The bill also boosts the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by compensating localities for jailing undocumented immigrants. These measures will entice more jurisdictions to help detain and hand over undocumented residents, expanding the reach of deportation efforts into local communities. Undocumented individuals are thus more likely to be flagged to ICE during routine encounters with police or while in local custody, increasing the risk of deportation even for minor offenses.

Tightening Asylum and Unaccompanied Minor Procedures: Beyond funding enforcement, H.R. 1 makes legal changes that restrict protections for vulnerable migrants. For example, unaccompanied children (UACs) from non-bordering countries will face easier repatriation. Section 70119 overrides current law by allowing DHS, on a case-by-case basis, to return UACs to their home country if an officer finds that the child has no trafficking risk and no credible fear of persecution. Under existing Trafficking Victims Protection law, Central American minors generally are provided access to asylum interviews and sponsors, not quick return. H.R. 1 instead authorizes the rapid “withdrawal” of the child’s admission application and deportation for those who don’t meet the strict criteria. This will undoubtedly increase the number of children sent back to potentially dangerous situations, as complex trauma or fear claims may go unnoticed in cursory border screenings. The bill also mandates more stringent criminal background and gang checks on UACs and their sponsors (Sections 70116–70118), and requires extensive personal information from sponsors – moves likely to deter undocumented relatives from coming forward to sponsor, for fear of their own exposure. In short, H.R. 1 makes it easier to detain and deport children and discourages family reunification for undocumented minors, under the banner of enforcement.

Barriers to Work Authorization and Access to Legal Relief

High Fees for Asylum Seekers: H.R. 1 imposes unprecedented fees on those seeking humanitarian protection, creating a financial barrier to asylum. Section 70002 introduces a mandatory asylum application fee of at least $1,000 for every asylum seeker filing Form I- 589. This reverses the longstanding practice of free asylum applications (a $50 fee was briefly adopted then halted) – now even penniless refugees must pay a steep sum to have their claims heard. Moreover, Section 70010 adds a new annual asylum fee: each asylum applicant must pay at least $100 per year while their case is pending. This yearly charge, which cannot be waived, effectively penalizes applicants for USCIS or court backlogs – if an asylum case takes years, hundreds of dollars will accrue. Failure to pay could jeopardize the application, making the fees a continuous hurdle for those often with no income. These provisions plainly make it harder for undocumented people fleeing persecution to obtain asylum, by pricing the process beyond reach.

Restrictions on Asylum Work Permits: The bill also targets asylum seekers’ ability to work legally while awaiting a decision. Section 70003 shortens the validity of initial asylum Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) to just 6 months (down from the typical 2 years) and imposes a hefty fee (minimum $550) for that initial work permit. This fee is in addition to existing biometrics/processing fees and cannot be waived. Every six months, then, an asylum applicant would have to renew their EAD – incurring potentially recurring fees or facing lapses in work authorization. By dramatically raising costs and administrative burdens for work permits, H.R. 1 will force many asylum seekers (who are often undocumented until their case is approved) to wait in poverty or work under the table, since they may not afford these fees or handle biannual renewals. Compounded with the asylum application fees above, these measures constitute major deterrents to seeking asylum in the U.S.

Elimination of Fee Limits in Asylum/Naturalization: In addition to specific fees, H.R. 1 amends the law to give the government open-ended authority to charge for asylum and other immigration benefits. Section 70023 amends INA §208(d)(3) by changing “the Attorney General may impose fees (not exceeding the cost) for asylum applications” to “shall impose” fees, and deleting the language capping the fee amount. It also clarifies that nothing limits the government’s power to set additional fees for adjudications or naturalization. In effect, Congress is directing DHS/DOJ to levy asylum fees and any other immigration fees at full cost or higher, removing prior nominal protections. This opens the door to higher naturalization fees or other charges that could price out low-income immigrants from obtaining legal status or citizenship in the future.

New Fees for Humanitarian Relief Programs: Several other relief categories for undocumented or vulnerable immigrants are saddled with new fees under H.R. 1:

  • Temporary Protected Status (TPS): Section 70006 creates a $500 fee for any initial TPS application for those who entered without inspection or overstayed their visas. Given TPS is often granted to undocumented populations after disasters (e.g. many TPS holders were undocumented when granted status), this will affect the very people TPS is meant to protect. The fee applies on top of existing TPS filing fees and cannot be waived, making it harder for undocumented migrants from designated countries to obtain TPS protection.
  • Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) Status: SIJ is a pathway for abused, abandoned undocumented children to get a green card. H.R. 1’s Section 70005 imposes a $500 fee on SIJ petitions in cases where reunification with one parent is still feasible. This seems aimed at SIJ applicants who have one living parent not culpable of abuse – a subset of cases – effectively penalizing certain vulnerable minors. No waivers are allowed. The fee will burden immigrant juveniles (or their guardians) with hefty costs in seeking relief from family court and USCIS, likely reducing access to this lifesaving status.
  • Humanitarian Parole: H.R. 1 discourages the use of parole (a discretionary relief often used to let in refugees, family members, or others in emergencies) by instituting a “parole fee” of at least $1,000 for each person paroled into the U.S.. Section 70004 requires DHS to charge this fee except for narrow exceptions (life-threatening medical emergencies, organ donors, imminent death of a close relative, certain Cuban migrants, etc.). Most humanitarian parole programs – such as parole programs for refugees, family reunification, or programs like Parole for Victims of Crime – would not fit these exceptions, meaning refugees or family members paroled in would be hit with a $1,000 bill each. This fee, which adjusts with inflation and has no waiver, will deter the use of parole as a humanitarian tool. It also includes DHS’s recent parole initiatives (for Venezuelans, Haitians, etc.) – those parolees would owe $1,000 each upon entry, or else DHS may decline to parole them. Overall, the bill monetizes humanitarian entry, making it harder for undocumented people to be granted temporary refuge or reunification via parole.

Procedural Hurdles in Immigration Court: For those undocumented individuals already in removal proceedings, H.R. 1 creates financial disincentives that could undermine due process. Section 70011 establishes a $100 fee for any continuance (postponement) an immigrant requests in immigration court. Many undocumented respondents seek continuances to find a lawyer, gather evidence, or await resolution of a pending visa or asylum application – all legitimate reasons. Imposing a fee per continuance (indexed for inflation yearly) will pressure immigrants to forgo necessary delays, even if it harms their case preparation. Those who cannot pay may be forced to proceed unprepared or without counsel. In short, this measure taxes the right to a full and fair hearing, disproportionately hurting indigent undocumented immigrants fighting deportation.

Limits on Humanitarian Claims: While much of H.R. 1’s impact comes via fees, it also indirectly restricts relief: for example, the return to “Remain in Mexico” and expedited removal (discussed above) will curtail access to the asylum system for undocumented border- crossers, regardless of fees. Many will be removed or kept outside the U.S. without a chance to file asylum at all. Additionally, by funding more ICE attorneys and immigration judges(Sections 70100 and 70112) the bill aims to speed up deportation adjudications, which, combined with fewer continuances and detained families, means less time for immigrants to secure legal relief before removal. All these changes create a hostile environment for undocumented individuals seeking any form of legal relief or status in the U.S.

Increases in Fees, Penalties, and Financial Requirements

Beyond the fees tied to specific relief applications (as noted above), H.R. 1 imposes a slew of new fines and financial penalties squarely on undocumented immigrants and those who assist them:

  • Sponsor Liability and Bond for Unaccompanied Minors: To discourage undocumented children from coming, Section 70007 requires any adult sponsoring an unaccompanied minor out of federal custody to pay a “Sponsor Fee” of at least $3,500 as reimbursement for the child’s care. Moreover, Section 70020 forces sponsors to post a $5,000 bond (initial fee) before a child is released to them, which will be forfeited if the child fails to appear in immigration court. Only if the child attends all proceedings (i.e. is not ordered removed in absentia) may the sponsor get the money back, at DHS’s discretion. These provisions place heavy financial burdens on families (often themselves undocumented or low-income) who are trying to reunite with or shelter migrant children. The result will be fewer sponsors stepping up – meaning more children languishing in detention – or crushing debts on those who do. Sponsors who are undocumented may simply be unable to pay, effectively shutting down a path to get kids out of government cages.
  • Fines for Missing Immigration Court: Section 70021 penalizes immigrants who miss their court hearings. It institutes a $5,000 fine on any immigrant who is ordered removed in absentia (for no-show) and later arrested by ICE. This effectively turns a failure to appear – which might occur due to poor notice, misunderstanding, or fear – into a large civil debt. Undocumented individuals who miss a hearing (perhaps due to address changes or lack of legal counsel) will not only be subject to removal but also owe the U.S. government thousands of dollars, which could follow them even if they ever become eligible for status in the future. No waiver or reduction of this fine is allowed.
  • Border Crossing Fee (“Inadmissible Alien Apprehension” Fee): In a striking move, Section 70022 mandates that any migrant caught by Border Patrol crossing between ports of entry be charged a $5,000 fee at the time of apprehension. This is essentially a fine on unauthorized entry, levied immediately. An undocumented border-crosser typically has few or no assets when caught; in practice, this could mean confiscating any money they carry or saddling them with a debt. The fee is high (minimum $5,000, inflation-adjusted) and cannot be waived. While enforcement of collection is unclear (especially if the person is removed), the policy sends a harsh message and could be used to disqualify migrants from future visas unless paid. It is a clear punitive measure aimed at deterring illegal entry by making it financially ruinous for migrants.
  • “Visa Integrity” and Related Fees: The bill includes several other fee increases that, while not exclusively targeting undocumented individuals, add financial strain on immigrant communities. For example, a new “Visa integrity fee” and increased fees for diversity visa lottery entries and the ESTA travel authorization (Sections 70008, 70015, 70017) will raise the cost of lawful travel and immigration, potentially pushing more people into irregular methods. There’s also a new Form I-94 fee (Section 70009) likely to be imposed on foreign visitors when issuing or renewing their arrival/departure record. These fees indirectly affect the undocumented population by making legal entry or visa compliance more expensive and difficult.
  • Excise Tax on Remittances: Perhaps most notably, H.R. 1 attempts to make immigrants fund the government by taxing their money transfers abroad. Section 112105 establishes a 5% excise tax on any international remittance transfer from the U.S.. The burden of this tax falls on the sender, and remittance service providers must collect it. Crucially, remittances sent by U.S. citizens and nationals can be exempted – if the transfer company enters an agreement to verify citizenship status of senders. In effect, this createsa two-tier system: immigrants (who typically lack U.S. citizenship) will pay an extra 5% on every dollar they send to family back home, whereas verified U.S. citizens’ transfers are not taxed. Since undocumented immigrants are heavy users of remittances (sending earnings to support relatives in their origin countries), this measure directly targets them financially. It amounts to a remittance penalty on immigrant workers, siphoning their incomes (often low-wage) to federal coffers. Over time it discourages using legal remittance channels and punishes undocumented immigrants for supporting their families abroad.
  • Other Financial Bars: H.R. 1 also contains a provision (Section 112106) requiring a valid Social Security Number for claiming the American Opportunity Tax Credit and Lifetime Learning Credit (education-related tax benefits). This will exclude undocumented students or those using ITINs from receiving those tax credits (currently, a student or parent with only an ITIN could claim the Lifetime Learning credit in some cases). While this is a tax policy change, the impact is to deny undocumented or DACA students any access to higher-education tax relief, increasing their cost of education.

Other Adverse Provisions

Virtually every title of H.R. 1 carries some provision detrimental to undocumented immigrants or those seeking to help them. In addition to the major areas above, the bill:

  • Prioritizes Deportation Resources: It directs billions in new funding to ICE and Customs and Border Protection for personnel, technology, and transportation specifically to increase arrests and removals. For instance, Section 70105 funds ICE “Transportation and Removal Operations” (including charter deportation flights and transfers), and Section 70108 funds fleet upgrades to chase and detain immigrants. These investments mean a ramped-up deportation machine, with greater capacity to find, detain, and expel undocumented individuals.
  • Targets “Sanctuary” Policies: By bolstering 287(g) agreements and SCAAP jail payments, H.R. 1 encourages states to pass laws or policies aligning with federal enforcement. Although not an explicit ban on sanctuary cities, the generous funding serves to undermine local non-cooperation stances by providing resources if they cooperate. This will result in more localities turning undocumented residents over to ICE, even for minor infractions, chilling those communities from interacting with police or accessing local services.
  • Broadens Definition of “Public Charge” (potentially): While the bill’s text we reviewed focuses on budgetary changes, the overall intent and some language (e.g., “Applicability of the immigration laws” in Section 70001) hint at reinforcing strict interpretations of immigration law across the board. This could entail a return to more aggressive “public charge” rules or other restrictive policies through executive action, now buttressed by statute. Undocumented immigrants could face even higher bars to legalizing status if any reliance on public services is considered.

In sum, H.R. 1 spans a wide array of policy changes all detrimental to undocumented immigrants. It restricts their access to food aid, health coverage, and tax benefits; it dramatically scales up enforcement and detention (even for families and children); it erects new financial and procedural hurdles to obtaining asylum, work permits, or other legal relief; and it imposes hefty fees and fines that will impoverish immigrant communities. Every key policy area – from public benefits to immigration courts – is reshaped to the disadvantage of undocumented and even many lawfully present immigrants. The sections cited above make clear that the bill’s net effect is to punish and marginalize undocumented individuals in nearly every aspect of life – limiting their basic needs, expelling them more swiftly, and raising the cost of even attempting to live or legalize in the United States.