Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Creates a pilot program for visas sponsored by state governments rather than the federal government.
The problem
Current visa system is entirely federal. Some states want more control over immigration policy to match their specific economic and labor needs.
The proposal
Establishes a pilot program allowing states to sponsor and manage certain visa categories for workers and immigrants, with federal oversight and limits.
The impact
States gain immigration authority; employers in pilot states access new visa pathways; federal immigration control is partially decentralized; affected individuals gain state-level visa options.
States can design visa programs matching their specific labor shortages and economic priorities. A state needing tech workers can prioritize skilled immigrants differently than an agricultural state.
Distributing visa processing to states may speed up approvals and reduce pressure on federal immigration courts and agencies. This creates faster pathways for businesses.
States gain more control over policies affecting their communities and economies. This aligns immigration rules with regional conditions rather than one-size-fits-all federal rules.
Pilot programs allow experimentation with new visa models before nationwide implementation. Successful pilots can inform better national policy.
Immigrants might only qualify in certain states, creating a patchwork system. People in non-pilot states face different opportunities than those in pilot states.
Immigration is traditionally federal authority. Splitting control between states and federal government could create conflicts, inconsistencies, and security gaps.
States must build immigration systems and infrastructure they currently lack. This requires significant state spending and expertise.
Without strong federal oversight, states might discriminate based on national origin or other protected categories. Enforcement becomes harder across different state systems.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.